PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Facts of Science
       Evolution vs. Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From what I have read, most of you seem to have forgotten our real purpose here on planet Earth.  That is to seek knowledge and the truth, and to never cease doing so.

Most creationists don't agree with scientific theory because they know nothing of it and they have no desire to.  In the first place, you should never argue about something you know nothing about, especially if it also goes against your views.

Evolution has been proven.  (I say this tentatively because nothing can ever be absolutely proven true).  The human brain today is evolving.  Bacteria has been recorded to evolve.  These are facts as plain as can be.

The theory of evolution is complete conjecture and an entirely different thing than evolution itself.  It claims things like complex organisms only deriving from other complex organisms, and that humans evolved from apes.  These are theories that are plausible and completely logical, but still have not been completely proven.

There is a huge difference between scientific assumtion and theistic assumption.  Scientific assumption is based on numbers and created through a strict mathematical or analytical process whereas theistic assumption is based on ambiguous ideas or interpretation of written word (that has been translated numerous times).

Creationism is not science in the least.  It is purely faith-based.  The reason for this is because all of its claims are based on the words of a 1500 year old book, and not concrete evidence.  All scientific theories are based on real-world evidence; things that can be observed by anyone.

Even after this, Creationism has not been proven untrue.  It cannot be.  This is why it is not science, because there is no way to prove or disprove it.

There are many differing levels of belief.  There are those who believe only in evolution, and those who believe only in creationism as the word of god.  Then there are those who believe that God created the universe and allowed evolution to take place, knowing that it would create man.  And many other people who believe some aspects and not others.

One thing i would like to say to Christians is this:  If you take the bible literally, then you are believing in a decieving god.  If the world was created 6000 years ago, then why would he cause the universe to seem as if it were almost 14 billion years old?
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 6:19 PM on September 16, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing i would like to say to Christians is this:  If you take the bible literally, then you are believing in a decieving god.  If the world was created 6000 years ago, then why would he cause the universe to seem as if it were almost 14 billion years old?

Asked and answered.   The Bible said God created a grown, mature man.  He created grown, mature animals.  He created grown, mature plants.  He created stars already mature and giving off light and heat.  He created a mature planet.  Only a moron would think that any of these created things would appear to be new after reading Genesis.  Therefore he only appears to be deceiving stupid people.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:53 AM on September 18, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 04:53 AM on September 18, 2005 :
One thing i would like to say to Christians is this:  If you take the bible literally, then you are believing in a decieving god.  If the world was created 6000 years ago, then why would he cause the universe to seem as if it were almost 14 billion years old?

Asked and answered.   The Bible said God created a grown, mature man.  He created grown, mature animals.  He created grown, mature plants.  He created stars already mature and giving off light and heat.  He created a mature planet.  Only a moron would think that any of these created things would appear to be new after reading Genesis.  Therefore he only appears to be deceiving stupid people.



what is the reason for doing this, other than to decieve "stupid people."  And keep in mind, that the majority of the christian religion is "stupid" enough to think this.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 3:37 PM on September 18, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what is the reason for doing this, other than to decieve "stupid people."  And keep in mind, that the majority of the christian religion is "stupid" enough to think this.


The majority of the Christian religion is stupid enough to think that the earth is billions of years old?  Where do you get that from?  

What is the reason for creating a full grown, mature adult human when there are no other humans around to care for it?  You're not really asking me that are you?

What is the purpose of creating a mature star already giving off heat and sunlight (both necessary for life)?

Gee, I give up.  Why would God have created an already mature world?  

Guess the real question is... why would God think we were stupid enough to wonder why a mature world should appear "infantile"?



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:59 PM on September 18, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:59 AM on September 18, 2005 :
what is the reason for doing this, other than to decieve "stupid people."  And keep in mind, that the majority of the christian religion is "stupid" enough to think this.


The majority of the Christian religion is stupid enough to think that the earth is billions of years old?  Where do you get that from?  

What is the reason for creating a full grown, mature adult human when there are no other humans around to care for it?  You're not really asking me that are you?

What is the purpose of creating a mature star already giving off heat and sunlight (both necessary for life)?

Gee, I give up.  Why would God have created an already mature world?  

Guess the real question is... why would God think we were stupid enough to wonder why a mature world should appear "infantile"?




no, i was asking why god would appear to be decieving people, because the universe seems to be 14 billion years old instead of 6000 years old.  why not just create a universe that appears as old as it really is?

"the majority of the christian religion is "stupid" enough to think this" [this] being that the earth is 6000 years old and their god is not decieving them (which, either way, is completely wrong).

my argument is not about creating a full grown man, from your perspective that would make sense of course.  I am arguing whether christians realize that their beliefs constitute a dishonest god.

and what do you mean by saying that a mature world would appear infantile?  if by infantile you mean 14 billion years, then yes, the universe does appear infantile.

science proves the universe is almost 14 billion years old.  this either proves that the bible is wrong, or that god is purposefully decieving us.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 7:16 PM on September 18, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The contradiction I'm seeing in EMyers' argument is the fact that he claims that a world that's billions of years old is physically impossible--that the evidence suggests otherwise. Yet here he is claiming that the evidence in fact should suggest the universe is billions of years old, or the universe itself simply couldn't function (Which, of course, is true. A star 2,000,000 lightyears away cannot reach the earth in 6000 years).

EMyers, make up your mind. Either:

There is solid, emirical evidence that Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Or...

There is no evidence in favor of a young earth. God deliberately made everything appear as if earth has been around for up to 4.8 billion years.
___

To use this analogy of a grown man, lest you claim there are some things that suggest a young earth, I'll leave you with this question:

Is there anything in an adult human body that, if removed from the rest of the flesh, would suggest a young person?



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:55 PM on September 18, 2005 | IP
HuaMin

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi all,
I even cannot believe why the Christians still insist on so many things about their Creationist beliefs even if there are actually enough and plain truths that supports that Earth is with 4.8 billions years of history. It's impossible, unacceptable and even thoroughly ridiculous to believe that Earth is with just 10,000 or less, years of history. I even think that any arguments on Evolution and Creation are not needed as the former is with full of evidence while the latter is just a Bible that talks in God's words but not in real things. Ridiculously, the Christians even like to criticize heavily on the proofs from the fossils. If they just like to say that all of these are not real, then in their minds, they should say Dinosaurs that appeared in Earth for more than 200 millions of years, are all not real (maybe they just think that these animals are just the toys of God).

I just think that one big problem for the Christians are just they cannot imagine the possibility of an extremely long time for the evolution as no one in the world has ever experienced in their life for more than 200 years, but how about 20,000 years, 2 millions years, or even 200 millions of years. During such an extremely long time, evolution could really become possible as the genes are complicatedly changing from time to time.

(Edited by HuaMin 9/19/2005 at 02:54 AM).


-------
Regards,
HuaMin
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 02:52 AM on September 19, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry to take so long.  Found that I'd been spending so much time on forums and not getting much else done that I had to relegate myself to weekends (and this one will be short as I'm busy)....

Dear Roy,
  To put it in an easier to digest size... imagine a mature human, a mature dog, a mature fruit fly, and a mature oak tree.   All would appear to be of a different age.  Throw in what a mature earth, sun, solar system, moon, etc. would look like.  Each item would not necessarily be "mature" at the same time.  Which segues into my next point....

Dear Entwicke,
  Since Christians are aware that the earth appears to be a certain age, what is the point of trying to disprove it's age....?  Christians are commanded to "go and preach to all nations".  We have a responsibilty to lead the lost.  With most agnostics and/or members of other religions this is as easy as studying the Bible with them.  Obviously some people will refuse to admit error even if it is spelled out for them, but we must try.  Atheistic evolutionists on the other hand will not believe what the Bible says until it is proven to be true.  The point of showing the discrepancies to an evolutionist is one part in opening up their mind to other possibilities.  M-51 (Whirlpool galaxy) for instance has disproven the so called "density wave" theory that was supposed to have allowed scientists to ignore the "winding up dilemma" that has plagued their attempts to rectify the absolute oldest possible age for spiral galaxies with the age they come up with for the earth.  Coupling that with the archaeological (scholars had argued for centuries that the Hittites never existed, until they uncovered their histories), scientific (Aristotle "discovered" the "wator vapor cycle" 1650 years after it was recorded in Job), historical (nearly all mentioned people and peoples in the Bible have been found in secular histories {including Jesus} and none have been disproved), and prophetical (for instance the prophecy of Daniel compared with the history of Ptolemy and Antiochus) proof of it's accuracy.  Christians are not so foolish as to believe that one point or another will win over the atheist (who, if he comes to believe in God, will have to repent of his carnal life) so we try to hand them the body of evidence.  The body of evidence is staggering.  As mathematical physicist Robert Griffiths once said "If we need an atheist for a debate, we head over the philosophy department.  The physcics department isn't much use."  

Sincerely,
  Edward Myers

P.S. In light of Genesis 2:7 I now have to agree that man "evolved" from dirt.  
P.P.S.  In light of Genesis 2:2 there is no such thing as a Christian evolutionist.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:29 PM on September 23, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obviously some people will refuse to admit error even if it is spelled out for them, but we must try.  Atheistic evolutionists on the other hand will not believe what the Bible says until it is proven to be true.


I'm Agnostic. With that silly comment out of the way...

Christians are not so foolish as to believe that one point or another will win over the atheist (who, if he comes to believe in God, will have to repent of his carnal life) so we try to hand them the body of evidence.


That's right, EMyers. Of course, if there's some other way to draw scientific conclusions...

The body of evidence is staggering.  As mathematical physicist Robert Griffiths once said "If we need an atheist for a debate, we head over the philosophy department.  The physcics department isn't much use."  


Quite a staggering list. You've got five PRATTs.











Five.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:15 PM on September 23, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:29 PM on September 23, 2005 :
Sorry to take so long.  Found that I'd been spending so much time on forums and not getting much else done that I had to relegate myself to weekends (and this one will be short as I'm busy)....

Dear Roy,
  To put it in an easier to digest size... imagine a mature human, a mature dog, a mature fruit fly, and a mature oak tree.   All would appear to be of a different age.  Throw in what a mature earth, sun, solar system, moon, etc. would look like.  Each item would not necessarily be "mature" at the same time.  Which segues into my next point....
you still make no sense.

Quote from EMyers at 5:29 PM on September 23, 2005 :Dear Entwicke,
  Since Christians are aware that the earth appears to be a certain age, what is the point of trying to disprove it's age....?  Christians are commanded to "go and preach to all nations".  We have a responsibilty to lead the lost.  With most agnostics and/or members of other religions this is as easy as studying the Bible with them.  Obviously some people will refuse to admit error even if it is spelled out for them, but we must try.  Atheistic evolutionists on the other hand will not believe what the Bible says until it is proven to be true.  The point of showing the discrepancies to an evolutionist is one part in opening up their mind to other possibilities.  M-51 (Whirlpool galaxy) for instance has disproven the so called "density wave" theory that was supposed to have allowed scientists to ignore the "winding up dilemma" that has plagued their attempts to rectify the absolute oldest possible age for spiral galaxies with the age they come up with for the earth.  Coupling that with the archaeological (scholars had argued for centuries that the Hittites never existed, until they uncovered their histories), scientific (Aristotle "discovered" the "wator vapor cycle" 1650 years after it was recorded in Job), historical (nearly all mentioned people and peoples in the Bible have been found in secular histories {including Jesus} and none have been disproved), and prophetical (for instance the prophecy of Daniel compared with the history of Ptolemy and Antiochus) proof of it's accuracy.  Christians are not so foolish as to believe that one point or another will win over the atheist (who, if he comes to believe in God, will have to repent of his carnal life) so we try to hand them the body of evidence.  The body of evidence is staggering.


other than the word of man, i'd like to see evidence of any spiritual involvement with the creation of the earth.

obviously you refuse to admit the error of your religion.  the word of man is so unreliable, especially in such a more primitive age.  even now, there is so much bias in historical writing, how can you expect any less 2000 years ago.  you just can't admit the possibility of being wrong.

scientists admit the possibility of being wrong all the time.  its the scientific method, wrong until proven right.

for the record, i am agnostic.  i think that ultimately disbelieving in a god's existance is just as ignorant as believing that a god must exist.  you think that evolutionists are close-minded?  realize this; most of the people who believe in the evolution of all life on this planet are sensible people who don't even view it as faith-based.  it is just fact, as logical as can be.  their eyes cannot be opened unless more irrefutable fact is available to show otherwise.

ah the 'density wave'.  you pick the most new and obscure science you could to try to disprove evolution.  how creationist of you.  oh no you wouldn't throw in some of that irrefutable evidence for the existance of god and his conneciton to jesus would you?  by the way, where is that?

and for the rest of your ramblings; history is such a jumble of different cultures and records.  and each culture has its own viewpoint.  anthropologists and historians have such a hard time trying to put things together from that.  they might be wrong, but as soon as they can make it right, they will.  i don't see creationists doing that.

Quote from EMyers at 5:29 PM on September 23, 2005 :As mathematical physicist Robert Griffiths once said "If we need an atheist for a debate, we head over the philosophy department.  The physcics department isn't much use."  

Sincerely,
  Edward Myers

P.S. In light of Genesis 2:7 I now have to agree that man "evolved" from dirt.  
P.P.S.  In light of Genesis 2:2 there is no such thing as a Christian evolutionist.


many mathematical physicists are christian.  einstein was christian.  but at least he had a rational interpretation of the bible.  physicists work mainly in math, and not realistic science.  it is purely theoretical science.  and you, as a creationist, should be the one descriminating against theoretical science, unless i have the stereotype wrong.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 01:40 AM on September 24, 2005 | IP
Foxtrot12

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, Einstein was Jewish. He went to my old synagogue ^.^, Adath (the one in Philadelphia, that is. It moved over near Princeton, now)....
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 01:44 AM on September 24, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Asked and answered.   The Bible said God created a grown, mature man.  He created grown, mature animals.  He created grown, mature plants.  He created stars already mature and giving off light and heat.  He created a mature planet.  Only a moron would think that any of these created things would appear to be new after reading Genesis.  Therefore he only appears to be deceiving stupid people.

There's a big problem with this interpritation. Our universe shows activity of billions of years not just the age of billions of years. For example we have signs of asteroid impacts on bodies such as the planets and moons which have occured over a wide timeframe. This would be the equivilant of  God producing a mature Adam with childhood memories and physical signs of activity such as scars from falling over without him actually experiencing them. This would be a deception.

(Edited by mabfynhad 9/24/2005 at 02:56 AM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 02:55 AM on September 24, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear Entwicke

Quite a staggering list. You've got five PRATTs

A) I'm assuming then that you wish me to post on this forum the information that takes hundreds and hundreds of pages in a book.  Who is going to read that?

B) I'm assuming that you have definitive proof (since you use the term PRATT) that the histories of the Hittites were NOT found; that the Bible does not contain a succint description of the water vapor cycle in Eccle. 1:7; that you have found historically innacurate people and places in the Bible; that the history of Antiochus is not a parallel of the prophecy of Daniel; and that the Whirlpool Galaxy is not a spiral galaxy, contrary to observation.  I find this interesting.

Dear Roy

you pick the most new and obscure science you could to try to disprove evolution

If I use old science, I'm out-of-date.  If I use new science, I'm, well, I'm not sure what problem you seem to be implying.  Ok, what is the exact age of a discovery that is allowable for reference?  3 year, 9 monts, 27 days?  I'd really like to know.

Dear Mabfynhad,

b]Our universe shows activity of billions of years not just the age of billions of years. For example we have signs of asteroid impacts on bodies such as the planets and moons which have occured over a wide timeframe.[/b]

And how do geologists determine the age of these craters?  Independant research of the crater?  Or do they compare their findings against the "age" they find for other rocks?  Let's look at a recent study (The Aug. 23, 2002 study, “An Archean Impact Layer from the Pilbara and Kaapvaal Cratons,” can be obtained from Science magazine)...

"To pinpoint when the huge meteorite collided with Earth, Lowe and his colleagues performed highly sensitive geochemical
analyses of rock samples collected from two ancient formations well known to geologists: South Africa's Barberton greenstone belt and Australia's Pilbara block."

And we already know how geologists determine the age of those places and have covered how these fall into a creationist view of the world.  So all meteorite impacts do is argue the same point instead of presenting new evidence.

[/b]many mathematical physicists are christian[b]

Well, don't want to be accused of quoting physicists.  How about...

"Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang... and you ask me 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that." - Kai Nielson (Metaphilosophist and renowned atheist)

"I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation.  Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith.  If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour (Synthetic Organic Chemist)

Grace and peace,
  Edward Myers


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:11 PM on October 2, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 09:11 AM on October 2, 2005 :Dear Roy

you pick the most new and obscure science you could to try to disprove evolution

If I use old science, I'm out-of-date.  If I use new science, I'm, well, I'm not sure what problem you seem to be implying.  Ok, what is the exact age of a discovery that is allowable for reference?  3 year, 9 monts, 27 days?  I'd really like to know.


the point is that that theory had been disproven.  so what?  theories are disproven all the time, thats the point of the scientific method.  what does it really have to do with proving the bible?  can you show me any real evidence for creationism?

Quote from EMyers at 09:11 AM on October 2, 2005 :And how do geologists determine the age of these craters?  Independant research of the crater?  Or do they compare their findings against the "age" they find for other rocks?  Let's look at a recent study (The Aug. 23, 2002 study, “An Archean Impact Layer from the Pilbara and Kaapvaal Cratons,” can be obtained from Science magazine)...

"To pinpoint when the huge meteorite collided with Earth, Lowe and his colleagues performed highly sensitive geochemical
analyses of rock samples collected from two ancient formations well known to geologists: South Africa's Barberton greenstone belt and Australia's Pilbara block."

And we already know how geologists determine the age of those places and have covered how these fall into a creationist view of the world.  So all meteorite impacts do is argue the same point instead of presenting new evidence.


what is your point?  geologists don't compare the ages the way you think they do.  they compare how the chemicals decay, therefore creating an accurate scale by which to measure the age of those same chemicals in other rocks.  they find the same chemicals in rocks in africa as those on the moon, and compare the properties of each, thereby accurately finding the age of the moon rock.  there is no 'point' they are arguing for, it is just solid data.

Quote from EMyers at 09:11 AM on October 2, 2005 :Well, don't want to be accused of quoting physicists.  How about...

"Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang... and you ask me 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that." - Kai Nielson (Metaphilosophist and renowned atheist)

"I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation.  Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith.  If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour (Synthetic Organic Chemist)

those are called opinions.  ask james tour what he thinks his god is like.

i believe in god, though nothing like the one your beliefs claim exists.  i believe in a god based on logic and physics.  this god has no gender, has no consciousness, has no omnipotence, yet can do anything.  this god has no purpose, has no desire or motive.  but this god rules over all things because it is all things.  this god is the universe and we are all part of it.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 6:06 PM on October 2, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EMyers says:
M-51 (Whirlpool galaxy) for instance has disproven the so called "density wave" theory that was supposed to have allowed scientists to ignore the "winding up dilemma" that has plagued their attempts to rectify the absolute oldest possible age for spiral galaxies with the age they come up with for the earth.

How has M-51 disproven density wave theory?
Here's what I've found:
DensityWave
"Density Wave theory.
This is the preferred model for grand design spirals. The spiral arms in this model are over dense regions of the disk which move round at a different speed to the stars themselves. Stars thus move in and out of the spiral arm (which fits in nicely with ideas of there being more star formation in the arms since many galaxies are observed to have more new stars in the place where the arm should just have moved through). How these density waves are set up is unclear, but it may have to do with interactions (many grand design spirals have smaller companions - just like M51). Once they are set up they can last for a long enough time to be consistent with the number of spiral galaxies we see."

And from here:
M-51
"The scientists analyzed radio emission from Carbon Monoxide (CO) molecules in giant gas clouds along M51's spiral arms. Using telescopes at Caltech's Owens Valley Radio Observatory and the 30-meter radio telescope of IRAM, they were able to determine the temperatures and amounts of turbulence within the clouds. Their results provide strong support for a theory that "density waves" explain how spiral arms can persist in a galaxy without winding themselves so tightly that, in effect, they disappear.
The density-wave theory, proposed by Frank Shu and C.C. Lin in 1964, says that a galaxy's spiral pattern is a wave of higher density, or compression, that revolves around the galaxy at a speed different from that of the galaxy's gas and stars. Schinnerer and her colleagues studied a region in one of M51's spiral arms that presumably has just overtaken and passed through the density wave.
Their data indicate that gas on the trailing edge of the spiral arm, which has most recently passed through the density wave, is both warmer and more turbulent than gas in the forward edge of the arm, which would have passed through the density wave longer ago.
This is what we would expect from the density-wave theory," Schinnerer said. "The gas that passed through the density wave earlier has had time to cool and lose the turbulence caused by the passage," she added.
"Our results show, for the first time, how the density wave operates on a cloud-cloud scale, and how it promotes and prevents star formation in spiral arms," Aalto said."

So no, observations of M-51 have NOT disproven density wave theory, just the opposite, data from M-51 supports density wave theory.








 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:20 AM on October 3, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear Don,

”Some mechanism must be continually farming them in the galaxy“, says Leo Blitz (Astronomy professor), but he admits that the mechanisms thus far suggested—”density waves“, magnetic effects, etc.—are not convincing.

and from Cornell's website...

"How these density waves are set up is unclear, but it may have to do with interactions (many grand design spirals have smaller companions - just like M51). Once they are set up they can last for a long enough time to be consistent with the number of spiral galaxies we see."

So let's look at the scientific "facts"...
What causes a density wave?  We're not sure.
Why do we think there are density wave?  We don't like the other options.
What proof do we have?  Well, this galaxy over here looks like what we think one would look like if it had one.
Have you observed any density waves?  Um, could you define observed?
Why do density waves still exist "billions" of years later?  Um, could you repeat the question?
Why haven't these clouds of gas either become stars if the gravity is high enough, or simply dissipated if it is not?  Oops, time for lunch.

This concludes this class on Conjecture 101.

See you next week.

Sincerely,
  Edward Myers


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:10 AM on October 3, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 03:10 AM on October 3, 2005 :
Dear Don,

”Some mechanism must be continually farming them in the galaxy“, says Leo Blitz (Astronomy professor), but he admits that the mechanisms thus far suggested—”density waves“, magnetic effects, etc.—are not convincing.

and from Cornell's website...

"How these density waves are set up is unclear, but it may have to do with interactions (many grand design spirals have smaller companions - just like M51). Once they are set up they can last for a long enough time to be consistent with the number of spiral galaxies we see."

So let's look at the scientific "facts"...
What causes a density wave?  We're not sure.
Why do we think there are density wave?  We don't like the other options.
What proof do we have?  Well, this galaxy over here looks like what we think one would look like if it had one.
Have you observed any density waves?  Um, could you define observed?
Why do density waves still exist "billions" of years later?  Um, could you repeat the question?
Why haven't these clouds of gas either become stars if the gravity is high enough, or simply dissipated if it is not?  Oops, time for lunch.

This concludes this class on Conjecture 101.

See you next week.

Sincerely,
  Edward Myers



so this disproves the scientific method how? this proves creationism how? your point is what? all i'm seeing is you whining about how science doesnt have the answer to everything.  who says it does?  who says it ever will?  but it will have a lot more answers than the bible will.

where is your hard evidence that supports creationism, you're still doing exactly what i expected you to do.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 11:46 AM on October 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This concludes this class on Conjecture
101.


Whoa.  You said:
"M-51 (Whirlpool galaxy) for instance has disproven the so called "density wave" theory that was supposed to have allowed scientists to ignore the "winding up dilemma" that has plagued their attempts to rectify the absolute oldest possible age for spiral galaxies with the age they come up with for the earth."

M-51 has NOT disprovn the density wave theory, current observations of M-51 support it.
Winding up of spiral galaxies does NOT present a problem for an old universe.  All data observed gives ages of different spiral galaxy formation of 8 billion to 4 billion years ago.  From here:
SpiralGalaxyAge
"Most present-day large galaxies are spirals, presenting a disc surrounding a central bulge. Famous examples are our own Milky Way or the Andromeda Galaxy. When and how did these spiral galaxies form? Why do a great majority of them present a massive central bulge?
An international team of astronomers [1] presents new convincing answers to these fundamental questions. For this, they rely on an extensive dataset of observations of galaxies taken with several space- and ground-based telescopes. In particular, they used over a two-year period, several instruments on ESO's Very Large Telescope.
Among others, their observations reveal that roughly half of the present-day stars were formed in the period between 8,000 million and 4,000 million years ago, mostly in episodic burst of intense star formation occurring in Luminous Infrared Galaxies."

So all the data shows us spiral galaxies formed billions of years ago.  Do we completely understand how they formed?  No.
Do we understand what a denstiy wave is?  No.  Do we have evidence that density waves exist?  Yes, as I posted above,  the astronomers Eva Schinnerer, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Socorro, NM,
Axel Weiss of the Institute for Millimeter Radio Astronomy (IRAM) in Spain, Susanne Aalto of the Onsala Space Observatory in Sweden, and Nick Scoville of Caltech have observed:
"...that gas on the trailing edge of the spiral arm, which has most recently passed through the density wave, is both warmer and more turbulent than gas in the forward edge of the arm, which would have passed through the density wave longer ago.
This is what we would expect from the density-wave theory," Schinnerer said. "The gas that passed through the density wave earlier has had time to cool and lose the turbulence caused by the passage," she added."

We have established the age of many of the spiral galaxies we have observed and it does not fit in with creationism.  We are attempting to explain the mechanisms of their formation.
Yeah, we have a long way to go, but density wave theory fits many of these observations.
The point is, there is no "winding up dilema" that has disproven density wave theory, or the established ages of spiral galaxies, as you claim.  

If I use old science, I'm out-of-date.  If I use new science, I'm, well, I'm not sure what problem you seem to be implying.

Your problem isn't using old science or new science, it's using falsified  science as opposed to unfalsified science.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:12 PM on October 3, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Using direct latin, of wich we can draw actual scientific definitions from, that comes out as Pseudoscience, Demon. Always use it over Falsified, because it's both correct, it sounds way cooler, and it makes you look like you have a wide vocabulary. Pseudo... what a great synonym for false.


And, lastly:

Yes, Edward. PRATTs. Five.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/3/2005 at 10:49 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:45 PM on October 3, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear Entwicke...

Don has made an argument for spiral galaxies: "This is what we would expect from the density-wave theory".  Although I wonder what he'd think if I posted some supposition of mine with the phrase "This is what I would expect...".

Still waiting for your evidence against the discovery of Hittite history; argument that Eccles1:7 does NOT describe the water vapor cycle; That Antiochus' history does NOT, in any way, shape, or form run parallel to the prophecy in Daniel; and that history has now proven that the people and cities of the Bible do NOT exist.  You say they are PRATTs, I'm sure you can just cut and paste.

God's wisdom upon you,
  Edward Myers

P.S.  Pantheism?   Really?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:59 AM on October 4, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Using direct latin, of wich we can draw actual scientific definitions from, that comes out as Pseudoscience, Demon.

How is it pseudoscience?  The age of spiral galaxies has been determined by multiple means.  How they form is under investigation.
We see evidence for density wave theory, an explaination that has not been falsified.  As we observe new data, as our detection equipment becomes even more sophisticated, the theory will either become stronger, change to accomodate new observations or will be falsified.  This is the scienctific method, explain to us why you say it's pseudoscience.
In the mean time, please comment on your orignal claim, M-51 does not disprove the density wave theory, just the opposite and the "winding up" problem does NOT support a young universe.  You make the claim, show us the evidence that supports this claim.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:14 AM on October 4, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.(1)

Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called "density waves."(1) The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.(2)

1. Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413.

2. D. Zaritsky et al, Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10.




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:59 AM on October 4, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 03:59 AM on October 4, 2005 :
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.(1)

Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called "density waves."(1) The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.(2)

1. Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413.

2. D. Zaritsky et al, Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10.





and you use this theory as your only evidence that creationism is valid and evolution is not?

time and time again science has created theories to explain the evident state of the universe.  these theories, if wrong, are thrown out or modified to better fit the model, if right, then they stay and become laws.  just because we don't have a solid theory now (from what i've read the density theory in general is plausible, but i don't know much about physics) doesn't mean we won't ever have a solid theory.  it is ongoing science.  disproving a theory that attempts to explain something we have never before dealt with is normal.  it happens all the time.  scientists are actually trying to disprove this theory (and all others) in an attempt to explain the universe better.  in no way does it falsify evolution or the overall scientific view of the universe.  all evidence points to a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, an earth that is 4.5 billion years old, and a humanity that is 70,000 years old.

the idea that the stars and gases in the galaxy would ball up is a theory just as much as the density wave is a theory.

(Edited by RoyLennigan 10/4/2005 at 12:01 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 11:54 AM on October 4, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear Roy,
 
and you use this theory as your only evidence that creationism is valid and evolution is not?


No.  The problem seems to be that if I give a list of twenty to twenty-five objections, people yell "PRATT" or "HOGWASH" or whatever and then run away.  When people start making specific points against something and I answer those specific points, then I get "Is that your only objection?!?".  Apparently, it will not matter what evidence is given or how it is presented.  I make a point and everyone yells "DEBUNKED".  I argue another point and everyone yells "WELL, THAT'S NOT OUR ONLY THEORY,  I'M SURE WE'LL COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE."  I'm beginning to think we are not all playing by the same rules.  When I show corroborative evidence of something, I get back "THAT PROVES NOTHING".  When someone else offers corroborative evidence of something all I keep hearing is "SEE, THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO THIS" or "WE CAN DETERMINE FROM THIS OTHER EVIDENCE", yet the creationist viewpoint is not allowed the same leeway.  One begins to think that people aren't here to further knowledge and understanding, but just to argue.  Perhaps we need some forum rules stating just what evidence is allowed.  I have a feeling if we limit ourselves to "empirical evidence" and are not allowed to make rational, logical application of all evidence, then there won't be much talk from either side.  Evolutionists apparently want us to provide physical proof that God created the world (even though none of us were alive to see it) but want to be able to provide deductive evidence for their side of the argument.  I suppose that if I say I want someone to show me actual macro-evolution in action I will be accused of being obstinate and stubborn, but the evolutionists keep saying that they won't believe in Creation until someone sits God incarnate in front of them (and I'm sure they'll be doubtful even then).  Is this forum to be an intellectual debate or a "MY THEORY IS BIGGER THAN YOUR THEORY" after-school at the playground brawl?  I'm just curious.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:07 PM on October 4, 2005 | IP
highping

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EMyers:

From the abstract of the Nature article you (or rather, your sources) cite:

We suggest that a combination of several mechanisms, such as the interaction of M51 with the neighbouring galaxy NGC5195, forcing by the central 'bar', or distortions from density waves, is required to generate the observed structure.

In other words, the authors of this paper that supposedly "disproves" density wave theory are saying that the "very detailed spiral structure" is probably a combined effect of other forces, not that density wave theory is false.  In fact, they mention density waves as one of the other forces!
I have not yet read the entire article; however, it is my suspicion -- based on the abstract -- that the source from which you got that information has misrepresented the article's message...  It would appear that you have simply lifted this piece from ICR, or any of the dozens of other places where their list of a "dozen natural phenomena" that (supposedly) conflict with an old universe has been copied.  I, for one, certainly don't blindly trust their interpretations of scientific papers.
The reviewing and refining of scientific theories is nothing new, nor does it discredit a theory.  That's how science works.  You may know this, but your source apparently thinks that the need to "fine tune" a theory works against it.  If findings "challenge" a theory such that a theory is altered but not thrown out, the theory isn't disproven.  In no way does this article appear to disprove the existence of density waves.

Perhaps you should try again to back up your claim about M51 and density waves.  I'm sure not convinced.  Maybe you could even find something more recent, since our observations techniques and abilities have improved immensely since 1993.


-------
Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Biochemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds that crawl.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 4:35 PM on October 4, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:07 AM on October 4, 2005 :
Dear Roy,
 
and you use this theory as your only evidence that creationism is valid and evolution is not?


No.  The problem seems to be that if I give a list of twenty to twenty-five objections, people yell "PRATT" or "HOGWASH" or whatever and then run away.  When people start making specific points against something and I answer those specific points, then I get "Is that your only objection?!?".  Apparently, it will not matter what evidence is given or how it is presented.  I make a point and everyone yells "DEBUNKED".  I argue another point and everyone yells "WELL, THAT'S NOT OUR ONLY THEORY,  I'M SURE WE'LL COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE."  I'm beginning to think we are not all playing by the same rules.  When I show corroborative evidence of something, I get back "THAT PROVES NOTHING".  When someone else offers corroborative evidence of something all I keep hearing is "SEE, THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO THIS" or "WE CAN DETERMINE FROM THIS OTHER EVIDENCE", yet the creationist viewpoint is not allowed the same leeway.  One begins to think that people aren't here to further knowledge and understanding, but just to argue.  Perhaps we need some forum rules stating just what evidence is allowed.  I have a feeling if we limit ourselves to "empirical evidence" and are not allowed to make rational, logical application of all evidence, then there won't be much talk from either side.  Evolutionists apparently want us to provide physical proof that God created the world (even though none of us were alive to see it) but want to be able to provide deductive evidence for their side of the argument.  I suppose that if I say I want someone to show me actual macro-evolution in action I will be accused of being obstinate and stubborn, but the evolutionists keep saying that they won't believe in Creation until someone sits God incarnate in front of them (and I'm sure they'll be doubtful even then).  Is this forum to be an intellectual debate or a "MY THEORY IS BIGGER THAN YOUR THEORY" after-school at the playground brawl?  I'm just curious.



i agree with you on some of those points.  yes, people will be people no matter what their beliefs and there are just as many scientists who don't even listen to other arguments as there are theists.

but the problem with evidence that creationists give for their beliefs, such as yours, is that it is not meant for proof of their beliefs, but rather as disproof of scientific assertions.

take your theory that galaxies should crumple up due to their high velocities in a period of time shorter than a billion years.  logical thinking based on known theories leads one to believe that this is true.  and yet it cannot be simply because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that is contrary to this.  so what does that mean?  it means that some aspect of a theory (or maybe the entire theory) that we used to rationalize this is wrong and needs to be changed.

theories are developed to explain aspects of the world around us.  we cannot develop a theory and then use it to explain something arbitrarily.  science should only be used with direct evidence and facts.  theories are just generalizations of this evidence.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:50 PM on October 4, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear Roy,
  Thank you.  I have to say that your last post was the most polite, erudite, non-combative response that I have received since I started posting on this site.  

Sincerely,
  Edward Myers

P.S. Since tone of voice can not be reproduced in text, let it be known that my above response was not sarcastic in any way.  I really do appreciate Roy's handling of his answer.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:58 PM on October 4, 2005 | IP
highping

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EMyers:

I make a point and everyone yells "DEBUNKED".
Isn't this an appropriate response when your point has been debunked?  If you want to explain why a refutation is invalid, then go ahead.  

I suppose that if I say I want someone to show me actual macro-evolution in action I will be accused of being obstinate and stubborn...
No.. if you say this, you'll probably be accused of not understanding what macroevolution is.  What exactly is it you'd be wanting to see?


-------
Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Biochemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds that crawl.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 6:08 PM on October 4, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 12:58 PM on October 4, 2005 :
Dear Roy,
  Thank you.  I have to say that your last post was the most polite, erudite, non-combative response that I have received since I started posting on this site.  

Sincerely,
  Edward Myers

P.S. Since tone of voice can not be reproduced in text, let it be known that my above response was not sarcastic in any way.  I really do appreciate Roy's handling of his answer.


you are welcome, i try not to be disrespectful.  a lot more gets done when people arent wasting time throwing insults around at each other.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 6:52 PM on October 4, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called "density waves."(1) The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.(2)

Here's my problem with your response, I don't see where observations from the Hubble space telescope have called into serious question denstiy wave theory.  The source where you take this quote from has a date of
1993,  the latest data I quoted from the astronomers Schinnerer, Weiss, Aalto and Scoville is from 2004.  New data is supporting density wave theory, we have direct evidence of a density wave in M-51.  
We have determined the ages of many spiral galaxies by multiple means, and they are billions of years old.  It's becoming clear that there is no discrepency between the age of these galaxies and how they formed and how they behave, their ages have been established, the problem now is investigating the complex celestial mechanics that govern them.  Density wave theory is a big first step.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:24 AM on October 5, 2005 | IP
Huxley

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"From what I have read, most of you seem to have forgotten our real purpose here on planet Earth.  That is to seek knowledge and the truth, and to never cease doing so."

A really nice notion I must admit.  We have no 'real purpose' because we are not here as as a result of any purposeful effort.  We are here like all DNA carrying entities - to pass on the DNA.

To seek knowledge and learn the truth is indeed wonderful and admirable.  It is however the bye product of an enquiring mind, one that is capable of considering the universe in which it is housed.  On the human scale, learning is one of the central,  profoundly exciting things we can do.  To suggest it is our purpose is specious.  It is an anthropormorphic view and more a product of our bloated sense of place in the Universe.

It is more humbling and sobering to consider that the path to our ability to consider is so fraught with happenstance as to probably never occur again on Earth.  It is indeed wonderful to learn and discover; it is not our ' purpose' in any planned sense.  And for that the notion is all the more majestic.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 10:01 AM on November 2, 2005 | IP
paintballer926

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how has evolution been proven true, are you talking about the mounds of evidence supporting it, obviously you have not done your homewor, there is plenty of evidence that proves creationism, evolution is based a bed of lies and deceit
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 5:46 PM on December 4, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how has evolution been proven true, are you talking about the mounds of evidence supporting it, obviously you have not done your homewor, there is plenty of evidence that proves creationism, evolution is based a bed of lies and deceit


A typical incensed regurgitation of lastnight's family dinner discussion.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:05 PM on December 4, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.