RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   
  Topic: Dgszweda Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:42   
so we don't use up AFDave's thread too quickly.
   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:50   
dgsweda:
Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:15)
 
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:03)
2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics .  There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree.  But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness.

The majority belief among physicists is that this is wrong, and the randomness of QM is true randomness. A minority of physicists holds out hope for a hidden variable theory.

Can you provide some quotes or sources for this?  I provided a quote for Feynman.


steve:
Quote
Have you studied physics? I mean, other than reading pop sci books about it?

EDIT: I'm moving the dgszweda stuff to its own thread.


JohnW:
Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:22)
Have you studied physics? I mean, other than reading pop sci books about it?

Shouldn't dgszweda get his own thread?  His lack of understanding of quantum physics has nothing directly to do with afdave's nonsense, and I hate to use up the last few posts of this thread on something else entirely.


richard simons:
Quote
Dgszweda, do you seriously consider Isaac Newton to be a credible source on aspects of modern biology? He wasn't even a credible source on the biology of his day. Bourdreaux, and Damadian may well be respected in their respective fields, but it is significant that neither of them are biologists either.

Dave, if you had paid attention to the posts of a couple of months ago trying to explain heterozygosity and alleles to you, you would realize that what you have been writing about it is complete and utter rubbish. I can't be bothered to go through it again as it is obviously a waste of time trying to get you to modify your views on anything, no matter how strong the evidence and no matter how mutually contradictory your views are.


improvius:
Quote
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:03)
I encourage you to truly examine the pictures of the entire bone collections of some of these hominid species and just logically think about whether they were even hominid or if there was enough there to even make a determination.  Ramapithecus was based on a few teeth, which 20 years later is beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate.  Most of the hominid species have only been developed based off a few fragments of bones discovered in the last 10-20 years.  Even Homo Erectus was basically only classified to be an earlier hominid because of it's cranial capacity.  Essentially three skulls are being used to create a new species, when it has been easily shown that the cranial capacity of Homo Erectus fits into the cranial capacity of some European groups.  I guess I miss how we can develop a whole species based on a few bones, when modern asians and modern Europeans share different characteristics in their facial and skull features.  If I found 5 asian skulls it would be unfair to characterize the entire modern human race based on those features.  It isn't representative of the human race.  So how can we take two partial skulls and 5 teeth and develop a species of hominids from it?

And how would you classify these skulls?


scaryfacts:
Quote
Dgszweda

I want to start off by telling you that I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be a reliable source for learning about man’s relationship with the Judeo/Christian deity.

I am a little at odds with your explanation of the “apparent age” of the universe—i.e.: God made the light already hitting the earth, etc.

The Bible is pretty clear that God does not lie and that we can learn about God by studying his creation.  You are saying God intentionally misleads through the creation.

Let’s take your approach using an analogy:

Suppose I offered you a great reward for learning about me and I told you to look through my house to learn as much as you can about me.  I will also penalize you if you get it wrong.

In the house I’ve placed a number of items:

A dog bowl
A picture of two elderly people with a frame that says “mom and dad”
A business card with my name on it saying I am an Executive VP at Xerox
I leave on the coffee table a book showing my genealogy back 5 generations

Based on my instructions you would assume:

I have a dog
The picture is of my parents
I work at Xerox
You knew the names of my ancestors for the last several generations

I then come back to see how you’ve done and give you either your reward or punishment.

You rattle off your conclusions and I say, “Sorry, I intentionally made it look like I had a dog, but I don’t.  I made it appear as if those people are my parents, but they’re not.  I made it look like I work at Xerox but I don’t.  The genealogy was a fake I planted.
Now you will be punished for getting it wrong."

I don’t see how that can be consistent for the Biblical God.

If God tells us to look at the creation to learn about Him, I believe he didn’t lie.

You seem to think He did.


improvius:
Quote
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 02 2007,14:37)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:22)
Have you studied physics? I mean, other than reading pop sci books about it?

Shouldn't dgszweda get his own thread?  His lack of understanding of quantum physics has nothing directly to do with afdave's nonsense, and I hate to use up the last few posts of this thread on something else entirely.

I agree, and suggest that these last few posts be moved - especially since he doesn't seem interested in reviewing previous posts in this thread so as to avoid things that have already been well-covered.
   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:55   
Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:22)
Have you studied physics? I mean, other than reading pop sci books about it?

Yes I have at the college level.  In addition I have 3 years experience as a nuclear physicist at General Engineering Laboratories in Charleston SC, working on contract work for the naval base in Charleston.  In addition I have a few years experience as a particle physicist at Fermilab National Accelerator Labatory in Batavia, IL on a small team under the direction of Nobel Prize winning Leon Lederman.

One of the goals for quantum mechanics is to better define the models.  When you say randomness, I guess we need to be more specific, since there are various probability variables within many of the various equations.  The probabilistic component for most of the equations are mostly rooted in the influence of the "observer" to the observation.  We currently cannot tell how much manipulation the observer contributed to the final observation.

Please point me to the quoted source that states that Quantum mechanics is the final endpoint of our understanding of the universe, and please point me in the direction of the individual who doesn't believe that the major weakness of our understanding of quantum mechanics is because of inability to calculate the probability component of our equations.

Local hidden variable theories are considered extinct according to the Bell inequality (I hesitate to say extinct, because as we all know science and mathematics is a changing field).  For non-local hidden variable theories, there is no known law that contradicts them.  Einstein still disagreed with Heisenberg until his death.  Time will tell whether a new theory will develop surrounding this or other hidden variable theories.  Please tell me the theory that disproves the presence of non-local variable theories?  I provided the theory that disproved the presence of one of the variable theories.


You're not being careful with your arguments. "Please point me to the quoted source that states that Quantum mechanics is the final endpoint of our understanding of the universe" no one ever said that, and "Please tell me the theory that disproves the presence of non-local variable theories?" no one said that either. What was said, was that the majority view is that hidden variable theories are wrong.
   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:59   
dgszveda:
Quote
Quote
Dgszweda, do you seriously consider Isaac Newton to be a credible source on aspects of modern biology? He wasn't even a credible source on the biology of his day. Bourdreaux, and Damadian may well be respected in their respective fields, but it is significant that neither of them are biologists either.


No I do not consider any of them to be a credible source as a biologist, but that wasn't the question.  You need to look at the quote I responded to.  The quote was that no creationist was credible.  If you want me to answer more specifically than everyone needs to question more specifically.  Not give blatant overgeneralizations made to belittle posters.

And no sorry I didn't get to read the last 5,000 posts on this thread.


eric:
Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,11:15)
   
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:03)
2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics .  There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree.  But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness.

The majority belief among physicists is that this is wrong, and the randomness of QM is true randomness. A minority of physicists holds out hope for a hidden variable theory.

I believe that Bell's Theorem, which was proven in the early nineties, rules out the possibility of "hidden variables." Here's the Wikipedia entry.
Bell's only rules out local hidden variables.
   
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:06   
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:55)
Quote

You're not being careful with your arguments. "Please point me to the quoted source that states that Quantum mechanics is the final endpoint of our understanding of the universe" no one ever said that, and "Please tell me the theory that disproves the presence of non-local variable theories?" no one said that either. What was said, was that the majority view is that hidden variable theories are wrong.

Without any factual information behind it than it is just one person arguing with another.  There is some great research going on in regards to non-local wave theories as it relates to High Energy Physics, and there are many great scientist that lean toward Einstein's belief.  I guess I have never statistically marked out who was for and against and what the percentages they might be.
  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:13   
Quote
No I do not consider any of them to be a credible source as a biologist, but that wasn't the question.  You need to look at the quote I responded to.  The quote was that no creationist was credible.  If you want me to answer more specifically than everyone needs to question more specifically.  Not give blatant overgeneralizations made to belittle posters.

I don't think anyone here has argued that creationists have never made significant contributions to science.  I think it was understood by everyone else that the original statement was limited to the topics at hand.

Quote
And no sorry I didn't get to read the last 5,000 posts on this thread.

You should, if you are genuinely interested in learning about things like evolution and geology.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.
  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:14   
I don't have any real authoritative data either. Just my impressions from 3 QM classes, knowing a bunch of physicists, and wikipedia:

Quote
Most physicists however are of the position that the true theory of the universe is not a hidden variable theory and that particles do not have any extra information which is not present in their quantum mechanics description. These other interpretations of quantum mechanics have their own philosophical issues. A very small number of physicists believe that local realism is correct and that quantum mechanics is ultimately incorrect.


It's mostly over my head anyway.
   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:25   
Deadman:
Quote
I'll take a little time to critique your claims on "hominids " first, szweda. You're sadly uninformed on multiple levels here. Additionally, I'll be "fisking" ( critiquing point-by-point) some of your claims later.
 
Quote
 In total there are only about 1,400 hominid skulls that have been found, of which about 700 come from Magaliesberg region of Africa.

Where did you get that quote from? I'd LOVE to know the source of it. Provide it, since you saw fit to use it. Don't fail to do that, since your claims rest on it.


(1) A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans ( Homo sapiens, H. erectus, H. Neanderthalensis and H. habilis) , chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Are you insane in claiming that we only have 1700 skulls of H. sapiens sapiens available?  

The Magliesberg mountain range is in South Africa, where Phil Tobias invited me to work. There are caves near there that have produced examples of Australopithecus africanus, such as Sterkfontein and Kromdraai, Swartkrans and Makapansgatt -- but I challenge you to find me 700 **whole** skulls from these locales in the Magliesberg.

Or do you mean fragments? If you want to include cranial fragments, calvaria, teeth, post-cranial remain, etc, you'd have a lot more than that, but I'm curious why you think  A. africanus remains constitute more than half the number of your TOTAL claimed "hominid" remains.


 
Quote
Most early hominid species come from very few bone fragments and most features are developed as a result of indirect evidence.  Most of all of the early and mid hominids and many of the late hominids are based on just a few bones.  Forget full skeletons.  Yet with great certainty of a jaw bone and 3 teeth we can determine that they were a hominid and they went extinct due to X,Y,Z.....  The chimpanzees still exist so why don't we see any homo sapiens neanderthalensis around.


Gee,Szweda, thatt's a lot of jumping around and running-together of issues you just did in that "paragraph" First of all, you're wrong that early hominid species such as H. Habilis and H. erectus and Neandertalensis are based on " a few bones" which you then try to compare to " a jaw and three teeth" . This is an utter lie, Szweda.

We have hundreds of examples of Neanders and H. erectus. HUNDREDS...not "a jaw and three teeth" https://nespos-live01.pxpgroup.com/display/openspace/Site+List

As to why neanders are extinct and chimps are not, well, maybe you might want to look at where each existed/exists. You think environment might have something to do with it? Like rain forests being easier to become isolated and "hide" in?  

 
Quote
Neanderthalensis and sapien sapien exists together for at least 150,000 years.


Well, let's see...the earliest DEFINITIVELY KNOWN neander that I can think of is from about 130,000 years ago...and neanders die off (I'll be generous) 28KYA ago...uh, your math seems to be off, not that THAT alone is important. Care to cite sources?



 
Quote
Ramapithecus was based on a few teeth, which 20 years later is beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate.

Uh, I hate to break this to you, goober, but it was always thought of as an extinct primate. The only question was if it was in the human ancestral lineage. And the INITIAL find of Ramapiths was not MERELY based on a few teeth, but upper jaw fragments as well, in 1932. Since then lots more cranial and post-cranial remains have been found, and it has largely been "lumped in" with the Sivapiths.

This final quote is the one that really tells me about your willingness to bulshit, szweda:    
Quote
Even Homo Erectus was basically only classified to be an earlier hominid because of it's cranial capacity.  Essentially three skulls are being used to create a new species, when it has been easily shown that the cranial capacity of Homo Erectus fits into the cranial capacity of some European groups.

1) Erectus was not classified as a non-H. sapiens sapiens based only on cranial capacity. This is an utter lie. I suggest you read about Dubois, Davidson Black, Leakey, Weidenreich, and perhaps the work of one of my department profs, Gail Kennedy.
2) The notion that 3 skulls alone are what created a new taxon and continue to support the validity of that taxon is shameful.
3) you said the average cranial capacity of erectus matches the cranial capacity of "some European groups." Can you name one? I'd love to see your reference on that. Please don't fail to provide THAT data, either.   Homo erectus had a brain (950 to 1200 cc, avg. 1020 cc ) which is about 75% of the size of that of a modern human, on average. Even WIKIPEDIA of all things, gets THAT right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus So, show me this population of modern europeans that has a 1020 cc average cranial capacity.

If you really think that "cranial capacity " is all that differentiates erectus from sapiens sapiens ( you and me) then talk to me about cortical thickness, dentition, prognathism, postorbital constriction with supraorbital sulcus, pentagonal-shaped skull with a nuchal ridge, and all the other MANY diagnostic traits associated with H. erectus. See   G. Philip Rightmire. (1992) The Evolution of Homo Erectus: Comparative Anatomical Studies of an Extinct Human Species, Cambridge University Press  and Narikotome Homo Erectus Skeleton available at : http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/WALNAR.html

And for those that want to actually view hominid and hominoid fossil material, here are some links, perhaps  sweda might get a clue from some of these, but I doubt it, given what is pretty evident willingness to engage in AFDave-like twisting of fact and blindness.

http://www.wsu.edu/gened....w1.html (human)  
http://www.stanford.edu/~harryg/protected/evolve5.htm (human)  
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/illustr.html (human)  
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html (human)  
http://www.bioanth.org/ (human)  
http://doherty.ldgo.columbia.edu/~peter....ol.html (human)
http://www.antiquityofman.com/

Images of erectus skulls, narikotome
http://www.msu.edu/~heslip....ide.jpg
http://www.msu.edu/~heslip....ide.jpg
http://www.msu.edu/~heslip....ton.jpg
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/geo/research/age/skull.htm
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffla....o3.html
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/geo/research/age/skull.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm erectus morphology
   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:28   
Thanks for moving this over here, steve: I didn't notice your comment about it. Cheers.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:44   
Posted by dgszweda on the AFDave thread:
   
Quote
That is the one of the points of perceived age.  My contention as well as YEC, is that God created the stars with their light shining on the earth already.  Even if the sun was shining on the earth the second He created it, it had a perceived age of at least 8 minutes.  Did God violate scientific laws?  Yes, but of course a creationists belief is that the laws were established by God and that God is omnipotent, and therefore can subvert His laws for His glory.  His laws for this physical realm (and yes I believe it is a finite closed system and not an open system) were fully established on the 6th day of creation. Can I prove this scientifically.  No.  Is God a Liar as you state.  No.  Where did God state otherwise?

(Bolded emphasis mine)

Well, that's the end of any serious scientific debate right there, isn't it?  If you can play the 'God changes the laws of physics at his whim' card (also known as the "...and then a miracle occurs..." card), then all bets are off.  Any biblical story - the Flood, Tower of Babel, etc. - can be explained away with that bit of hand waving.

Personally, I think it's great that you are honest enough to just admit your belief in miracles, instead of pulling an AFDave and lying/squirming/evading to try and and make Biblical literalism fit known, existing physical laws.

I also have no problems with you believing this, as long as we agree it's not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom.

What else is there to discuss?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.
  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:14   
Quote (improvius @ Jan. 02 2007,14:13)
You should, if you are genuinely interested in learning about things like evolution and geology.

I would but I don't think I even have that amount of time.  I might develop into another species if I took that much time. :) Although for many of you, you might think it would be an improvement :)
  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:19   
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:50)
I want to start off by telling you that I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be a reliable source for learning about man’s relationship with the Judeo/Christian deity.

I am a little at odds with your explanation of the “apparent age” of the universe—i.e.: God made the light already hitting the earth, etc.

The Bible is pretty clear that God does not lie and that we can learn about God by studying his creation.  You are saying God intentionally misleads through the creation.

Let’s take your approach using an analogy:

Suppose I offered you a great reward for learning about me and I told you to look through my house to learn as much as you can about me.  I will also penalize you if you get it wrong.

In the house I’ve placed a number of items:

A dog bowl
A picture of two elderly people with a frame that says “mom and dad”
A business card with my name on it saying I am an Executive VP at Xerox
I leave on the coffee table a book showing my genealogy back 5 generations

Based on my instructions you would assume:

I have a dog
The picture is of my parents
I work at Xerox
You knew the names of my ancestors for the last several generations

I then come back to see how you’ve done and give you either your reward or punishment.

You rattle off your conclusions and I say, “Sorry, I intentionally made it look like I had a dog, but I don’t.  I made it appear as if those people are my parents, but they’re not.  I made it look like I work at Xerox but I don’t.  The genealogy was a fake I planted.
Now you will be punished for getting it wrong."

I don’t see how that can be consistent for the Biblical God.

If God tells us to look at the creation to learn about Him, I believe he didn’t lie.

You seem to think He did.

I am sorry I don't know who posted this because it was compilation thread.  I am not sure if we want to get into theology here, since for many on this forum a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a conclusion.  I offered up a theory as too why the light got there.  In actuality I have no idea.  But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.
  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:22   
As dgsvweda would say, please provide a reference that shows that I don't admit miracles and that Biblical literalism has to fit known, existing physical laws, or else stop saying it.  Thx!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:28   
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,15:22)
As dgsvweda would say, please provide a reference that shows that I don't admit miracles and that Biblical literalism has to fit known, existing physical laws, or else stop saying it.  Thx!

In other words, please stop hammering me with the rock and instead smack me against the hard place. Thx!
  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:28   
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,13:19)
I am sorry I don't know who posted this because it was compilation thread.  I am not sure if we want to get into theology here, since for many on this forum a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a conclusion.  I offered up a theory as too why the light got there.  In actuality I have no idea.  But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.

See, Dave, this is where I have the problem. And it's why it's ultimately even less worthwhile to debate you than the other Dave.

If you take biblical literalism as a given (and saying:
 
Quote
But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.

is hard to interpret any other way), then what is there to argue about? The biblical account of creation is contradicted by just about every single observation one cares to make about the external world. The evidence that the biblical account is wrong is simply overwhelming.

But if you take the position that the Bible must be right, and any observation that contradicts it must therefore be wrong, I simply fail to see how you can ever learn anything. And I fail to see how anyone can argue with you. I say the evidence that the universe is billions of years old is indisputable. You say that cannot be true because the Bible says otherwise. What more is there to say? My next question would be, how do you know the Bible is accurate? You say, my faith tells me so.

At that point we've come to a parting of the ways.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:46   
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,16:19)
I am sorry I don't know who posted this because it was compilation thread.  I am not sure if we want to get into theology here, since for many on this forum a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a conclusion.  I offered up a theory as too why the light got there.  In actuality I have no idea.  But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.

If this is your response then you aren't ever going to discuss science--it appears all you have is scientifically unsupported theology.  Why do you believe the stars were created in a literal 24 hour day?  The scrolls tell you.  What evidence do you have?  The scrolls say so.  Why doesn't the observed world fit your belief?  Beats you--all you know is the scrolls.

I would recommend you go to one of the many Christian forums.

If, on the other hand, you can point to genuine observation that provides for a 6K old earth, light before sun, life beginning as fully formed humans, etc.  We will listen intently to your evidence.  If you are about handwaving and scripture quoting you need to go back to the AFDave thread and spend time reading--these guys have refuted already the YEC arguments.

Up is up and down is down
No matter what the scrolls
   
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:50   
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,14:25)

Deadman,

Thanks for your comments.  Hopefully I can answer all of them.

Quote
of which about 700 come from Magaliesberg region of Africa.


You asked me where I got this quote.  I agree these aren't whole skulls.  I am not intimately familiar with all of them, but from my research in years past, I believe there are very few if any entirely intact skulls.  With that said, I got the quote from the tourism bureau of that region (http://www.sustainable-futures.com/ecotourism/ecotourism2.html) about half way down.  Maybe it is incorrect, please point me to a source that says differently.  It actually seems high unless they are discussing fragments.

Quote
Are you insane in claiming that we only have 1700 skulls of H. sapiens sapiens available?


You are totally right.  I do not mean H. Sapiens sapiens or the great apes.  Only the hominid transitional species between the great apes and H. Sapiens sapiens.

Quote
Gee,Szweda, thatt's a lot of jumping around and running-together of issues you just did in that "paragraph" First of all, you're wrong that early hominid species such as H. Habilis and H. erectus and Neandertalensis are based on " a few bones" which you then try to compare to " a jaw and three teeth" . This is an utter lie, Szweda.


That is a lot of jumping around, I admit and maybe it is all confusing in how I structured it.  I was not making mention of H. habilis or H. Erectus, but of course I didn't make that clear.  I was talking about species like Australopithecus anamensis which consists of 9 bones, or Australopithecus garhi which consists of a partial skull.

Quote
As to why neanders are extinct and chimps are not, well, maybe you might want to look at where each existed/exists. You think environment might have something to do with it? Like rain forests being easier to become isolated and "hide" in?  


But is that conclusive?  You are answering my question with a question, not a conclusive theory, or even any kind of theory that is supported.

Quote
Well, let's see...the earliest DEFINITIVELY KNOWN neander that I can think of is from about 130,000 years ago...and neanders die off (I'll be generous) 28KYA ago...uh, your math seems to be off, not that THAT alone is important. Care to cite sources?


From what I remembered in the past I had the date 240,000 years ago in my mind.  Since everyone likes to quote from wikipedia, it states 350,000 from an article in the Journal of Archealogical Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal).  I agree with you on the date of about 28,000 years ago, but I am having trouble finding sources quickly.  I had H. Sapien Sapien at about 100,000 years ago.  So that is about 150,000+ years.  The problem is that it is hard to find concrete dates for any of these.

Quote
Uh, I hate to break this to you, goober, but it was always thought of as an extinct primate.


Actually it wasn't until 1976 about 43 years after it was first discovered in 1932 according to the Columbia Encyclopedia (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0841053.html)  Of course everything was changed because it was only partial bones.

I will get to Homo Erectus but I have to run out for some errands.  But I think I at least answered some of your comments/questions.
  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:55   
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 02 2007,15:46)
I would recommend you go to one of the many Christian forums.

If, on the other hand, you can point to genuine observation that provides for a 6K old earth, light before sun, life beginning as fully formed humans, etc.  We will listen intently to your evidence.  

My argument is not to prove the Bible.  That is for other forums.  We will all know the proof the second our life ends on this earth.  Than the arguments will cease until then we may always just argue.

My point was to show that evolution isn't any more conclusive, such as how selective adaptation can make a species jump.  We can't even make a cat become a cow with genetic manipulation when we are trying let alone have one occur through mutations based on environmental influences.
  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:07   
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,16:55)
My point was to show that evolution isn't any more conclusive, such as how selective adaptation can make a species jump.  We can't even make a cat become a cow with genetic manipulation when we are trying let alone have one occur through mutations based on environmental influences.

I don't see how the lack of conclusive evidence for how neanderthals became extinct is supposed to discount the theory of evolution.  And your comment about making a "cat become a cow" suggests that you are grossly ignorant as to what any theory of evolution actually predicts.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.
  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:30   
Oi, man. Where to begin.

Szweda, I thought that tourism site was where you got that hominid fossil "data" from. You'll also notice that the tourism site doesn't include a single citation. BUT ...at least you were honest enough to post WHERE you got it from , instead of trying to hide it.

I'll just point out a very OLD quote that I use (note that the author is using "hominid" to mean "ancestral-lineage prehumans" as you did:)

 
Quote
"I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976. Over 200 specimens have been classified as Neandertal and about one hundred as Homo erectus. More of these fossils have been found since 1976. "
Michael J. Oard " A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils,"  in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, March 1994, p. 222 and

"The current figures [circa 1994] are even more impressive: over 220 Homo erectus fossil individuals discovered to date, possibly as many as 80 archaic Homo sapiens fossil individuals discovered to date, and well over 300 Neandertal fossil individuals discovered to date."
Marvin L. Lubenow [creationist], author of Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils,

in a letter to the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 31, Sept. 1994, p. 70

That was again, quite a while ago. More have been added, as you might guess. As far as the total number of Africanus fossils, eh, it may be 700 from the locations in South Africa, I'd have to look it up. BUT the relevant point to me is that you implied a great deal in your claims, and you were relying on ...a tourist site with no citations? That's pretty shoddy research there, for such strong claims.
************************************************************************
In response to my statement about WHY chimps still exist and Neanders don't, you argue:
 
Quote
But is that conclusive?  You are answering my question with a question, not a conclusive theory, or even any kind of theory that is supported.

It is supported by data showing that jungles offer and have offered a very good environment for species such as chimpanzees, gorillas and the okapi to exist in before being found by modern humans and reduced to near-extinction. Europe is not and was not a jungle. Neanders probably died off from a number of causes, but science doesn't pretend to a "definitive" theory of it, no...nor does science pretend towards "definitive" theories in general, since DEFINITIVE means "Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive."
From the National Academy of Science: "Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
*************************************************************************
You said that a Wikipedia article on neanderthals  gives  
Quote
350,000 from an article in the Journal of Archealogical Science
and somehow reason that what Wikipedia  means "this is the earliest Neanderthal"...when in fact what it says is:
 
Quote
The first **PROTO**-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 350,000 years ago.

My emphasis. "Proto-neanderthal traits" doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you want it to mean.  
*************************************************************************
In discussing Ramapithecus , you claimed that it is "20 years later, beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate" and I pointed out that it was always considered a primate.
YOU are a primate, a chimp is a primate. The word PRIMATE has a meaning that you cannot simply ignore. Furthermore, your cited reference ( http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0841053.html ) says this:
 
Quote
for a time regarded as a possible ancestor of Australopithecus and, therefore, of modern humans. Fossils of Ramapithecus were discovered in N India and in E Africa, beginning in 1932. Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan.
So even this doesn't jibe with your previous claim, anyway. You really need to look at primary literature concerning disputes in Paleoanthro, since it was only a minority that was claiming ramapiths ancestral to australopiths. It was viewed as NON-ancestral long before 1974 by MANY people and even MORE people thought it was simply impossible to tell phylogenetic relationships, and I don't think I'd trust The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia that this site refers to (and the article was drawn from)...as a "definitive" source on science.  
Feel free to deal with your H. erectus claims anytime.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:40   
Oh,and yes, "whole" A. africanus skulls have been found...in fact the first one ever found -- Raymond Dart's "Taung baby" is effectively complete. You might also want to look up "Mrs. Ples" (STS 5) and lots of other complete or near-complete skulls from africanus. Try doing research BEFORE making overarching claims.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,18:41   
AFDave who just can't contain himself says
   
Quote
As dgsvweda would say, please provide a reference that shows that I don't admit miracles and that Biblical literalism has to fit known, existing physical laws, or else stop saying it.  Thx!

OK Dave, according to your account of the literal Flood, Pangaea broke apart during the upheaval and all the continents moved to their present location in just one day at a speed well over 100 MPH.

By the *known, existing* laws of physics, accelerating and then stopping that much mass that quickly would produce enough heat energy to vaporize the oceans and melt most of the planet into slag.

Feel free to show calculation based on *known, existing* laws of physics that indicate otherwise.  But please do it on your own thread.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.
  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,19:11   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 02 2007,16:41)
AFDave who just can't contain himself says
       
Quote
As dgsvweda would say, please provide a reference that shows that I don't admit miracles and that Biblical literalism has to fit known, existing physical laws, or else stop saying it.  Thx!

OK Dave, according to your account of the literal Flood, Pangaea broke apart during the upheaval and all the continents moved to their present location in just one day at a speed well over 100 MPH.

By the *known, existing* laws of physics, accelerating and then stopping that much mass that quickly would produce enough heat energy to vaporize the oceans and melt most of the planet into slag.

Feel free to show calculation based on *known, existing* laws of physics that indicate otherwise.  But please do it on your own thread.

Actually, I think this is an admission that his "hypothesis" is entirely unscientific, because he has no compunction about using miracles to paper over the gaping holes in his theory, and he has no problem admitting that his biblical literalism cannot fit known, existing physical laws. In fact, it cannot exist without breaking known physical laws.

Should I cross-post this to Dave's thread to increase the message count there? I stopped worrying if he'd answer my questions before he ran out of posts. That ain't gonna happen.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,20:08   
Quote
was not making mention of H. habilis or H. Erectus, but of course I didn't make that clear.  I was talking about species like Australopithecus anamensis which consists of 9 bones, or Australopithecus garhi which consists of a partial skull.

I didn't bother with this earlier, since it seemed trivial, but it has some bearing on your research methods and presentation of "facts."

Anamensis has 21 bones assigned to it. Mandible, maxilla, skull fragments, upper and lower tibia and part of a humerus (If I wanted to be picky, I could put 38 total "finds" to it, including single teeth). http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/anamensis.htm

The "type" specimen of A. garhi is a partial cranium --  BOU-VP-12/130, an associated set of cranial fragments comprising the frontal, parietals, and maxilla with dentition. A fragment of a second cranium, and two mandibles (one fairly complete) are assigned to it: BOU-VP-12/87. Postcranial bones include : BOU-VP-35/1 Humeral Shaft,  MAT-VP-1/1 Distal Left Humerus , BOU-VP-12/1A-G Proximal Femur and Associated Forearm Elements, BOU-VP-11/1 Proximal Fragment of Ulna.

Paleoanthropologists are often labelled as "splitters or lumpers". I'm personally a "lumper" and don't neccessarily accept the taxa (until more is known), just as I tend to view ergaster as a regional variation on erectus (although ergaster has came first historically in discovery, I just prefer "erectus" as an encompassing taxon).
Regardless, I believe that if one is going to minimalize the validity of data, one should get the data right.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,20:31   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,16:30)
Oi, man. Where to begin.

How about here?

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,20:51   
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,15:19)
But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.

Thanks for sharing your religious opinions with us.  Your religious opinuions are, of course, no more authoritative than mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechan ic's, my veterinarian's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.  (shrug)

But since your creationism apparently consists solely of "the Bible says this" and "the Bible says that", then that begs a very simple question:

*ahem*

The creation 'scientists' and ID 'theorists' have told us over and over again (and have testified in court) that creation 'science' and ID 'theory' are not religion and are not based on any religious texts.

Are they just lying to us (under oath) when they say that?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,20:58   
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:06)
there are many great scientist that lean toward Einstein's belief.

Name five.

And tell us, please, how they explain the results of the Aspect experiments.


By the way, there are also PhD scientists who believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monsters, ESP and alien abductions.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,22:29   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,20:31)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,16:30)
Oi, man. Where to begin.

How about here?

I hate you, Lou. Hate, hate, hate, hate.  :angry:  :angry:
But I luuuuuuuv Janie and Kate. Luv, luv, luv, luv   :p  :p

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,23:23   
In regard to randomness, that's what came to my mind immediately: Bohr, Bell, Aspect, Bohm, (and a host of others) , the entanglement that people like Henry Stapp says basically pervades everything, since all quanta have interacted in Bell-like ways in the past, if we are to accept current cosmology. Randomness certainly appears built-in on multiple fronts, though, from virtual particles to Uncertainty, decay, Brownian motion, Lorentz non-linearity, etc.

I'm just not sure what to make of it and didn't want to pretend I knew more about QM than I do. I DO think I've read enough on it to say that it seems logical to **assume** that "hidden variables" would likely be emergent properties of THIS system itself and unprovable (Goedel?)...such a view doesn't support (or refute, really)  ALL conceptions of design, meaning, purpose, intent or plan associated with any mytho-religious heritage, but I think all those terms are loaded with the kind of slipperiness Wittgenstein found so weird to deal with and that Heisenberg called "metaphors at best. " What I DO know is at this time, randomness appears to be quite real, quite present and unaccounted for. Does this mean it'll NEVER be accounted for in all aspects? No...but it sure is a black cow at this time, not a white one. It's cool with me NOT to pretend that I "know" anything more about it.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
  
Malum Regnat



Posts: 98
Joined: Dec. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,23:27   
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,13:19)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:50)
I want to start off by telling you that I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be a reliable source for learning about man’s relationship with the Judeo/Christian deity.

I am a little at odds with your explanation of the “apparent age” of the universe—i.e.: God made the light already hitting the earth, etc.

The Bible is pretty clear that God does not lie and that we can learn about God by studying his creation.  You are saying God intentionally misleads through the creation.

Let’s take your approach using an analogy:

Suppose I offered you a great reward for learning about me and I told you to look through my house to learn as much as you can about me.  I will also penalize you if you get it wrong.

In the house I’ve placed a number of items:

A dog bowl
A picture of two elderly people with a frame that says “mom and dad”
A business card with my name on it saying I am an Executive VP at Xerox
I leave on the coffee table a book showing my genealogy back 5 generations

Based on my instructions you would assume:

I have a dog
The picture is of my parents
I work at Xerox
You knew the names of my ancestors for the last several generations

I then come back to see how you’ve done and give you either your reward or punishment.

You rattle off your conclusions and I say, “Sorry, I intentionally made it look like I had a dog, but I don’t.  I made it appear as if those people are my parents, but they’re not.  I made it look like I work at Xerox but I don’t.  The genealogy was a fake I planted.
Now you will be punished for getting it wrong."

I don’t see how that can be consistent for the Biblical God.

If God tells us to look at the creation to learn about Him, I believe he didn’t lie.

You seem to think He did.

I am sorry I don't know who posted this because it was compilation thread.  I am not sure if we want to get into theology here, since for many on this forum a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a conclusion.  I offered up a theory as too why the light got there.  In actuality I have no idea.  But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.

It’s a bit more than ‘god’ creating an ‘appearance’ of age, ‘god’ apparently made up a whole fictional history for this universe.  We regularly receive light from novae and super novae that are astronomically :D  further away than 6k light years.  This would indicate that ‘god’ created ‘light’ from a super nova that never happened.  That’s really going a long way for a practical joke. :p

--------------
This universe as explained by the 'other' Hawkins

Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... DESIGNED.
Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... NOT DESIGNED.

;-}>
  
  149 replies since Jan. 02 2007,13:42 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]