Acceptance, Evolutionists vs. Creationists

Thre's all sorts of ways. They have used lasers,and maybe atomic clocks were used. Usually they use long travel distances to avoid the need for super precise time measurements.You can do it yourself, given a ruler and some chocolate and a microwave oven. http://physics.about.com/cs/opticsexperiments/a/290903.htm. (Actually, in this experiment you are measuring the speed of light in air, which differs slightly form the speed of light in a vacuum).Getting pedantic, nobody has measured the speed of light since 1983. In 1983 the speed of light was defined as 299,792,458 meters per second (as part of the redefiniiton of the meter). Since our units of length now are defined by that value of the speed of light, the speed of light is a base unit and cannot be meaningfully measured (that would be circular reasoning). International System of Units from NIST.

Lots and lots and lots of people have explored the idea of the constatns changing in all sorts of ways. The current state of research is that maybe the fine structure constant changed a very little bit about 13-14 billion years ago. Since the fine structure constant depends on the speed of light (and other things), maybe the speed of light changed with it. No. There are no quantized redshifts. No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data (and more comprehensive surveys since then, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, confirm the conclusions). The 2dF redshift survey home page is at http://msowww.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS/. That one's still largely unexplained. Whatever the effect that's causing it, it's incredibly subtle and tiny, and understanding it is not likely to change our understanding of the Universe much. I suggest you get more of an education under your belt before you make any more claims. 1. "Hundreds of feet" is a bit of an overstatement. The average depth was 45 meters (150 feet) an the maximum was 180 meters (590 feet) (see USGS: Volcano Hazards Program Glossary). So in a few places the sediemtnh was hundreds of feet deep. Note that the mudslides deposited sediment, not sedimentary rock.2. Your memory serves you wrong. The Toutle River "canyon" was not huge, it was much much smaller than 1/3 the size of the Grand Canyon by any method of measuring. By linear measure, it's about 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon; by volume measure it's about 0.000015 the size of the Grand Canyon (and volume measure, measuring the amount of material removed, probably makes more sense here). Its form was also significantly different from the Grand Canyon; it was easily seen as carved out of soft unconsolidated sediment (with 45 degree sloping walls) rather than out of hard rock (with vertical and near-vertical walls), as the Grand Canyon was. Finally, the Toutle flows significantly faster than the Colorado (all other things being equal, the Toutle removes material faster than the Colorado).3. Yes, there might have been footprints buried hundreds of feet deep, and it would be obvious to a scientific observer that those footprints hundreds of feet were deposited in one event. What's your point?

No, you were adding that when I replied so I hadn't seen it.Actually, Mt. St. Helens is a very good example of one of the ways things are dated. I'm really glad that you brought it up.Long before we knew about radiometric dating, even before we knew about radioactivity, lots of dating was done based on special events. Let's for the sake of argument, imagine the footprints you describe. Someone is walking along a trail when the eruption happens and their footprints get buried in the ash. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll assume that the person gets away and is not also buried. All we have left is the footprints. Time passes, there are other eruptions, the land where the footprints are buried in turn gets buried, compressed, changed from ash to stone, pushed up into mountains and gradually worn down and eroded away until one day, millions of years from know, someone finds them.Well that future observer would be able to say, "Here is a set of human footprints. And they are in the layer from the Mt. St Helen's eruption from way back around the year 2000 (they might even still have the exact date and know it was in 1980)." So they would be able to see the layer, know that it is a descrete event and that it was related to just that one time.They can say a couple other things. And these are very important points.They can say that the tracks were laid down BEFORE the ash covered them. So the tracks have to be older than the ash.They can also say that the tracks were laid down AFTER the ground they are on. So the tracks are newer than the ground.Are you with me so far on this?Now let's look at your Pioneer issue.You laid out two possible reasons related to Pioneer.One, Pioneer is slowing down.Two, the radio signal (or light) is slowing down.Well, the second is pretty easy to check.Ask yourself, if light or radio signals were slowing down, what would we see? First, let's deal with light. If light were slowing down, when we looked out to find the planets, they would not be where we expected. We see the planets because light travels from the Sun all the way out to tiny Pluto, is reflected off Pluto's surface and bounced all the way back to the observer on Earth. Even when we are dealing with small distances like here to Pluto, that still takes time. Why it takes about eight minutes for the light from the Sun to get just to Earth. If it were slowing down, that trip would take even longer and the light we get back from Pluto would show that it was not where it should be. We would see this change everywhere, with all the planets, all the satelites, all the stars. But we don't. So it's not light that changed.The same thing is true when it comes to radio. If the speed of radio transmissions were slowing down, then we would also see that in every radio transmission. And we don't. Television still works. When the show is supposed to start at nine, it starts at nine. When I turn on the radio, I still get news at eleven (ten central).So option two is simply not happening. That means that Pioneer is slowing down. Can't say why, but I can say it is not the answer behind door number two.Did that answer your questions on those two?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Remember in our last conversation we were talking about those footprints from the Hicker at Mt St Helens? Those footprints had to be older than the ground they were on but younger than the ash that covered them.Before we go to the next step, let's talk about this statement you made... There are a couple possible misconceptions in there that I'd like to discuss with you.First, Evolution is not always moving from less complex to more complex, or worse to better. It has nothing to do with that. It simply records what changes happened. It just shows which critters and plants lived, and which critters and plants died. Sometimes we see lots of change, sometimes little change and some things have stayed pretty much the same throughout all the ages. Check into the history of the Nautalus. At one time they were the bad guys on the block, the dominate lifeform. Today, except for being somewhat smaller than they were in the past, and there being fewer different species, they are pretty much the same.Second, over the billions of years that the Earth's been around, land moves. What was once sea floor gets pushed up into mountains, worn down into sand, bent, folded, stapled and mutilated. It get shoved over other sections, shoved under other sections and even on occasion turned upside down. But through it all, unless the rock is melted down into magma, you can usually still see the layers when they are exposed.The best tool that the Paleo folk have at their disposal, and also their biggest threat, is erosion. Frankly, there is no way to know where something died, was buried and became a fossil. The odds of grabbing a backhoe and just digging and finding a fossil are pretty slim. Instead, they look for areas where erosion has worn things down to where a particular layer, a particular time slice might be exposed.There ARE a few other places to look. For example, we know from experience that you often find fossils in Limestone and slate beds. So if you find such a deposite, there is a good chance that you'll find fossils there as will. Personally, I've split many a piece of slate and even found a few impressions over the years. It's always exciting when you do find something but you split a lot more than you find.So what does all that searching show us?Well, what we find is that certin things only are found in certain layers. You never find primates and dinosuars in the same layer. Never. You never find primates in a layer that is older than the dinosaurs. Never You don't find grasses, or grass pollen in old layers. Grasses only show up in newer layers. Never.Are we still together? Did that help?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Look, all I'm saying is that holding a debate in a thread with a title such as this one really says a lot about the ability of disagreeing intellectuals to get along. Really, I thought you guys would be more mature than this...

yes, but paleontologically, floods ARE a good source of fossilization. there was one that got a herd of 300 triceratops. however, floods look very distinctive geologically. the fossil record bears no evidence of mass flooding. this a very good point. paleontologists are much like crime scene investigators. it takes a lot of skill and work. for one person to say, "well, i don't the see rather obvious pattern!" is kind of silly in light of the millions of people who've spent their lives piecing it fossils together enough to know that there is one.like i've said before, it's a matter of seeing the evidence, and most creationists just haven't. which is why i keep suggesting they look into the field a bit more.hangdawg's statement: paleontologists. all the time. all those studies creationists like to quote about such and such a species not being a (direct) ancestor of such and such a species are all published by people who understand evolution. the map is constantly being revised here and there.but coming and saying that it just doesn't exist to one of these people is like saying "there aren't any pyramids in egypt" to people who have been there.it's not challenging authority, it's challenging reason, logic, and evidence.

vaguely human? somewhere between 4-1 million years. "deep" is a funny word. sometimes cretacious rock is at the surface. it depends on location. i'm 21 and a christian. i know many christians, athiest, pagans, wiccans, hindus, probably even a buddhist or two. simply put, your statement is a gross overgeneralization, and an implication that morality is impossible without religion.it's also wrong. the least moral people i've ever met have all been christians. the bible is fallible. history shows this. however, rational people can easily seperate moral meanings and teachings from literal meaning. i find it's the literallist, inerrency people that get confused and tend to miss the morality. in my 8 years of being a christian, that is. i've been to a lot of churches. it's talking about the corruption and perversion of the christian church. those being mislead are christians. the verse is actually john condemning the early roman church.

quote:

---

I have known very few of the ones you describe here.

---

Stick around here for a few years, and read the ICR and AiG websites. You will begin to understand what many of us learned long ago.

quote:

---

However, the willful ignorance is still not quite denial, just choosing not to know something. You might choose not to know what's in my gym bag, but does that mean you're in denial of what's in it?

---

It is a weak faith that depends upon ignorance to maintain it.

quote:

---

If they never hear any opposing viewpoint to begin with, why question it? I think it's safe to say that you can't expect someone to question something without shown an alternate point of view

---

This would be true if these people never heard of Evolution at all.The thing is, Creationism is built upon the idea that because Evolution is wrong, a particular interpretation of certain parts of the Christian Bible is right.People have to have heard of Evolution if they are Creationists, by definition.Their fault lies in not ever reading anything by any Biologist or any other scientist in it's original form; they simply take what they are spoon fed by the Creationist liars.This makes them gullible fools who accept authority without question.

quote:

---

I assume you don't like those annoying PT cruisers that look like Volkswagons with brain tumors, but you're firm in your belief that they exist so you can't un-believe them just cause you don't like them.

---

Ah, but my reasons for believing PT Cruisers exist are evidence-based and can be independently verified without me, so it would be quite irrational for me to disbelieve in their existence.The same cannot be said of any religious belief. They are not verifyable by an outside observer, and are not based upon evidence.Therefore, there is no difference between the belief that the Christian God is the one true god and the belief that Zeus is the leader of a whole pantheon of gods.

quote:

---

If mankind were so repulsed by the unknown there wouldn't be science or rockets that fly to the moon, now would there?

---

...except that these things are dealing with the natural world and are therefore knowABLE.What happens after we die is, and will probably always be, unknowable.

quote:

---

Almost as major as God punishes evil and that Jesus preaches kindness to all, huh?

---

These are major themes, too, yes, but the idea that good Christians will not die but spend eternity in heaven with God is just as major a theme and is the big reward at the end of a life of struggle and sacrifice.Isn't that the reason Christ dies on the cross; so that humankind could have eternal life?Are you actually saying that the reason for the Crucifiction, that Jesus gave his life for our sins so that we could have eternal life, isn't a major theme of Christianity?

quote:

---

Truth is, with the possibility of no afterlife in mind, I'd say I'm just more likely to spread kindness and make my life worth something as it's the only one I've got. And guess what Christianity tells us to do while we're down here?

---

Guess what pretty much all religions and secular humanism, too, tell us to do while we're "down here"?Exactly the same thing.

quote:

---

Granted I don't know much about the patterns. I know many many people have claimed to fit them with the evolutionary theory. Nothing wrong with this.

---

Actually, there would be a great deal wrong with this if scientists actually worked this way.Evidence found in nature is not "fit" into any theory.This is backwards.A theory is produced, strenthened, or modified by evidence, not the other way around.Darwin didn't just come up with the ToE out of thin air one day, and every Biologist since then hasn't been looking for evidence to "fit" the theory.The Evidence gave rise to the theory in the first place, and each subsequent discovery and observation either supports the validity of the explanation of why those facts appear as they do (theory), or they contradict the explanation (theory).

quote:

---

Right, I know... you don't need to do this because evolution is a fact. Sigh... I wonder who challenges authority more: creationists or evolutionists.

---

Hmm, let's see...Scientists win Nobel prizes for making new discoveries that overturn past research.Creationists will never, ever question the validity of or change their interpretation of the Bible, no matter what the evidence in nature is or how much it contradicts that interpretation.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-09-2004 08:54 AM

In all seriousness, I have been exposed to more of these 'fundies' that you are describing since I started coming to this forum. However, even if there are many more of these kinds, you can only hope to lighten them up if you try to accept their point of view first. Tossing cold, hard evidence at them will cause most of them to run off screaming. It's only with compassion and understanding that you can hope to change anyone. It could be in some cases, but even in these instances I don't see anything wrong with a weak faith. Or they read the Biologists' writings them read something by a Creationist that claims to refute the earlier readings. If the individual doesn't know much about biology, that person would probably believe the second one. First of all, if the person believes in it then they believe in it, even if they reasons or evidence they have for it may not be rational by scientific standards. Whether or not it is reasonable by your standards is irrelevant to the fact that they believe in X. But if they honestly believe that Allah exists and that 'There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is His Prophet', then they're not going to believe in Zeus even if they like the pagan rituals etc. Except for after we die, huh? We may not be able to tell it to the world, but we all have to die sometime, and one at a time we'll all know for sure when we get there. Unlike space exploration, we'll all know one day whether we like it or not. No, I'm not. It is ONE of the major themes, but there are others. All I'm saying is that there are reasons other than fear of death to believe in Christianity, and that fear of death is not the main reason. That's great, too bad none of the religions, including Christianity, have an 100% follow-up from their believers on that. But just because it's a big theme of other religions doesn't refute my assertion that Christianity places importance on it.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

B2P says While that is true for some of the major Muslim sects, it's not true for all of them and certainly not true for the other Judaic religions. Afterall, just about every single Christian and Jewish celebration and event is one of the neat pagan rituals that they liked and so incorporated.Christianity is like the English of the religious world. Just as the English language readily adopts any neat word that comes along, regardless of the language of origin, so the Jews and Christians grabed every neat celebration that looked like fun. From Mardes Gras to Easter, Thanksgiving to Christmas, if there was a party, we wanted in.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Agreed. However, just because they stole the celebration because it looked fun doesn't mean they honestly believed in Zeus or whoever the celebration was in honor of.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

quote:

---

so the Jews and Christians grabed every neat celebration that looked like fun. From Mardes Gras to Easter, Thanksgiving to Christmas, if there was a party, we wanted in.

---

Well, wasn't it more that these pagan celebrations were allowed by and then changed by the Christians who were trying to convert the pagans, because if they took away the parties, nobody would want to convert?

There is always room in the Christian calendar for one more party.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are obviously not a Puritan.