Good news: More Americans believe in the devil than in evolution
posted at 2:00 pm on December 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Via the new Harris Poll, a long-distance dedication to my pal CJ, the creationist-slayer. Key data points are in yellow. I’m not sure how to explain Catholics’ greater credulity on matters as diverse as evolution, ghosts, and UFOs, but your theories are welcome. As for the top line, we already have theistic atheists. Why shouldn’t we have atheistic theists, too?
One other intriguing data point at the link: More Americans believe the Old Testament is the word of God (55 percent) than the New Testament (54 percent). Presumably the former attracted Jewish votes that the latter didn’t, but that margin should have been more than offset by a subset of Christians — like, say, George Bush — who don’t regard the OT as literally true but surely take the gospels at face value. Here’s David Brody of CBN picking up on that on CNN yesterday. Exit quotation: “Well, hello! It’s the Holy Bible!”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »
You’re missing something critically important. The seeds already contains information (DNA) in them which determines how they are to grow. You still have to have intelligence to get things started. Has to be a Designer. I mean for a baby to grow y’know, 7-8 pounds to 200 pounds adult, it takes alot of input of food and it’s not just anything; you just don’t pour sand and water in there. It has to be a complex design food, and has to be used by an extremely complex digestive system, and it’s all following a complex code called DNA. This is all a matter of intelligence. This… these things just don’t happen automatically. And again, you talk about the sun adding energy to the earth. I agree. But, you overlook the fact that sun is destructive. The sun’s energy will destroy the roof on your house. If you don’t fix it it will destroy your entire house. If nobody was allowed to touch the highway system in California. Nobody touch it. For two hundered years. Much of it you would not be able to find. And most of it you wouldn’t be able to drive on in less than a hundred years. To say that the sun can shine on the earth and turn a rock to a human in 4.6 billion years is ludicrous. Now if you wanna believe that that’s perfectly fine. I don’t care whatchyou believe okay …but don’t call it science.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 7:48 PM
It has the same thing embryos have, or seeds (to steal the better example): it has DNA! That’s the mechanism!
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 7:50 PM
And both are examples of entropy decreasing on the local scale.
The argument I am defending is that entropy can decrease on local scales as long as net entropy in a closed system is increasing, and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not make biological evolution impossible. Crystals are a non-living example, as is the formation of molecules from atoms.
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Yes, you’re very loyal to people. You just have a unique definition of loyalty.
Esthier on December 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Where did the DNA come from?
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 7:54 PM
No, I don’t get it. I know why a seed grows and I can identify the energy source and the information source that makes it grow and develop. I can do the same with the Ford Pinto. I can also do the same with the crystals you were talking about. Now you say that evolution uses “something” that makes it happen, what is it? Is it sunlight? Incomming astroids? What?
Actually evolution has exactly ONE and ONLY ONE source to drive it. I know what it is, do you?
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM
It seems that the mystery of life has been solved. It would appear that God created DNA, then allowed nature to take its course from there.
Sounds logical – NOT!
OldEnglish on December 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Join our side, Esthier. We are waiting for you. Our door is always open. “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Romans 8:6
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 7:59 PM
We don’t know (yet).
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM
I thought Esthier was a Christian. I guess I missed something.
Rose on December 14, 2008 at 8:02 PM
The ecosystem of any region is not random. It is very rigidly constructed where plants and animals interact with their environment in concert with one another. It will take eons for any ecosystem to develope this way. Animals and plants are mutually beneficial and dependent. If you want to screw up the orderly nature of an ecosystem, screw around with it. Artificailly introduce a foreign plant or animal and watch the order disappear. Plant kudzu on the side of a ridge and watch the other plants die. Four hundred years from now, the obvious evidence of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens will have disappeared. The cycle in the region has already restarted.
Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 8:02 PM
You’re missing the fact that I’m simply saying that entropy can decrease on local scales without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Let’s focus on that point and see if we can agree before moving on to the broader question of biological evolution.
Since the biological example I gave seems to have distracted you from the simple point I was trying to make, let me refer again to a non-biological example I introduced above. If entropy can never decrease at local scales, how do you explain the formation of crystals?
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Did you just have an epiphany? Actually you are getting closer. Evolution does not have DNA, living things do. What evolution has is “mutations” within DNA, and that’s all.
Mutations are the sole source of “raw information” to drive macro-evolution. It doesn’t even have “natural selection” as a “source” of information because “natural selection” only “selects” that information that is ALREADY present.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 8:12 PM
I just wanted to say that I admire your efforts. I didn’t have the stamina for this thread.
Y-not on December 14, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Thanks! It’s a pretty foolish waste of energy on my part actually.
It’s time for me to be off to work now.
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 8:22 PM
I use the exclamation points to keep me from swearing at you.
How can you say evolution doesn’t have DNA? The whole reason evolution happens is because DNA undergoes generational change as it self-replicates. Even you have to admit that mutations, transcription errors, genetic drift, etc actually happen. That’s the property of DNA that drives evolution. The information is already present, yes. In the laws of the universe. If you think God created those laws, more power to you. If you think those laws proscribe evolution, I’ll just say you must not think much of God’s ability to create.
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM
You are something else, you know that. That is NOT what you were arguing before. I originally said,
To which you responded to me,
Now you’re trying to change the subject because you have been shown to be wrong. As I said, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to open systems as well. Adding raw energy from the sun to a lifeless barren planet cannot generate complex information in living things. If you lie out in the sun for too long you’ll find out it’s not good for you. You’ll get terrible sunburns, and skin cancer. So they tell you don’t do that. To say that the sun can shine on the earth and turn a rock to a human in 4.6 billion years is ludicrous. The sun would destroy anything before it got started. So even in open systems, you need machinery (intelligence) already being in place. Has to be a Designer involved. Thank you.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 8:30 PM
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM
But you admit that mutations, transcription errors, genetic drift etc. are the only source of new information for evolution…. correct?
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Have you confused me with someone else, possibly? When did I do that?
We are pleasantly in agreement here. For some strange reason, we can’t seem to get away from the whole, “In the beginning, God said, “Let there be light” thing.
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Do you know that this same DNA code (you think made itself) is more complex than all the computer programs ever written by man combined? Have you ever considered God could be involved?
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 8:44 PM
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” Job 38:4
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Thanks for the info, I knew those types of articles must exist somewhere but I wasn’t finding them. Those are now duly bookmarked.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 9:08 PM
The evolutionist asks, “WHERE IS EVIDENCE FOR CREATION?”
Answer: “God hath SHEWED (SHOWED) IT UNTO THEM. For the invisible things of him (GOD) from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things THAT ARE MADE, …so that they (meaning people) are WITHOUT EXCUSE: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise (it’s interesting that science now calls human beings, ‘Homo sapiens sapiens,’ meaning ‘wise wise man’), they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things (the evolution theory). Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (the earth) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” Romans 1:19-25
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 9:13 PM
We help each other.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 9:14 PM
I missed this as I was either reading, trying to put together a message, or away from my desk. Thank you Maxx. And I agree with you.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 9:33 PM
What you have just quoted, as with all of your religious quotes, comes from a book written by unidentified humans, at some distant point in time. The stories contained therein lead you to believe in a series of events which rely upon the existence of the main character for their veracity. Nowhere does the book prove the existence of said character.
OldEnglish on December 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM
b-b-but i know that adam and eve rode on dinosaurs!
lolwut on December 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Well that settles it. I guess we may as well burn all the books because in order to know what REALLY happened you had to be there.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Ah, the God of the gaps. If there is no current scientific explanation, God did it.
Strangely, no one seems to argue that gravity doesn’t exist because physicists can’t yet reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity. But if biologists haven’t resolved issues of abiogenesis or the evolution of DNA, then all other related evidence is scrapped. To an evolutionist, a problem is an opportunity for further exploration. To a creationist, a problem is the end of the debate.
Apacalyps, here’s my biggest issue with you invoking the second law of thermodynamics, or any scientific law, for that manner, in support of creationism (besides your half understanding of it.) It’s that you don’t actually believe in the law of conservation, in that you believe matter was created, and it was created by God. But, you might say, God made the laws of the physical world and he is not bound by them. Well, that doesn’t excuse the fact that you believe the law of conservation isn’t true. If you or I start creating matter from nothing, it proves that the law of conservation isn’t true, and the same goes for God. If you believe that God, or any being in the universe, is not bound by the laws of science, then you don’t believe in the laws of science. You believe, even under special circumstances, that they can be broken.
So you are saying, in essence, if there are any unanswered questions by science, then it is all nonsense. You are actually trying to use a scientific principle to argue that all scientific principles are meaningless.
Instead of evolution, you expect us to believe that the Earth was designed in a brief period of time. By a sick designer who made the tectonic plates move slowly and left scars in the basalt that suggest they have been moving for millions of years. By a comical designer who gave the blind mole rat eyes, then choose make them entirely useless by covering them with a layer of skin. By a cruel designer who for some reason decided to make water essential to life, then made the largest body of water on earth, the ocean, poisonous to humans. Do you have any idea how much suffering, disease, and death could have been prevented just by making the ocean freshwater?
So, while I was raised religiously and have immense respect for people of faith, I can hope you can appreciate why people find your propositions a tad absurd.
justfinethanks on December 14, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Calm down just a minute. Let me ask you a question. Suppose creation were true. Just, suppose. Suppose the Bible is absolutely correct. Suppose God made the world like He said He did, and He’s the Boss, and He’s gonna come judge the world. Would that effect your lifestyle any? I mean, the Book indicates right here, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no adultery, no pre-marital sex, no pornography, uh, would that effect your lifestyle? I don’t know anything about you. I’m just asking a question. If this Book’s true, would that effect your lifestyle? Now, be honest with me. Have you accepted evolution because you know of some scientific reason to accept it? Or have you accepted evolution because of your lifestyle?
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 10:03 PM
People don’t reject God for rational reasons but rather for emotional ones. If God exists then I have to change my behavior. They just don’t want to step down from the throne of their own life.
Mojave Mark on December 14, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Smart man.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 10:17 PM
A fair question deserving of a fair answer. The morals contained within the book were placed there by people who, coincidentally, have similar views to mine. No, the book has made no difference, I would still try to live my life in a responsible manner, because it it the right thing to do – not through fear of judgement.
For clarification, much of the book’s content is common sense, some of it is very wise, all of it is entertaining. It is only with its prime theme that I disagree.
OldEnglish on December 14, 2008 at 10:19 PM
I’m sure apacalyps will respond also, but I just can’t resist.
Evolutionist fill the gaps with… evolution did it. I prefer… “God did it.”
What evidence are you talking about specifically. The evidence of Piltdown Man, Lucy? Haeckel’s Embryos, Vestigial organs, horse evolution perhaps… just to name a few evolution “proofs” that were frauds or simply proven as pure nonsense. Maybe the fossil record is what you are talking about. How about Archaeopteryx?
I’m not aware of any actual evidence for macro evolution, please update me on the newest “proof” please.
The all-powerful all-knowing omnipotent creator of the universe is not bound by the laws of nature or even by what justfinethanks says.
I don’t recall Apacalyps saying any such thing.
How much suffering and death was there in the world according to Scriptures when God originally created it? And you are assuming that the oceans were salt water at creations. But we know that the salt content of the seas is ever increasing due to run-off and erosion of salts in the soil.
Oh brother.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Except they don’t. They fill it with a hypothesis, which is either denied or verified. That’s how science progresses. “I don’t know therefore it is the work of God” is absurd.
There is a lot, and I’m not quite sure why Creationists have any problems with the fossil record.
Take the transition from Fish to Terropods, for example. The fossil record provides us, sequentially, with the Osteolepis, the Eusthenopteron, the Panderichthys, the Tiktaalik, the Acanthostega, the Ichthyostega, the Tulerpeton, and the Eryops, from 385 million years ago to 295 million for the most recent. Each creature has more and more developed legs and features that make it more land friendly. Now, does this PROVE that fish evolved into terrapods in the strictest sense of the word? I will admit that it doesn’t, but because “proof” doesn’t really exist much outside of physics and math. But at the very least, anyone would have to look at this and admit that it at least suggests small, gradual changes into a different form of life.
Then you don’t believe in the laws of nature. If you believe that the law of gravity can be broken by me, God, or anybody, then you don’t believe in the law of Gravity.
He is arguing that a scientific principle proves the existence of a being who defies all scientific principles.
I agree, this evidence of poor design.
justfinethanks on December 14, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I’ve never made that argument.
Not my style either. Strike two.
Show me where I said that. That’s strike 3.
No. I’m saying that evolution violates scientific laws. It is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it.
Are you angry at God?
I kinda get the impression you are.
Yep. yer angry.
I’d appreciate it if you would stop telling me what I believe. If by that you mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, I certainly do believe in the law of conservation. The 1st Law tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Evolution has matter definitely being formed from nothing. That is just bad science.
Your question about the laws of the universe assumes, obviously displays that you’re thinking of the wrong god because you’ve placed limits on God and that’s your first mistake.
The God of the Bible is not limited like you and I. God is not effected by time, space, or matter. God made time and space, thus is He outside time and space. He is not governed by the laws that exist on Earth. It is not the year 2008 in heaven right now. If He’s effected by time, space, or matter, He’s not God. The God that created them has to be outside of them. Uh, it’s like the guy who created your computer is not in the computer. He’s not running around in there changing the numbers on the screen, okay. The God who created this universe is outside of the universe. He’s above it, beyond it, in it, through it. He’s unneffected by it. I guess being an evolutionist you’d have to explain to me things like emotions, and love, and hatred, and envy, and jealosy, and rationality. I mean, the fact that you’re FINITE mind cannot comprehend how God made the laws of the physical world is assuming a limited God. You have a very flawed concept because uh, well, it sets up basically a straw man argument which really doesn’t exist because to be able to create something, you must exist outside of time. So it is an error placing God within time. Time is a creation of God’s, and He is not restricted by it. The God that I worship is not limited by time, space, or matter, nor by your understanding of Him. Like I said, If I could fit the infinite God in my 3 pound brain, He would not be worth worshipping that’s for certain. So that’s the God I worship. Thank you.
Will you look at what you believe? You believe we all evolved from a rock 4.6 billion years ago! Give me a break! Evolution has got to be the biggest lie .. lol.. the dumbest lie EVER. In case you missed it, there is a lot of evidence supporting creation and the Bible. You do not have to have blind faith. Earth evidence supports creation. The universe supports creation. Fossil evidence supports creation. Animal anatomy supports creation. Have you seen the Bombardier Beetle? Ocean evidence supports creation. Human evidence supports creation. Bible prophecy supports creation. And so on. We can prove God’s existence without the use of faith. Thank you.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 11:20 PM
And I gotta run, folks (yawning). I’ll try to respond to your comments next time. Oh, and PS, time doesn’t mean anything to God. First thing you’re gonna do when you get to heaven — take off your watch and fling it off the side. You won’t need it up there. Thank you, and may the LORD, the maker of heaven and earth, bless you.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM
You are correct that most areas of science work this way but not in the arena of evolution. The value of evolution is too great for the atheistic community because it takes God out of the equation. Evolution is defended simply because atheist have a strong desire to deny God.
Lining up a group of animals that look similar is what was done to “prove” horse evolution. They do this all the time and as more studies are done their groupings alway fall apart.
Of course another big problem is that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. The salt in the oceans and its rate of accumulation is one of the many strong evidences for this.
One of the things that makes God … “a God” is the fact that the elements obey his commands. A God that can create such laws can bypass them.
I really think you are being disingenous on this point, I surely do not see him saying any such thing.
The Bible indicates in Genesis that water came up out of the ground like a sprinkler system prior to the flood, Genesis 2:6. That means no run-off due to rain …. no poor design.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 11:33 PM
When you posited “Have you ever considered that God could be involved?” in response to someone else’s admitting that we don’t know the origins of DNA, that is exactly what you are arguing. You are saying that if we can’t explain origins of DNA, then we must deduce that it is divine. At least, that is my interpretation.
I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t assume that my beliefs have some sort of underlying emotional basis. Otherwise I might be inclined to believe that you are terrified at the thought of a universe without God.
I really don’t think this is hard to understand. If he is “not limited” then he is not limited by scientific laws. And if anything is not limited by scientific laws, then they aren’t scientific laws after all.
Forgive me, but resorting to the “he is beyond our understanding” line is a cop out. If God is so great that our puny man-logic can’t possibly comprehend his awesomeness, then stop trying. I mean, what’s the point of trying to use our weak brains to prove that God exists if he is outside of our mortal concepts of “proof” or even “existence.”
Unlikely, I know. I’m of the opinion that, no matter what you believe, it’s a little hard to believe. But to me it’s a question of believing something that is unlikely or believing something that is outright absurd.
Intelligence can’t exist without a physical brain. In order to say that there is a noncorporeal intelligence, I will have to deny everything I understand about matter and neurology. And that’s just absurd.
All modern science of the physical world can be traced back to Greek philosphers who proposed that earthquakes can be traced to waves slamming against the continents. This is silly now, but at the time it was revolutionary because for the first time in recorded history, someone looked at the physical world and proposed an answer besides “God did it.” Before, there was no real questioning of the real underlying causes.
Rain? God did it.
Seasons? God did it.
Disease? God did it.
You’re asking the world to go back to the dark ages and propose “God did it” once again, which stunts understanding.
Universe? God did it.
Man? God did it.
And it seems to me that you are just proposing that God did it because there isn’t a solid enough (by your standards) alternative explanation, just as there wasn’t an alternative explanation for Rain, Seasons, and Earthquakes.
And the Universe only “supports creation” if you distort some evidence and ignore a lot.
The earthquake theory was wrong, but it was on the right track, and it eventually lead to true understanding. And a natural explanation of the universe has historically been proven right more often than any supernatural explanation of the universe. No one thinks that thunder has a supernatural explanation any more.
I’m going to have to go to bed, so I’m sorry I won’t be able to look at your response right now. But I will look at in the morning.
Thank you.
justfinethanks on December 15, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Well this whole thing has got me so confused I no longer know what to believe. For instance, how can you be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is the son of God? How can you not believe in heaven. Christianity is about life after death yet only 79% of Christians believe it. What happened to the other 19%? That’s just impossible as far as I’m concerned. This whole thing makes me wonder if some of these people know what being a Christian is. It’s like saying I belong to the NRA but I’d never own a gun, let alone use it. As for the old testament, it was written to as a guide to the Jew’s, but can apply as life listens. The new testament was for the gentile. Read Paul for understanding. All I know is I’ve been a Christian, professed God as my personal savior since I was eleven. I’ve never questioned heaven, hell, reward or punishment. I believe that the Bible is what it was meant to be–a road map that leads you to Christ.
Amazing Grace on December 15, 2008 at 12:16 AM
You’re right – a few mutations have crept into my argument, but believe me, it’s only micro-evolution and therefore safe ;-)
In fact I’m making 2 related points:
1) Entropy can decrease on local scales even in closed systems.
2) Strictly speaking, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.
Accepting neither of these forces one to conclude that adding raw energy from the sun spontaneously causes the generation of complex life. I’m simply pointing out:
a) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not preclude it
b) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not actually apply to the earth by itself, since it is not a closed system.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 5:40 AM
the earth is part of the universe, which is a closed system, as far as we know, and therefore it applies. how could it not when we see everything around decaying and dying..including us?
this is another thing about evolution that does not pass the smell test. common sense tells us everythign is decaying, but somehow, magically, evolution can overcome this, and increase complexity, and order, shazam!!
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 8:51 AM
I already did, but you don’t want to bother to investigate it for yourself. your mind is closed, you’re a good darwiniac. its typical.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 8:57 AM
in other words, you don’t have a clue, but you have faith that somehow the 4.5 billion years that darwinism depends upon is valid. that moon isn’t the only thing that in the cosmos that speaks of younger ages than darwinism needs.
cosmology comes down to the anthropic principle, or the multiverse. to even have a wacky idea like a multiverse, which is TOTALLY unprovable and unscientific, shows how ‘science’ has become atheism.
link
so tell me again how the OT is wrong about the science?? please.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 9:02 AM
you’ve given me a few laughs, ‘tormenting’ in your dreams sonny. laughable.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 9:04 AM
link
ethane should collect continuously on the surface in pools and lakes. The chemical process is irreversible. Ethane cannot evaporate back up into the atmosphere, nor can it dissociate back into methane. This should lead to the accumulation of liquid ethane on the surface of Titan over time.
so with 4.5 billion years, where is all the ethane?? it couldn’t be that the time (4.5 billion years) is all wrong??? nahhhh *smirk*
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 9:14 AM
haven’t you even seen the typical darwiniac response? ‘just because we dont’ know now, doesn’t mean that we won’t in the future’
its a ‘darwin of the gaps’ theory. everything is naturalistic and the great hairygod of evolution knows all, sees all, is all..praise darwin!!
laughable.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Your right, the universe does appear to be a closed system. Therefore, to be compliant with the 2nd Law, entropy of the entire system (universe) taken as a whole must increase over time. However, this doesn’t mean there can’t be localized decreases.
Sure, things decay. But many things have a decrease in entropy before the increase. Like formation of a crystal for example (again).
Consider a freezer in a completely sealed room, using some power source inside the room (say a large fuel cell or generator with fuel and oxidizer stored inside).
A container of liquid water is placed in the freezer and over some period of time freezes to ice. There has been a local decrease in entropy and increase in order in the water. However there has been a global increase in entropy in the closed system (i.e. more waste heat within the sealed room). This is entirely consistent with the 2nd Law.
In a closed system there can be localized decreases in entropy, while the entropy of the entire system on average is increasing.
And when we talk of the earth, we are not even talking about a closed system. The universe is likely a closed system, the earth is not.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 9:19 AM
With respect, no you didn’t not, unless I missed some post directed my way. If so, please point me to it.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 9:22 AM
No, I don’t. I’m not familiar with any intractable Ganymede mystery, whatever it may be. On the other hand, I’m very happy to admit that Ganymede probably hasn’t been around as long as the universe, probably not even half as long.
Not that it’s relevant to the present discussion, but have you ever even seen Ganymede?
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 9:27 AM
I’ll repost the links..
link
link
link
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 9:28 AM
uh no I missed it on my last vacation….
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 9:30 AM
its not the universe in question here, but the age of the earth. do you think the entire solar system formed about the same time or no??
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 9:31 AM
These quotes are from your own link. Did you even understand the implications?
“Christians have had difficulty reconciling these ideas with Scripture. Many explanations have been proposed, but none of them prove completely satisfactory.”
Another from same source:
“Since the Bible indicates that the stars were visible on Day 4, we now compute the (calculated) time at which they were created. Alpha Centauri (a star 4.3 light years away) must have been created about 4.3 years ‘before the beginning’ (before Day 1) in order for its light to have reached Earth on Day 4 of the Creation Week. Likewise, a star 10 light years away must have been created about 10 years before Day 1. A star one billion light years away must have been created about one billion years ‘before the beginning’ and so on. So, we see that more distant stars were created earlier than nearby stars. The time of creation depends on the distance from Earth. So what appears to be simultaneous according to observed time, now appears to be spread out over a long period of time. Which view is the ‘correct’ picture? They both are—each according to the chosen convention of time measurement.”
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Neither evolution nor the devil have been proven scientifically, so, isn’t this a wash?
Akzed on December 15, 2008 at 9:48 AM
If you have any curiosity can see it pretty easily without leaving home. Get a pair of binoculars and point them toward Jupiter. With a recent issue of Astronomy or Sky & Telescope magazine in hand you should be able to pick it out fairly easily.
Considering the history of its discovery, it is pretty ironic having (apparent) Christian fundamentalists raising Ganymede as a point in favor of their worldview (whatever that point is exactly). You’ve got to admit that at least.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 9:51 AM
This furry li’l bugger hasn’t changed a whit in 11 million years. Huh.
Akzed on December 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM
I’ve got the Devil right here in a little cage I built out of dark matter. It exists. For now anyway.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 9:57 AM
I’d suppose about the same time. To comment further I’d like to get a link to some non-creationist web site which outlines the mystery. I’ve been trying to dig through the 13 pages of posts, but I can’t locate one. Can you please provide one? (Not trying to be an ass, I’d really like to understand the reference in detail.)
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM
because it disputes the ‘conventional wisdom’ of the age of the solar system (earth). you do know that we really don’t even understand how planets form right?
and here’s another one: Enceladus
in 2005 they found geysers that put out 5.8 gigawatts of heat, but there is no explanation as to why, given the presumed age of the solar system.
link
whats amusing is the ironclad faith of the evolutionists in their long time frames…
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM
the following is part of a much larger discussion of thermodynamics…
link
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 10:09 AM
here is the link…
link
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 10:11 AM
the most interesting one is the tuatara…which is a living dinosaur, but has been found to have the fastest rate of molecular evolution (micro-evolution) ever found….but it has not translated into macro evolution….
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Yes, I’m aware that we don’t know exactly how planets form. Being an amateur astronomer with a particular interest in exoplanets I follow the topic fairly closely. While we don’t know exactly how planets form, we are gaining valuable observations that are helping us to piece together some pretty sound theories (which all involve local decreases in entropy by the way).
It may well be true that Enceladus couldn’t maintain a liquid ocean for more than 30 million years in it’s current configuration. That doesn’t mean that events within the last 30 million years couldn’t have added energy to the system (for example a major impact, which the surface of Enceladus has clearly sustained many times).
Speaking of impacts, shall we move to the topic of why the moon has a solid surface if it’s only a few thousand years old?
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 10:20 AM
The creationists here have done a wonderful job presenting their argument. Bravo.
Ther’e just too many facts disproving evolution for it to be even possibly true.
SaintOlaf on December 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I find this interesting, though I’m not an astronomy buff…what do you think of the anthropic principle v. the multiverse?
you might find this interesting, talking about the moon..
link
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Thanks right4life – good link. As far as I can tell the authors are not saying Ganymede’s magnetic field is absolutely inconsistent with a very old age, simply that the mechanism is not completely clear, and they present some possible if low-probability explanations. Low probability does not mean impossible. The authors are just saying the mechanism is not well understood. Again, this is a question for further inquiry.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 10:35 AM
now you are in conflict with the authors of that study…
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 10:38 AM
I’ll join you in congratulations on the first part, though the second part is clearly not established yet. It’s good mental excercise for all of us regardless.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 10:38 AM
again a darwin-of-the-gaps theory. keep the faith.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM
There appears to be liquid water in the interior (it’s venting water). Whether it’s “thermally stable” or an ocean or not is a very open question. If it’s due to a combination of tidal heating and impact heating it may very well be cooling, in other words not thermally stable. That’s doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM
there is no question that it exists…otherwise the geyser would not be there.
the question is how has that moon maintained the heat over all the BILLIONS of years since it was formed…the author of the study says there is no way it could be so, and I’m sure he thought of impacts.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I didn’t express that correctly. What I mean is that even though it may be liquid today (and possibly cooling), that doesn’t mean it had to have been thermally stable since the creation of the universe. I could have received additional heat from an impact within the last few million years and still be cooling from that event, but not yet completely frozen.
It’s beer drinking time in my time zone so I’m suffering a self-imposed handicap. ;)
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM
They were surprised to find that heat escapes Enceladus faster than it is generated. Therefore, if Enceladus’s orbital eccentricity has always been what it is today, the moon would have frozen completely solid billions of years ago.
“And once it froze, tidal heating would have been shut off forever,” Roberts said.
Lunar anti-freeze
But in all likelihood, there is some kind of ocean on Enceladus, so something must have prevented Enceladus from fully freezing.
“There has to be an ocean to allow the flexing — that’s a well-founded conclusion,” McKinnon said.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Are you going to argue that low probability (however defined) equals impossibility? If so I think we need to back up a few steps.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Perhaps the orbit shifted due to gravitational interactons with other Saturnian moons or transient objects? Perhaps it was impacted? (Actually if you look at a picture of the surface it’s clear that it has been impacted many times).
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 10:56 AM
the point is that, to you and other darwinists, there HAS to be some explanation that makes it fit with the ‘conventional wisdom’ age of the earth (solar system). other explanations are not even considered…all in the hopes that something, someday, will be found to make it ‘fit’ with darwinism.
its just like the multiverse…totally ridiculous, not scientific at all, not even close, but it has to be, because the alternative…the antrhopic prinicple…means there is a God…and *gasp* we can’t have religion (other than atheism) as part of science…
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Missed this while I was writing.
The author does not say there is no way it could maintain liquid in the interior. He says IF it has been it it’s current orbit since formation it probably could not have maintained liquid in the interior through the mechanism of tidal heating alone. Besides the big if there, he doesn’t address the possibility of impacts as a source additional energy at all.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 11:10 AM
reallY??
and explain to me how an impact is going to produce heat for 30 million years anyway? we’ve had impacts on this planet before, and the heat increases are temporary. it wouldn’t effect the heat produced by the core of the planet.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:15 AM
sorry, should have said, heat for BILLIONS of years….because once its frozen, its done, over, finshed.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:16 AM
from that article..
now unless you consider them too dumb to think of impacts, then they thougth impacts were meaningless….
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:17 AM
again from the article..
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:18 AM
here’s the other possibility…of course then it HAD TO BE, because the alternative is *UNTHINKABLE*
whatever it takes to protect the hairyone…
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I’m open to other explanations. I’d be ecstatic to actually find myself honestly believing in a Christian God (or any other benevolent God) who’d provide eternal life in exchange for me simply acknowledging my sins (which I already do pretty freely without even believing in the prize!). The alternative is not particularly appealing after all.
That said, the other explanations need to be compelling and plausibly consistent with objective evidence.
As for the mutliverse, no reason to “believe” in it as far as I’m concerned, and no reason to reject the possibility. At this point it seems to be a question beyond our capability for scientific inquiry, thus just an idea. I don’t know why a Christian would need to reject the possibility either (after all, if there is a God, would He be limited to creating just one universe? Not unless he had a boss.)
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 11:26 AM
no reason to reject it??? again the faith of the darwinist/atheist. there is no evidence, other than pure conjecture, such a thing exists.
and you just stated:
That said, the other explanations need to be compelling and plausibly consistent with objective evidence.
there is NO ‘objective evidence’ for a multiverse….zero,zip,nada, yet you’re ‘open’ to it.
amazing.
you’re ‘open’ to any other explanation except God.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:30 AM
No, it’s not done, over, finished. A large impact (doesn’t have to have been 30 million years ago, could have been millions or even as little as thousands) can add a lot of heat. The earth is a big planet, relatively small impacts don’t cause sustained heating. However, a relatively large (compared to Enceladus) impactor could impart a lot of heat, as well as change the orbit into one which creates less tidal heating (prove this didn’t happen!) than was the case prior to the impact.
If you have any familiarity with astronomy you’ll realize there are many, many possibilities that could account for a large amount of residual heat. The author is confining himself to explanations based on the current orbital configuration and not considering impact heating or a changed orbit. He’s certainly not saying “this is so bizarre! I proves Enceladus formed in the last 6000 years!”.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 11:34 AM
ok explain death in an evolutionary framework. you cannot. why do you even have sins? how do you know you have sins? in an evolutionary framework there is no right and wrong.
why is it so hard to beleive in God? for example, we do not have a clue about the origin of life, I posted a link earlier to show just how impossible it is, other than God did it. and to think such massive complexity can exist without a designer. ever write a computer program?? how did it work when you just banged keys on an editor? did it even compile??
The anthropic principle…all these factors so fine-tuned, and if any of them were the slightest bit off, no life, no universe, nothing.
and finally, look at Israel, it exists as the Lord predicted 2,500 years ago in Ezekiel…and Iran is their primary enemy as Ezekiel predicted….
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:35 AM
all I can say is you should contact the authors and see if you can convince them…
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I don’t think they were too dumb to think of it. The authors are simply saying “this residual heat could not be the result of just tidal heating (assuming current orbit) and radioactive deacay”. They are not necessarily trying to discount every possible scenario, just pointing out some which can be discounted.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 11:40 AM
AGAIN…
“It’s a no-brainer that tidal heating is happening on Enceladus,” said William McKinnon of Washington University in Saint Louis. “I can conceive of no other explanation for the south polar thermal anomaly.”
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:44 AM
at this point you need to contact William McKinnon of Washington University in Saint Louis, and tell him how stupid he is because impacts are so OBVIOUSLY the answer..sigh….
did you read the article?? did you read what I quoted?? or are you just so desperate to defend your hairygod darwin that you leap to some ridiculous answer and defend it to the death???
do you really think these guys didn’t think of ALL THE POSSIBILITIES???? please.
then you need to write a peer-reviewed article, and show them up for fools and morons.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I think I’ve said God is a possible explanation. At this point I still maintain it’s not the only possible explanation.
As for a multiverse, why should I believe it? No particular reason. Why should I believe it’s not possible? Again no particular reason, even if I take the Bible as literally true. However, if I DID believe there was a God, I’d still have no reason at all to reject the idea of multiple universes. Who am I to say what He could do? I’d actually expect the existence of God would make multiple universes more likely than not (if you were God would you want to be watching just one universe all the time? You’re unlimited! Make as many as you please!)
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM
do you reject the tooth fairy?
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Oh look, another thread where we debate the unresolvable to influence the intractable.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Death in an evolutionary framework… no, I can’t. (<< this is an application of what is know as “conceding the point”. It’s a valid tactic that can be used by the intellectually honest as an alternative to grasping at random straws)
There could be a God. I’ve never denied that (in recent decades anyway). Actually there seem to be quite a few. How do I pick the right one?
Yeah, I’ve written quite a few computer programs. As a matter of fact that’s what I do most days. The banging keys randomly doesn’t work well, I’ll admit. On the other hand, I’ve also written genetic algorithms that can adapt to solving very difficult problems based on a few simple rules (yes, I imposed the rules, so a sort of primitive god in a very limited domain). I imposed the rules, but didn’t know the ultimate solution. Nevertheless, solutions were found through evolutionary paths. If you’re a programmer as well you should try it if you haven’t already. I was amazed at the complexity that can emerge from the application of a few simple rules and constraints.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 12:10 PM
It can seem tedious, but at least both sides get belief’s challenged. There’s value in that.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 12:11 PM
right4life, if you think that’s supporting your position you’re not understanding what McKinnon is talking about.
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM
you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. you keep talking about impacts, and you imply these guys are too stupid to have thought about that.
as I said you need to write a peer-reviewed paper and prove what idiots they are.
right4life on December 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM
There could be a tooth fairy, but God seems much more plausible to me. On the other hand, if there is a God, the tooth fairy also becomes a bit more plausible (though still relatively less so). Can you prove there is no tooth fairy?
DarkCurrent on December 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »