h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>oceanic crust could subside into the mantle rapidly<<
This would have the opposite effect and lower ociens. Crust subsides, ie goes down therfore makes more room for sea. Else if the mantle drastically exploded into the ocien it would more likely boil away some of the ocean not make more water.

I too also have little time (time is money etc) however my main though from reading what you've (nosretep) written is that you have your whole idea mixed up. You have an old earth, millions of years old, yet believe the 6 24hr day creation. These two though ideals as you are arguing go against each other. If you go for 6 x 24 hrs then the earth was formed 4000 BC, it's been calculated by tracking back the ages of Moses and Adam.

If you think that continental drift occoured then this involves deep time, ie millions of years and does not fit with the 6x24 bible account.


Yadder - lots more pointless words.
Conditions in labs are not the same as in the earth. thefore fossils outside labs do not form in short periaods of time.

Nosretep, Love is the result of the evolution of humanism.

Hate and intolerance are emphasized by christian religon, which relies on these bad instincts.


You don't believe that? I know. You think it's the other way round? I know.

So sad.

Yeliab:

>>This would have the opposite effect and lower ociens. Crust subsides, ie goes down therfore makes more room for sea. Else if the mantle drastically exploded into the ocien it would more likely boil away some of the ocean not make more water.<<

I am just telling you what one scientist says, I don't necessarily agree because I have not looked at it. I will note that water at higher pressures requires more heat to boil. I don't know the particular curve for water though.

>>You have an old earth, millions of years old, yet believe the 6 24hr day creation. These two though ideals as you are arguing go against each other. If you go for 6 x 24 hrs then the earth was formed 4000 BC, it's been calculated by tracking back the ages of
Moses and Adam.<<

I don't believe that the earth is millions of years old. You have taken me out of context. Several times I have stated what several scientists believe. I believe this is where you are getting confused.

>>If you think that continental drift occoured then this involves deep time, ie millions of years and does not fit with the 6x24 bible account.<<

Again, this is uniformitarian. You are assuming that the rate the crust moves is constant. Scientists can only guess how it moves (convection in the mantle). How can they then postulate that it has always moved at the same rate? I believe that continental drift was started by the flood and the movement that we experience today is more like an aftershock.


>>Conditions in labs are not the same as in the earth. thefore fossils outside labs do not form in short periaods of time.<<

What conditions are you talking about?

Wonko-the-Sane:

>>Nosretep, Love is the result of the evolution of humanism.<<

Basically you are saying that people love each other because it benefits us? So then we continually have more and more love in the world? This goes against my observations.

>>Hate and intolerance are emphasized by christian religon, which relies on these bad instincts.<<

I'm sorry you believe that. So you believe that love equals acceptance? If I love you under your definition, I will accept you however you are. Even if you are doing something that hurts you, I should just turn a blind eye. Some love you have. I think that it is you who are mistaken.

Wonko pretty much summed it up.

Love is a biproduct of the heard or tribe. To love, is beneficial to your own survival, because tomorrow you might need some help. Love outside of this narrow group is often unnecessary and sometimes dangerous, so "Evolution" has not bothered to make us love much outside of a small group.

Hate and intollerence are effectively Inter-tribe rivalry which is important to your "Homo-Robustus" or modern day wolf.

Religion is in effect a very big tribe. It promises lots of Love and breeds hate of anyone not in the big Tribe.

Group Hug anyone? It is easy. All you have to do is study animals. Any one want a slice of Darwin? (Wonko, I thought we cleared up this thread several months ago?)

Regarding the evolutoin of love:

If you look at any animal that I have seen, they will help other animals on occation, but never at the expense of their own survival. The self-preservation instinct is probably the strongest in nature. Speaking from the context of evolution, it would be foolish for one animal to risk its life to possibly save another because then two animals would die, not just one. This only happens in Disney (and like) films.

It is sad that all of you have bought into this convoluted explanation of love's origen.

Proper Ganda:

>>Love is a biproduct of the heard or tribe. To love, is beneficial to your own survival, because tomorrow you might need some help.<<

So under your definition, love is motivated by selfishness. To me true love is the giving of yourself to another.

>>Love outside of this narrow group is often unnecessary and sometimes dangerous, so "Evolution" has not bothered to make us love much outside of a small group.<<

So then why are some people vegetarians? Would that not naturally have hurt their survival only thousands of years ago?

>>Religion is in effect a very big tribe. It promises lots of Love and breeds hate of anyone not in the big Tribe.<<

I'm sorry you see it that way. I really am. By the way, if religion is a "tribe, I am sure that you too belong to many such "tribes." Do then hate me?

>>roup Hug anyone? It is easy. All you have to do is study animals.<<

That's wrong. Animals look out for themselves above all else. If we reject religion and its ideals we will do the same thing.

The argument was given far back that God creating the universe isn't an answer, it merely prolongs the question to 'Who created him?'
If God created the universe, he must be outside it. Time, and therefore Cause and Effect, are therefore features of our universe. Therefore, neither God nor the universe necessarily had to be created. However, this doesn't mean that the universe definitely wasn't created, which is why the matter must be resolved within our universe.

So back to evolution.
While evolution tries to explain many coincidences that led to our existence, it cannot explain the coincidences that have no purpose. For example, why does life use only right-handed amino acids. Laboratry re-creations of the Early earth give equal amount of left and right handed amino acids, which is therefore what the evolution theory would predict. But it doesn't fit in with the facts.

Furthermore, this whole conversation seems rather heavily based around how improbable evolution is, with no reference to the things that make it not only improbable but impossible.
For example:
1.Oxygen. All cells, even plant cells, require oxygen. But oxygen could not have existed in the atmosphere if amino acids etc were to form by chance, as oxygen breaks up molecules into simpler forms, which would prevent them evolving.
2.Lightning. Amino acids are said to have been made, as has been done in the laboratry, by passed a spark through an atmosphere of ammonia, methane and water. But the amino acids only survived because they were quickly removed from the area of the spark, which would otherwise have decomposed them.
3.Different Amino Acids. Of the many amino acids necessary to create life, only a few have been made in laboratry re-creations of evolution.

Furthermore, how do things like lungs evolve? A species is supposed to have a natural advantage as it evolves, but the first step out of the many steps towards getting lungs instead of gills wouldn't have given a life form an advantage. Or the second step, or the third. Only once the lungs were completed would the species have an advantage. Everything up until then would give the species a disadvantage, as mutants are always initially less fertile and shorter-lived and have to get more food to support their newly developing organs which are of no use to them.

Evolution seems a good idea at first, but a bit of exploratory thinking and the theory soon hits problems. A God is the only other option, which is why evolution is accepted by many - they don't want to admit that they are answerable to a higher authority and can't do whatever they want. Scientists desperate to believe this then claim that the theory is a fact, when really it has never been proven. People then hear scientists refer to it as a fact, and are therefore led to believe that it has been proven, and that they don't have to apply rational reasoning for themselves.

You've got to hand it to some scientists - they know how to crush the opposition without a valid reason.

So many times I have been asked the question, "If God created us then who created God?" To put it simply, if people who say that believe that we just exist, then why can't you believe that God just exists.

On the point of Evolution. Charles darwin once said that if it could be proven that certain processes in the body need the other to work, otherwise we would die, then his ideas on evolution would be proven false (I can't remember the name of this). It is already proven that about 30 or more different parts of the body need other things in the process for the process to work (an example of this is the blood), so Charles Darwin has already proved his theories of evolution wrong.

I also oppose to the title of this forum conversation. it is titled 'Evolution vs Creation', when I believe that evolution and creation can both be true, as long as it is God that caused them both.

spook

>>by nosretep
Again, this is uniformitarian. You are assuming that the rate the crust moves is constant. Scientists can only guess how it moves (convection in the mantle). How can they then postulate that it has always moved at the same rate? I believe that continental drift was started by the flood and the movement that we experience today is more like an aftershock.<<

\Ahh, remembered the answer: Magnetic fields! The earth changes it's magnetic polarity every few thousand years. Each time it does the ocean crust being made is layed down and this polarity is set into it. When an entire survey of the oceans was made of this the results looked like a zebra, the crust is stripy (say id the polarities are colored one way blackm the other white). The curst layed down between flips is roughly the same each time and is shows a large number of these stipes (which also mirror each other on each side of the ridge).

<>1.Oxygen.
Oxygen easily exists in the atmosphere as it is created in the process of a supernova, and as we are created from remenants of them there is your O. If your refering to the dirrerence between O and O2 then I don't understand. Wait up, I see your problem. Is it O, O2 or O3 that splits molecules. I guess it's O, or otherwise I would be melting away right here, I'm made of molecules. Bang goes yor problem! Hay. (O only really exists in upper atmosphere)

>>Lightning.
Silly problem this one. The amino acids are made by a neutrino! Tiny massless things made by stars, pass through anythng, very tiny chance of hitting a amino but it did. Hay that's God for you!

3.Different Amino Acids.
And your problem is? Labs arent the most amazing things every, neither can you make a baby in a lab, you want a womb for that one!

Hmm, all 3 of your 'disprovers' are now disproven, sorry about that :D



>>by Spook
I also oppose to the title of this forum conversation. it is titled 'Evolution vs Creation', when I believe that evolution and creation can both be true, as long as it is God that caused them both.<<

Sure, right on Brother! If you look at evolution it's minutly beautiful and simple. It shows that God actually put love into out creation (God is after all LOVE), rather then just wondered aroung fealing boeard and after a week made us as an afterthought.

For a God who is outside time what is 6 twenty four hours? It's just a way to explain the process to the folks of the time. And it does fit with evo, just the plants are out, but hay!

Nick
Still have a way to disprove evolution?

Oxygen:
The reason you don't burn away are that your cells are protected by an unreactive cell membrane, and mainly because it takes heat for things to burn. There's not so much heat around at the moment, but there would have had to be back then for molecules to combine.

Alright, let's go further.
Things would need plenty of energy in order to evolve with no direction at all. The only place molecules could get this energy is out of the water. But back then, before plants existed, the atmosphere was far different from what it is today, and didn't block out ultraviolet light. And if you don't use sun-tan lotion, then you know what even a low amount (mostly blocked by the atmosphere) of ultraviolet light does to living cells.
In fact, I'm not sure, but maybe that's where oxygen comes in. Perhaps you are burning up, whenever you're in the sun.

Amino acids made by neutrinos? When did that theory come about? And how can a neutrino make any difference to the formation of a molecule?

What has a baby got to do with it? We're talking about making single molecules here, not large organisms. And you can make them in a lab, but this is by design. You can't just get them out of a random combination.

Despite seeing all this myself, I was never convinced that it was impossible, just that it was the most improbable thing in the universe. What finally disproved it for me was the argument about the lung, which can be applied to many different organs. There's no need for improbability about how it could happen, because the idea itself just doesn't make sense.

Why is a bat blind? Just because it can use sonar, what natural advantage does it get if it then evolves blindness?
When a creature has evolved lungs, what is the natural advantage from losing its gills?
How did creatures start having live young instead of laying eggs? How would the live young survive without a womb? But why would the womb evolve if the creatures weren't yet ready to have live young, making the womb currently useless?
Why would flightless birds have existed? What's the natural advantage in that?
Why does a dolphin etc not have gills? Surely that would be an advantage over dolphins that don't?

You don't infact need to be hot to burn, dry ice does it. You point about there being more UV. Well I don;t see why. There would be bucket loads of CO2 and O2. The ozone layer would have been created for life to evolve.

Neutrino, I've allways know about it. And they are molecules with no mass but have energy, (which is after all mass - and may explain the dark matter). These do very occasionally strike a molecule, or atom and affect it, it can infact hit our cells and cause antioxidatio9n I think.


>>Why is a bat blind? Just because it can use sonar, what natural advantage does it get if it then evolves blindness?<<

It didn't evolve blindless, it just lost the need for such keen sight, and there not blind, just partially sighted.

>>When a creature has evolved lungs, what is the natural advantage from losing its gills?<<

Well, do you mean apart form the fact that on land there are no preditors and all the plants it can eat, or possibly that beaing able to survive in both water and land (at least on the shore, in reach of the sea) means that it can escape predators in the sea?
And when you are on land then gills are an easy place for infectrion, they are not kept nicly in the body away from danger, and a lung is more efficient than a gill, you don't have to brethe continually.


>>How did creatures start having live young instead of laying eggs?<<

I think live young were before, or at least parrallel to the evolution of eggs. The difference between mamimals and animals, is it not?


>>Why would flightless birds have existed? What's the natural advantage in that?<<
They wernt birds.
And then the lighter skelleton that birds evolved and the stronger brest mussles would be great for attacking and then running away at high speed. Are not our current flightless birds not pretty damn fast (ostrictch)


>>Why does a dolphin etc not have gills? Surely that would be an advantage over dolphins that don't?<<

Do you mean, that not having gills would be an advanage over those that had gills? That's what the question reads.
And what do we see? Oh yes, the dolphins that don't have gills, as they have an advantage, as you put it. Well done, thats survival of the fittest!



Sorry, I've just answered all your questions again with no formal training in evolution, just some simple science and common sence. Doh!
And, yes evolution is very unlikely to actually commence (and the neutrino is massivley improbably,) so there is either an infinite number of universes or god.

That's my thruppence-worth. I used to be active on this thread but now this debate just annoys and bores me.

And thank you so very much for taking the time to share that with us, I am so sorry that you are boared so easily.

I suppose I did phrase that a bit badly. I meant that it would be an advantage to have gills, since they live underwater. They would be able to go deeper, get more food etc.

Another question has occured to me lately - why can't we photosynthesize? It would be jolly useful.

In fact, assuming that photosynthesis had to evolve, what did cells feed on originally?

There are probably answers to all these questions, like the ones I've already put forward, but the answers, while being sensible, aren't entirely logical. Each question that can't be easily answered adds to the improbability of evolution, and there must be a huge number of these questions that could be asked. In the end, it's very improbable, but there's not much that make's a creator improbable, leaving it the more likely option.

Evolution has to be practically impossible in a universe, but as for infinite universes, I need time to think about that. The school bell has just gone.

But then there is still the issue:


Interview with Paul Weinberg (Physicist/Cosmologist)

DR. WEINBERG: I think it's true that there is a mystery about nature which is not likely to be cleared up in any way that I can now foresee. That is, we can look forward to a theory which encompasses all existing theories, which unifies all the forces, all the particles, and at least in principle is capable of serving as the basis of an explanation of everything. We can look forward to that, but then the question will always arise, "Well, what explains that? Where does that come from?" And then we -- looking at -- standing at that brink of that abyss we have to say we don't know, and how could we ever know, and how can we ever get comfortable with this sort of a world ruled by laws which just are what they are without any further explanation?

And coming to that point which I think we will come to, some would say, well, then the explanation is God made it so. And I suppose that's a natural reaction to this dilemma. Unfortunately to me it seems quite unsatisfactory. Either by God you mean something definite or you don't mean something definite. If by God you mean a personality who is concerned about human beings, who did all this out of love for human beings, who watches us and who intervenes, then I would have to say in the first place how do you know, what makes you think so? And in the second place, is that really an explanation? If that's true, what explains that? Why is there such a God? It isn't the end of the chain of whys, it just is another step, and you have to take the step beyond that.

Hi

It is difficult to be sure what has been answered - my apology if I'm repeating things.

1. You and coal are made of BOTH C12 and C13, so inhale coal dust all you like, it won't shift your ratio significantly (despite the fact that it is preferentially enriched in C13 over C14). It is C14 itself that causes any minor errors - you have to assume that what you are dating has been isolated from the atmosphere (inside a tree trunk, or beneath the ground). What you are dating is the number of years the item you are dating has been isolated from the atmosphere, which is not necessarily the number of years since the item formed. So any errors in the technique relate to making erroneous assumptions about the subsequent history of what you are dating, not to actual errors in the technique. And if what you are dating is charcoal (as is commonly the case), an incorrect asumption will cause negligible error (how can you add much carbon from the atmosphere to a lump of carbon). It is only when you measure things like carbon in CO2 in groundwater that significant errors are introduced by incorrect assumptions. Because you are dealing with very small quantities of carbon, so additions from the atmosphere can cause significant shifts.

2. Yes, it would be great if we could actually directly test dating over a very long life-span, but most of us don't live that long. However we do the next best thing. We compare methods and cross-calibrate. For example, we can directly measure the decay of C14 (this can be accurately used for dating back 40,000 years - one method of measurement will work to 100,000 years). Then we go to a tree. A tree has annual growth rings (this we can test in a lifespan). So we count rings backwards from the outside towards the tree core, C14 dating as we go. We can do this for around 2000 years (the oldest living trees). Then it becomes a little less direct, since we must match the outer ring on a dead tree to the inner ring on a living tree before we can continue. Then we work inwards on the rings of the dead tree (we have supporting evidence, such as atmospheric events causing poor growth around the world in certain years, reflected in the ring for that year eg 535BC, and the fact that there is an overlap of many years growth rings between living and dead trees in many instances). We get back to ~7000 years before present in this way. We find that over this interval results compare well between ages from counting rings cf those from the laboratory-measured half-life. We can then use other isotopes to further verify this (eg Pb210 from memory, and a Th isotope). We can use ESR dating and other techniques which use the amount of radiation damage caused in a crystal as a result of cosmic radiation. Agreement is good (we can't use every method of course, because some methods require the assumption that other methods are correct to derive their time scale - but isotope methods do not).

3. Other, non-cosmogenic isotope techniques, such as decay of radioactive isotopes are not subject to such problems related to the atmosphere and cosmic radiation (eg U-Pb dating). They simple depend on the ratio of two isotopes and the half-life of the decay. Different isotopes have different half-lives and are best used for rocks in certain age ranges (otherwise the error is too large - but the error is a figure we are also measuring). In older rocks the decay of U and Th to Pb, and the decay of K to Ar, or of Re to Os are used - and compared with each other. Each system has a different half life, and in most cases a rock is dated by 2 or 3 independent isotope systems. If they agree, the age is taken as fairly well known (and where errors occur, they only vary ages by a few % usually).

4. Why were the aborigines singled out for mention - they are as clearly Homo sapiens as the rest of us? They've been around at least 40,000 years though, perhaps 60,000 (but remains of Homo sapiens in the eastern Cape of South Africa exceed 100,000 years I understand (not an expert). The earliest human form has recently been dated around 7 my (not sapiens of course).

5. Out of interest, because U235 and U238 decay exponentially with time, there was a lot more decay activity going on in uranium deposits then than now. Now uranium must be enriched (the "hotter" U235 selectively concentrated) to get a sustained nuclear fission reaction. But we now know that way back (eg 1700 million years, in Gabon), some uranium deposits got so hot they behaved as nuclear reactors, cooking everything around them - but no "China Syndrome" - groundwater acted as a moderator, as in a modern reactor.

6. Adam was a prokaryote who didn't need Eve. The first 4000 million years were rough.

7. Land animals and plants do not preserve as fossils as well as marine organisms in the present environment, and this is reflected in the fossil record (the atmosphere likes to oxidise them, the wind and rain and gravity break them up etc). However fossils of land plants and animals (eg many dinosaurs) are nevertheless widespread and yes, I have seen them directly myself. Besides anatomical evidence for breathing air, they occur buried with abundant tree stumps, leaves etc. And remember that some of these plants and animals, including those with which they are buried, are exactly the same land (terrestrial) species that exist today. We talk of "science" as if it is somehow independent of everyday logical thought. If you found extinct animal bones buried together with tiger bones like today, wouldn't it seem reasonable that they were not swimming in the open ocean when they died? If one believes in a God, why believe in one who plants false evidence to confuse us? Of course, some people do seem to (hence the world of so-called Creation "Science"). Read I. Plimer - Telling Lies for God (not sure of publisher).

That comment is not meant to be deragatory to those who believe otherwise - only those who choose to knowingly distort science to present false arguments (I've seen no such intention in this forum). Recognise that "belief" and "faith" are that - not something ultimately based on the scientific method (although most theologians see no conflict between science and faith). Science is huge and complex, so this is written for those non-scientists with an open mind who wish to understand its reasoning. And one must be as objective as possible - science is based on evidence, projections from evidence and Ockam's razor (the explanation that requires to least appeal to special circumstances is more likely to be correct). So we deal with varying degrees of certainty, from things about which we are confident to those which can be supported by multiple alternative hypotheses. Science is not perfect, but it is better than any alternative - and few scientists would argue that it can ever answer some of the most basic questions, such as is there a God, even if they find no need for one. One can map out the rules by which things operate, but never get to the end of the "why's".

8. Survival of tissues - no, on the geological scale (4.6 billion years), most fossils are not original tissue. As the tissue decays the space left is filled by inorganic compounds to preserve the shape. Nevertheless, we certainly have tissue from extinct species (eg mammoths tens of thousands of years old), and some scientists consider that mitochondrial DNA is still preserved after millions of years (but this is not well established, I think, and most in this field seem to doubt this).

Hope that helps - love your forum.

1. We can determine the rate at which plate tectonics operates, and (geologically) it is rapid. The magnetic stripes referred to on the sea floor where new crust is being created, combined with isotopic dating of the rocks which give these stripes, combined with use of the fossils that rest directly on these rocks (which have been independently dated) give a good estmate. The laaterr are the first to die after the rocks have formed, so give a minimum age for the rocks beneath. Typically 4-10 cm per year for most of the plate boundaries. Since the advent of laser and satellite surveying techniques, we can now directly measure the rates (which are in agreement).

2. Many geological processes are rapid. For example, species Homo walked the earth when the place I lived was 20 km from the coast - it is now 150 km from the coast (after allowing for sea-level change - further otherwise).

Have I killed this conversation? Perhaps this computer and I are the only reality. Is life dead? Or am I paying the price of joining in from the other side of the world after you have all gone to sleep? Not keen on monologue, but I'll give it one last try.

Lost the relevant persons names - please excuse.

1. There seem to be a few statements that look a bit factually shaky, but I'm not sure. For example, what is your source for the statement that older rocks overlie younger rocks in the Grand Canyon? Unless something major has happened since my last visit, I'm doubtful. Such things can certainly occur geologically (eg Alps) but I didn't think this was such an example (stable area, not a plate boundary). Where it does occur you could compare it to pushing two sheets of paper towards each other - one rides over the other. If the base of each sheet is older than the top of each sheet, older rocks will now overlie younger rocks.

2. I was surprised to see the statement that Uniformitarianism is the basis of geology. It was for Hutton in the 19th Century and for some time later, but surely not any more? It is not only astrobleme impacts etc which cause catastrophic changes throughout time, but the Earth itself undergoes continuous chemical and biological evolution. For example, one of the most common rocks 3000 My ago is almost unknown since 2300 My ago (komatiite). This could be explained eg by the radioactive decay story (greater heat at shallower depth in the past, different melting). There is plenty to support continuous evolution of the rocks, oceans, atmosphere and life.

3. Fossils can be made in labs? Sure, whack a lab mouse on the head throw him out the window and let a bit of dust blow over him. Eureka - a fossil! Not a very old one though. Seriously though, I'm clearly missing the point being made.

4. One doesn't require astroblemes to get massive regional floods. Most people assume that there is some historical basis for the biblical flood account, but many would question that it was describing a worldwide event. Many societies record massive floods in their myths, but again many people would not even suggest that they all described one flood. The "Earth" that was flooded - was it the world of the Middle East, or was it really the whole world - of the aborigines (sorry fellas, you're copping it tonight), aztecs etc etc. For example, there is plenty of evidence that the Black Sea was a populated plain, which was rapidly flooded by sea pouring in through the narrow straits of Marmora (spelling?) near Istanbul. Buildings lie on the floor of the sea (this is no Atlantis or Mu -type myth - see National Geographic).