PDA

View Full Version : High altitude fossils



David M
09-07-2013, 09:19 AM
The following article is a few years old, but recent enough to be considered "new" in terms of scientists having to rethink the speed of history of the planet.



Fossils Found In Tibet Revise History Of Elevation, Climate
June 12, 2008 — About 15,000 feet up on Tibet's desolate Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau, an international research team led by Florida State University geologist Yang Wang was surprised to find thick layers of ancient lake sediment filled with plant, fish and animal fossils typical of far lower elevations and warmer, wetter climates.


Back at the FSU-based National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, analysis of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the fossils revealed the animals' diet (abundant plants) and the reason for their demise during the late Pliocene era in the region (a drastic climate change). Paleo-magnetic study determined the sample's age (a very young 2 or 3 million years old).
That fossil evidence from the rock desert and cold, treeless steppes that now comprise Earth's highest land mass suggests a literally groundbreaking possibility:
Major tectonic changes on the Tibetan Plateau may have caused it to attain its towering present-day elevations -- rendering it inhospitable to the plants and animals that once thrived there -- as recently as 2-3 million years ago, not millions of years earlier than that, as geologists have generally believed. The new evidence calls into question the validity of methods commonly used by scientists to reconstruct the past elevations of the region.
"Establishing an accurate history of tectonic and associated elevation changes in the region is important because uplift of the Tibetan Plateau has been suggested as a major driving mechanism of global climate change over the past 50-60 million years," said Yang, an associate professor in FSU's Department of Geological Sciences and a researcher at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. "What's more, the region also is thought to be important in driving the modern Asian monsoons, which control the environmental conditions over much of Asia, the most densely populated region on Earth."
Yang co-authored the paper with paleontologists from the Department of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Beijing). The collaborative research project, which since 2004 has featured summer field study on the remote Tibetan Plateau, is funded by a grant from the Sedimentary Geology and Paleobiology Program of the U.S. National Science Foundation.
"The uplift chronology of the Tibetan Plateau and its climatic and biotic consequences have been a matter of much debate and speculation because most of Tibet's spectacular mountains, gorges and glaciers remain barely touched by man and geologically unexplored," Yang said.
"So far, my research colleagues and I have only worked in two basins in Tibet, representing a very small fraction of the Plateau, but it is very exciting that our work to-date has yielded surprising results that are inconsistent with the popular view of Tibetan uplift," she said.
This summer, Yang and her colleagues from Los Angeles and Beijing will conduct further fieldwork in areas near the Tibetan Plateau. "The next phase of our work will focus on examining the spatial and temporal patterns of long-term vegetative and environmental changes in and around the region," she said. "Such records are crucial for clarifying the linkages among climatic, biotic and tectonic changes."
There is much still to learn and understand about those changes.
"Many of the places we've visited in Tibet are now deserts, and yet we found those thick deposits of lake sediments with abundant fossil fish and shells," Yang said. "This begs the question: What came first and caused the disappearance of those lakes? Global climate change? Or, tectonic change?"


What about both climate change and tectonic activity taking place for a period of 12 months at the time of the Great Flood? Serious damage would have been done. What about the shaping going on as a result of 12 months tidal activity? It is difficult to imagine what went on during those conditions of moving land masses and tidal flows. We know what a few minutes of Tsunami can do.

David

Rose
09-07-2013, 10:19 AM
The following article is a few years old, but recent enough to be considered "new" in terms of scientists having to rethink the speed of history of the planet.




What about both climate change and tectonic activity taking place for a period of 12 months at the time of the Great Flood? Serious damage would have been done. What about the shaping going on as a result of 12 months tidal activity? It is difficult to imagine what went on during those conditions of moving land masses and tidal flows. We know what a few minutes of Tsunami can do.

David

Hello David,

Erosion, accumulation of sedimentary layers, depth and height of tectonic movement are only some of the methods used for dating age and time-periods of particular events. Most importantly, IF there was a "Great Flood" of biblical proportions in earths history, its evidence would be manifest everywhere worldwide ... especially if such a flood happened only 6,000 years ago. Currently such evidence is lacking.

Rose

David M
09-07-2013, 01:34 PM
Hello David,

Erosion, accumulation of sedimentary layers, depth and height of tectonic movement are only some of the methods used for dating age and time-periods of particular events. Most importantly, IF there was a "Great Flood" of biblical proportions in earths history, its evidence would be manifest everywhere worldwide ... especially if such a flood happened only 6,000 years ago. Currently such evidence is lacking.

Rose

Hello Rose

I think there is a lot more evidence of a world-wide flood than you care to admit.

Here is one link to a website that brings up a lot of facts that have to be explained; http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

A world-wide flood is hard to replicate in the laboratory. Freak storms show what damage and layering sedimentary layering can be done in a matter of hours. Scale this up by factor of hundreds of times to account for the duration of the flood and the continual upheaval that was taking place. The Great Flood was probably more violent than we could imagine. I do not know how many times greater we should allow for the amount of water sloshing about compared to the comparative calm of the seas today. The bottom of the oceans now are comparatively calm, but imagine tsunamis a hundred times greater than any tsunami witnessed over recent years.

The flood would account for world-wide strata found on different continents. The amount of material shifted from one place to another is unlikely to show uniformity over the whole surface of the planet. A small Tsunami does not leave a uniform trail behind it. Evolutionists can say that over millions of years there have been many localized floods to account for strata in different continents, but how is this proven any more than the Great Flood can be disproven?

David

Rose
09-07-2013, 07:26 PM
Hello Rose

I think there is a lot more evidence of a world-wide flood than you care to admit.

Here is one link to a website that brings up a lot of facts that have to be explained; http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

A world-wide flood is hard to replicate in the laboratory. Freak storms show what damage and layering sedimentary layering can be done in a matter of hours. Scale this up by factor of hundreds of times to account for the duration of the flood and the continual upheaval that was taking place. The Great Flood was probably more violent than we could imagine. I do not know how many times greater we should allow for the amount of water sloshing about compared to the comparative calm of the seas today. The bottom of the oceans now are comparatively calm, but imagine tsunamis a hundred times greater than any tsunami witnessed over recent years.

The flood would account for world-wide strata found on different continents. The amount of material shifted from one place to another is unlikely to show uniformity over the whole surface of the planet. A small Tsunami does not leave a uniform trail behind it. Evolutionists can say that over millions of years there have been many localized floods to account for strata in different continents, but how is this proven any more than the Great Flood can be disproven?
David

One of the main things that disproves a 6,000 year old global flood is the age of the fossils found in the strata. It doesn't matter how quickly a cataclysmic event cuts through or thrust up the earth, the fossils buried in those layers of strata are still millions of years old, which is confirmed by the agreement of various methods of dating. The site that you linked to is run by young earth creationists ... no credible scientist believes that the earth is only six thousand of years old! People were drawing cave art longer ago than that. :lol:

Take care,
Rose

David M
09-08-2013, 01:29 AM
One of the main things that disproves a 6,000 year old global flood is the age of the fossils found in the strata. It doesn't matter how quickly a cataclysmic event cuts through or thrust up the earth, the fossils buried in those layers of strata are still millions of years old, which is confirmed by the agreement of various methods of dating. The site that you linked to is run by young earth creationists ... no credible scientist believes that the earth is only six thousand of years old! People were drawing cave art longer ago than that. :lol:

Take care,
Rose

Hello Rose
The Creation could have taken place 6,000 years ago. This does not mean the earth is not far older than that. I think it is and so you are not speaking with someone who accepts a young earth; only the possibility of a young creation.

The problem with layering and the dating of fossils is the circular reasoning. The problem for Evolutionists is all the information that has been published which are no more than ideas as those ideas get changed over time. Has the dating of fossils been abandoned by dating according to the layer in which they are found?

One consideration that must be taken into account is the age of the dirt. We all eat and breath. We are formed from the material we consume. What if the dirt we eat is millions of years old. That would make our mineral content millions of years old. I can understand why dating things as millions of years old happens. I am not so understanding of the reliability of the dating methods which rely on a steady state or a know starting point. What if molten isotopes get mixed up in the mantle of the earth. It cannot be assumed that the starting point of where one element changes into an isotope began with zero percent of that isotope. A small percentage of isotope being present from the beginning will make the sample appear much older that it actually is.

It cannot be assumed the earth's atmosphere has always been as it is now. A reduced atmosphere millions of years ago could account for changes in the presence of isotopes etc.

Getting the balance between what could have happened naturally once something was set in motion and that of creating everything as it appears to be is what we I am trying to do. For example, did God create the oil and gas deposits or have these come about by "natural forces". These forces have to be violent and rapid for fossilization and for fossil fuels to occur. This can be demonstrated in the laboratory. Evolution of these things over millions of years is not demonstrable in the laboratory. I wonder why Dinosaurs were created? They have all been destroyed and we have evidence of them. Those with all the trees that filled the earth got destroyed and the natural forces turned them into fossils and fossil fuels. As I see it, God gave the impetus to get things moving in the time of the flood that caused great upheaval the likes we find hard to imagine.

It is because the improbability of evolution is so high starting from the Big Bang, as to be unbelievable and to my mind could not have happened that way, which makes the probability of creation more feasible and less improbable than evolution. On both our sides we have questions we cannot answer and that is our problem and that is what we have in common.

All the best
David

Roberto
09-08-2013, 07:28 AM
Nice. And if you like to read more about such topics, go to a forum where they discuss such, plenty of atheist also there giving their answers about their view
Its nice to read both sides of the views, but im sticking to young earth theory, i dont think God is a liar, and He has been with mankind since beginning of time, i think man start to write early, and they write down about creation from Adams view, the things that were told amongst human that time, gather together their writings, and after Moses they created the beginning of the bible, and God has been there working on the history with them, untill the apostles wrote the last ones and God now lives amongst us through this writings which will be the best way to describe Him, Jesus is the key to what God for us.
Here is a link to a forum where there are many creationists.
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2106

David M
09-08-2013, 08:31 AM
Nice. And if you like to read more about such topics, go to a forum where they discuss such, plenty of atheist also there giving their answers about their view
Its nice to read both sides of the views, but im sticking to young earth theory, i dont think God is a liar, and He has been with mankind since beginning of time, i think man start to write early, and they write down about creation from Adams view, the things that were told amongst human that time, gather together their writings, and after Moses they created the beginning of the bible, and God has been there working on the history with them, untill the apostles wrote the last ones and God now lives amongst us through this writings which will be the best way to describe Him, Jesus is the key to what God for us.
Here is a link to a forum where there are many creationists.
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2106

Hello Roberto

I have not read a post from you for quite a long time. Maybe there has been so many posts I am missing a lot.

Some things we have to be definite about and stand our ground based on the plain and simple truth of God's word. On other matters of less importance, there is no harm in speculating on things that have not been revealed. We do not know the time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, so I can accept a long time interval. It makes no difference to me how long it was.

I accept that God knows how to make one atom. I see no reason for God not making 1080atoms which accounts for all matter and more in the whole Universe. With that capability, then nothing should be impossible for God and for him to make every molecule. How long would that take? We cannot say. In human terms; a long time. In God's time; perhaps no time at all. My mind boggles at the fact that God can make the sun we see and suns thousands of times larger. How can a God that is so great and powerful, be limited to a man in the form of Jesus? That is why I am not limiting God in that way.

It is good to keep having a range of opinions and be enlightened while we try and fathom out the unfathomable.

All the best
David

duxrow
09-08-2013, 09:17 AM
Nice. And if you like to read more about such topics, go to a forum where they discuss such, plenty of atheist also there giving their answers about their view
Its nice to read both sides of the views, but im sticking to young earth theory, i dont think God is a liar, and He has been with mankind since beginning of time, i think man start to write early, and they write down about creation from Adams view, the things that were told amongst human that time, gather together their writings, and after Moses they created the beginning of the bible, and God has been there working on the history with them, untill the apostles wrote the last ones and God now lives amongst us through this writings which will be the best way to describe Him, Jesus is the key to what God for us.
Here is a link to a forum where there are many creationists.
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2106
Roberto, Neither do I think God is a liar, but seems to me that he hides things in a way that challenges us to look for truthful solutions. Maybe getting a wife for Adam using a rib, turns out He's a Loving God who's a bit of a tease. Ribbing us so we'll look forward to the Bridegroom. Telling us we're a Temple, and describing the 2 pillars that we use to Walk with Him.. Just count all the different ways He uses "walk", I dare you! Blessings!:thumb:

Rose
09-08-2013, 11:50 AM
Hello Rose
The Creation could have taken place 6,000 years ago. This does not mean the earth is not far older than that. I think it is and so you are not speaking with someone who accepts a young earth; only the possibility of a young creation.

Hello David

Do you mean that you think only living organisms are 6,000 years old, but the inorganic matter of which the earth is made is millions or billions of years old?


The problem with layering and the dating of fossils is the circular reasoning. The problem for Evolutionists is all the information that has been published which are no more than ideas as those ideas get changed over time. Has the dating of fossils been abandoned by dating according to the layer in which they are found?

All methods of dating are used in order to form a coherent picture that confirms the age of the fossil. The dating of fossils is accomplished through a variety of methods: age of the strata, radio metric dating, and genetics to name a few ... all these methods must confirm each other in order to give an accurate date.


One consideration that must be taken into account is the age of the dirt. We all eat and breath. We are formed from the material we consume. What if the dirt we eat is millions of years old. That would make our mineral content millions of years old. I can understand why dating things as millions of years old happens. I am not so understanding of the reliability of the dating methods which rely on a steady state or a know starting point. What if molten isotopes get mixed up in the mantle of the earth. It cannot be assumed that the starting point of where one element changes into an isotope began with zero percent of that isotope. A small percentage of isotope being present from the beginning will make the sample appear much older that it actually is.

Apparently you do not understand radiometric dating, because it has nothing to do with the age of the mineral content living organisms eat. As long as organisms are alive and eating or growing the ratio of carbon 14 stays consistent, when an organism dies the cabon 14 begins to decay at a steady rate, so when the dead organism is dated its age can be determined by the amount of carbon 14 in its system.


It cannot be assumed the earth's atmosphere has always been as it is now. A reduced atmosphere millions of years ago could account for changes in the presence of isotopes etc.

Getting the balance between what could have happened naturally once something was set in motion and that of creating everything as it appears to be is what we I am trying to do. For example, did God create the oil and gas deposits or have these come about by "natural forces". These forces have to be violent and rapid for fossilization and for fossil fuels to occur. This can be demonstrated in the laboratory. Evolution of these things over millions of years is not demonstrable in the laboratory. I wonder why Dinosaurs were created? They have all been destroyed and we have evidence of them. Those with all the trees that filled the earth got destroyed and the natural forces turned them into fossils and fossil fuels. As I see it, God gave the impetus to get things moving in the time of the flood that caused great upheaval the likes we find hard to imagine.

Dinosaurs were not created, they evolved like every other living organism on earth. The reason they were destroyed was because of an asteroid that just happened to smash into the earth, if humans were alive at that time we would have been wiped out too! Scientists estimate that around 95% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, that points much more strongly to life evolving by chance then it does to a designer that created life just to destroy it.


It is because the improbability of evolution is so high starting from the Big Bang, as to be unbelievable and to my mind could not have happened that way, which makes the probability of creation more feasible and less improbable than evolution. On both our sides we have questions we cannot answer and that is our problem and that is what we have in common.

All the best
David

If one wants to believe in a god that designed everything, it is much more reasonable to believe in a creator other than the Biblegod, because when one believes in the Biblegod they are required to conform to the Bible's description of how things were made instead of scientific facts. Why restrict yourself to such a narrow view of understanding the universe as was seen through the eyes of primitive men who thought that the sun circled around the earth? If you want to believe in a designer god, be creative and make up one that conforms to the way the universe is made.

Take care,
Rose

Rose
09-08-2013, 11:57 AM
I accept that God knows how to make one atom. I see no reason for God not making 1080atoms which accounts for all matter and more in the whole Universe. With that capability, then nothing should be impossible for God and for him to make every molecule. How long would that take? We cannot say. In human terms; a long time. In God's time; perhaps no time at all. My mind boggles at the fact that God can make the sun we see and suns thousands of times larger. How can a God that is so great and powerful, be limited to a man in the form of Jesus? That is why I am not limiting God in that way.

It is good to keep having a range of opinions and be enlightened while we try and fathom out the unfathomable.

All the best
David

Hi David

Ah, but you are limiting god! Your god is limited to the perceptions of primitive men who wrote their thoughts down in a collection of writings we now call the Bible. Your god is limited to creating the universe in the manner described to us in the Bible, no matter how wrong science has proved it to be.

Take care,
Rose

Rose
09-08-2013, 02:44 PM
Nice. And if you like to read more about such topics, go to a forum where they discuss such, plenty of atheist also there giving their answers about their view
Its nice to read both sides of the views, but im sticking to young earth theory, i dont think God is a liar, and He has been with mankind since beginning of time, i think man start to write early, and they write down about creation from Adams view, the things that were told amongst human that time, gather together their writings, and after Moses they created the beginning of the bible, and God has been there working on the history with them, untill the apostles wrote the last ones and God now lives amongst us through this writings which will be the best way to describe Him, Jesus is the key to what God for us.
Here is a link to a forum where there are many creationists.
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2106

Hello Roberto

It's not really a matter of calling god a liar (if there is one), it's more a matter of saying that the authors of the Bible got their facts wrong. The young earth theory comes from the Bible, don't you think that you should believe the evidence that creation declares instead of the writings of superstitious, primitive men who believed in a talking snake?

The Bible is one book amongst hundreds of sacred texts whose authors thought they heard from a creator god, how do you know which author is right, if any? Just because the biblical authors said they received revelation from god does not mean it is so ... it is no different than Mohamed saying he received revelation of Allah from the angel Gabriel ... they both can't be right!

Take care,
Rose

Research...
09-08-2013, 08:43 PM
Rightly-Dividing Geology and the Book of Genesis Beyond
the "Gap Theory" of Creationism


In the beginning
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1 KJV) ?
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:2 KJV)
Most people believe the seven days of Genesis must be some enigmatic description of the Earth's geologic history. Numerous interpretations have been put forth to harmonize the Biblical narrative with the observations of the geologic record. However, the Scriptural reality of the matter is this: The seven days are not a description of the Earth's geology, at all. There is a time-gap between the first two verses of Genesis.

"On this website you will learn about a controversial, lesser known literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth. Commonly called the "Gap Theory" or "Ruin-Reconstruction" interpretation, it is a theological doctrine that predates Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It is based on the Scriptural fact that in the second verse of Genesis the Holy Bible simply and clearly states that the planet Earth was already here (but in a ruined state) before the Divine process described in those seven days even begins. In other words, the 4.5 billion years of Earth's geology and natural history took place before the time of the seven days. That makes the seven days of Genesis a new generation of the heavens and Earth. Understanding this Biblical mystery begins with the precise wording of this New Testament cross-reference:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)

Contrary to popular fundamentalist interpretation, the above passage is NOT a reference to Noah's flood. And the only other place in the Bible where the Earth was covered in waters is Genesis 1:2. The ramifications are obvious: The literal wording suggests that the "heavens and the earth, which are now" (made during the seven days) was not the first-time creation of all things, as is traditionally assumed. The Word of God is telling the reader there was a previous populated world on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of Adam and his descendants, modern Man." http://www.kjvbible.org/

David M
09-09-2013, 03:05 AM
The Word of God is telling the reader there was a previous populated world on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of Adam and his descendants, modern Man." http://www.kjvbible.org/

The question of whether God has created other planets and life on those planets, we cannot answer. In view of what is said in the post I am replying to, it cannot be ruled out. God could have created the Dinosaurs and the vegetation as a prelude to the "new heavens and the new earth that was then formed". The destruction/killing of animals is not taken as murdering those animals to be compared with the murder of a human being. It is an interesting point of view which could be correct that the earth is millions of years old and the new creation took place very quickly with man being the pinnacle of that creation.

The angels of God are a separate creation and also considered to have existed at the time of the (new) creation. Let us think that in all that time before God set about his new creation, man was in the mind of God to be created. Jesus his only begotten son was in his mind at that stage. God knew the man and woman he was to create could be perfect in the sense of being obedient. Hence Jesus was made perfect by the things he suffered and they did not make him sin and passing that test made him perfect. Sadly, the remainder of mankind has been less than perfect.

As God is ONE and there is no other god beside him, the only begotten son is also a one-off. I think it fair to assume that God did not make another version of humans on another planet. We have to to accept Jesus as the " the one and only begotten..." and God has no other son than Jesus.

Of course, when this present "new heaven and earth" is done with (in the fulfilment of God's plan), he will then create another "new heavens and a new earth". (Rev 21:5) Behold, I make all things new.

David M
09-09-2013, 03:25 AM
Hello Rose

I am answering your post after replying to the post later in this thread from a guest on the forum. The guest has made a valid point, which cannot be ruled out. Since you have asked me a question, I am answering the question in light of the later post.


Hello David

Do you mean that you think only living organisms are 6,000 years old, but the inorganic matter of which the earth is made is millions or billions of years old?
That was the gist of what I said. I believe mankind is only 6,000 years old and we have been eating "old" dirt. There is a possibility that there was created life millions of years ago and which God replaced with "a new heaven and a new earth". In replacing the old with the new, we have traces of the old remaining in the fossil record.

If this is correct, and there is no reason to reject it, this means that both scientists and creationists are closer together in their reasoning than they thought. We could say perhaps that Evolutionists could be correct when determining the finds of the old creation in the fossil record, but are wrong concerning the new creation.

This is more food for thought, which is what we want on this forum, to make us think or rethink our entrenched position.

All the best
David

Rose
09-09-2013, 11:38 AM
Hello Rose

I am answering your post after replying to the post later in this thread from a guest on the forum. The guest has made a valid point, which cannot be ruled out. Since you have asked me a question, I am answering the question in light of the later post.


That was the gist of what I said. I believe mankind is only 6,000 years old and we have been eating "old" dirt. There is a possibility that there was created life millions of years ago and which God replaced with "a new heaven and a new earth". In replacing the old with the new, we have traces of the old remaining in the fossil record.

If this is correct, and there is no reason to reject it, this means that both scientists and creationists are closer together in their reasoning than they thought. We could say perhaps that Evolutionists could be correct when determining the finds of the old creation in the fossil record, but are wrong concerning the new creation.

This is more food for thought, which is what we want on this forum, to make us think or rethink our entrenched position.

All the best
David

Hi David

The evidence we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect ... it goes from simple organisms to more complex organisms. Life on our 4.6 billion year old planet started around 3.9 billion years ago and has steadily progressed forward since then. The first hominids are thought to have lived 6-7 million years ago with modern humans evolving form archaic homo sapiens around 200,000 years ago ... this is well before your 6,000 year creation point of human existence.

Doesn't it seem odd to you how all the pieces fit so perfectly in place with the scientific evolutionary picture of human development, yet your theory must be cobbled together of made up pieces to try and make sense of the biblical account of human history? There is no "old creation" versus "new creation", all life on earth follows one continuous path forward ... every living creature can trace its linage back to a common ancestor that began with the formation of RNA. There is no need to create fully formed life out of dust, when after the formation of RNA every step can be explained in the process that leads to complex life. God is not needed to create humans out of clay 6,000 years ago, because the process of evolution began billions of years ago and it has been working fine ever since.

As you know I have completely rethought my entrenched position, which is why I am no longer a Christian. I am 100% in favor of all the food for thought you can come up with. :pop2:

Take care
Rose

David M
09-09-2013, 04:50 PM
Hello Rose



Doesn't it seem odd to you how all the pieces fit so perfectly in place with the scientific evolutionary picture of human development, yet your theory must be cobbled together of made up pieces to try and make sense of the biblical account of human history?

No it does not. The links to humans is far from proven. There are difficulties and the lower level than humans. I know you think kinds do not exist and that only species exist. There is no real proof for the evolution for any of the different kinds like cats and dogs. I see a logical progression in complexity amongst the animals, but cats are cats and dogs are dogs (wolves actually) and they cannot interbreed. Of course, scientists are working hard to show there are links, but nothing is actually proven. It is like saying a motorized bike developed from the pedal bike. How do you show the gradual transformation from a pedal system to a motor system and what would be the half-way stage?

The other difficult explanation is symbiotic relationships in nature between plants and insects or plants and birds. There is no explanation for how two interdependent species, like a plant and a bird could have developed separately, when one without the other cannot survive. Maybe you are ingenious enough to show how the symbiotic relationship came about.

All the best

David

Rose
09-09-2013, 07:06 PM
Hello Rose



No it does not. The links to humans is far from proven. There are difficulties and the lower level than humans. I know you think kinds do not exist and that only species exist. There is no real proof for the evolution for any of the different kinds like cats and dogs. I see a logical progression in complexity amongst the animals, but cats are cats and dogs are dogs (wolves actually) and they cannot interbreed. Of course, scientists are working hard to show there are links, but nothing is actually proven. It is like saying a motorized bike developed from the pedal bike. How do you show the gradual transformation from a pedal system to a motor system and what would be the half-way stage?
Hello David

First off, you cannot compare mechanical objects with individual parts that are clearly developed by a designer for a specific purpose, with organisms that evolve to more complexity over time through selection and mutation.

Humans and chimpanzees share over 98% of their DNA which makes it fairly easy to genetically trace the less than 2% difference back to a common ancestor and calculate how those genes mutated and changed over time. It's only word play to try and make a distinctions between species and kinds. With the discovery of DNA the evidence for connections can be traced back to common ancestors.


The other difficult explanation is symbiotic relationships in nature between plants and insects or plants and birds. There is no explanation for how two interdependent species, like a plant and a bird could have developed separately, when one without the other cannot survive. Maybe you are ingenious enough to show how the symbiotic relationship came about.

All the best

David

It has nothing to do with my ingenuity. One very important symbiotic relationship was the reason that prokaryotic cells evolved into eukaryotic cells. Scientists theorize that the reason mitochondria have their own DNA was because they originally were prokaryotic cells that formed a symbiotic relationship with other prokaryotic cells, thus forming eukaryotic cells that have organelles. This process of evolving from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells took close to 2 billion years, that is a very long time to make what seems like a small change, but time is what it's all about in the evolutionary scheme of things. What starts out as a mutually beneficial relationship between orgainisms, given enough time, develops into a symbiotic relationship where both parts become dependent upon the other and cannot survive without the other.

Take care
Rose

David M
09-10-2013, 03:51 PM
Hello David
First off, you cannot compare mechanical objects with individual parts that are clearly developed by a designer for a specific purpose, with organisms that evolve to more complexity over time through selection and mutation.
Hello Rose
I was trying to think of a better example. Picking up on the point you make about increasing complexity, then using a mechanical model to compare with Evolution is not totally dissimilar. Cars today are far more complex than cars of 50 years ago. If we compare the design of cars over the decades, we see how the separate parts such as tyres and ignition systems have improved in design and increased in reliability. The improvements have been progressive year on year. Advances can be step with improving materials and miniaturization. More complexity in vehicle electronics is taking place year on year. The changes of different parts takes place at different rates. This is not too dissimilar the the evolution model.


Humans and chimpanzees share over 98% of their DNA which makes it fairly easy to genetically trace the less than 2% difference back to a common ancestor and calculate how those genes mutated and changed over time. It's only word play to try and make a distinctions between species and kinds. With the discovery of DNA the evidence for connections can be traced back to common ancestors. Incidentally Rose, what did you think of Elaine Morgan's theory that humans came from aquatic apes? Why is it that humans are hairless and apes have a thick covering of hair?



It has nothing to do with my ingenuity. One very important symbiotic relationship was the reason that prokaryotic cells evolved into eukaryotic cells. Scientists theorize that the reason mitochondria have their own DNA was because they originally were prokaryotic cells that formed a symbiotic relationship with other prokaryotic cells, thus forming eukaryotic cells that have organelles. This process of evolving from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells took close to 2 billion years, that is a very long time to make what seems like a small change, but time is what it's all about in the evolutionary scheme of things. What starts out as a mutually beneficial relationship between orgainisms, given enough time, develops into a symbiotic relationship where both parts become dependent upon the other and cannot survive without the other. That theory is far from being proven, but I grant you that is what is being suggested.
You have not explained how a symbiotic relationship like that between the a bird and a plant took place. Why should a plant make its nectar more difficult to get and the bird has to grow a longer beak in order to reach inside the flower. This is just one of many symbiotic relationships I would like you to explain how they came about.

All the best
David

Rose
09-10-2013, 08:58 PM
Hello Rose
I was trying to think of a better example. Picking up on the point you make about increasing complexity, then using a mechanical model to compare with Evolution is not totally dissimilar. Cars today are far more complex than cars of 50 years ago. If we compare the design of cars over the decades, we see how the separate parts such as tyres and ignition systems have improved in design and increased in reliability. The improvements have been progressive year on year. Advances can be step with improving materials and miniaturization. More complexity in vehicle electronics is taking place year on year. The changes of different parts takes place at different rates. This is not too dissimilar the the evolution model.

Hello David

Improvements are exactly what a purposeful designer does with his creation. As flaws manifest themselves corrections are made till the designer is satisfied that the product is the best it can be. If humans had a purposeful creator the design of our bodies would not be flawed, which obviously is not the case. There are many improvements that could be made in the design of the human body, which is totally in keeping with how evolution works, but not the way a purposeful designer works.

Things in nature do look designed, but only in the way that the natural process of evolution would design them, that is to say designed through natural forces that shape and form according to selection and mutation.


Incidentally Rose, what did you think of Elaine Morgan's theory that humans came from aquatic apes? Why is it that humans are hairless and apes have a thick covering of hair?

I don't have much to say about Elaine Morgan's theory, except I think she is wrong.

Humans did not come from apes, we share a common ancestor ... those are two very different things. Scientists calculate that our ancestors split from chimpanzees around 6 million years ago. Apparently mutations occurred in our ancestors that led to less and less hair, those mutations were selected for till we became the mostly hairless beings we are today. Maybe sexual selection played a role in causing us to lose our hair or maybe it was climatic conditions that caused individuals with less hair to survive the heat better ... it's probably something that we will never know for sure. It makes no sense to think that a god would design humans with very little hair, because naked bodies are far more vulnerable than bodies with a tough hide, and a nice coat of fur like our primate cousins.



That theory is far from being proven, but I grant you that is what is being suggested.
You have not explained how a symbiotic relationship like that between the a bird and a plant took place. Why should a plant make its nectar more difficult to get and the bird has to grow a longer beak in order to reach inside the flower. This is just one of many symbiotic relationships I would like you to explain how they came about.

All the best
David

Its all about reproduction, the flowers that get pollinated better are the ones that have more seeds which make more plants. Darwin showed how the beaks of finches changed with the type of food that was available to them, as the plants that provided seeds changed with climatic conditions so did the birds beaks. All these changes take place in micro steps dependent on selection and reproduction, symbiotic relationships develop slowly over time starting with a mutually beneficial relationships that gradually develop into dependent relationships. Things did not just appear in the state you see them today, they evolved very slowly over an extremely long period of time by micro steps.

Take care,
Rose

David M
09-11-2013, 03:49 AM
Hello Rose


Hello David

Improvements are exactly what a purposeful designer does with his creation. As flaws manifest themselves corrections are made till the designer is satisfied that the product is the best it can be. If humans had a purposeful creator the design of our bodies would not be flawed, which obviously is not the case. There are many improvements that could be made in the design of the human body, which is totally in keeping with how evolution works, but not the way a purposeful designer works.

Things in nature do look designed, but only in the way that the natural process of evolution would design them, that is to say designed through natural forces that shape and form according to selection and mutation. There is NO "design process" in evolution. I am saying that for you. This is what you must say in order to believe in evolution.


I don't have much to say about Elaine Morgan's theory, except I think she is wrong. She was an advocate for evolution right up to her death (not long ago), but she did not agree with the evidence/argument presented by Evolutionists.


Humans did not come from apes, we share a common ancestor ... those are two very different things. Scientists calculate that our ancestors split from chimpanzees around 6 million years ago. Apparently mutations occurred in our ancestors that led to less and less hair, those mutations were selected for till we became the mostly hairless beings we are today. Maybe sexual selection played a role in causing us to lose our hair or maybe it was climatic conditions that caused individuals with less hair to survive the heat better ... it's probably something that we will never know for sure. It makes no sense to think that a god would design humans with very little hair, because naked bodies are far more vulnerable than bodies with a tough hide, and a nice coat of fur like our primate cousins. Unfortunately, the false published material of long past is there to keep us confounded and is regurgitated by those not keeping up. The word of God has not changed from the day it was first given.

If you are never going to know for sure, why waste time reading about those things you can never be sure of?

God designed humans to be "clever" and creative. Humans can make clothes and decide when and where to wear them. How "clever" does that make God which designed of man? I am sure of that.



Its all about reproduction, the flowers that get pollinated better are the ones that have more seeds which make more plants. Darwin showed how the beaks of finches changed with the type of food that was available to them, as the plants that provided seeds changed with climatic conditions so did the birds beaks. All these changes take place in micro steps dependent on selection and reproduction, symbiotic relationships develop slowly over time starting with a mutually beneficial relationships that gradually develop into dependent relationships. Things did not just appear in the state you see them today, they evolved very slowly over an extremely long period of time by micro steps. The sensible thing for evolution (assuming evolution could decide or design) would be for that particular flower to make pollination easier; not more difficult. For every bird that did not have a long enough beak (and the bird can only survive on that one flower), the bird born with the short beak dies. It is too late to decide to grow a longer beak once it is dead. The flower would also not reproduce when it puts its nectar out of reach of the bird. A step too far in the opposite direction for both parties causes death to both. We envisage that with varying lengths of beak and flower chambers that started off short and of varying lengths, a point of equilibrium is reached, in which beaks do not get shorter and chambers do not get longer. Evolution must therefore have stopped for that pairing. Where else would evolution of that flower or that bird in this symbiotic relationship lead to? There is no sense for the flower to lengthen its chamber without first telling the bird to lengthen its beak. Without that essential communication in evolution, the symbiotic relationship would not continue in the direction it has taken. The only reasonable explanation is that it had to be designed that way from the start.

All the best
David

Rose
09-11-2013, 08:54 AM
Things in nature do look designed, but only in the way that the natural process of evolution would design them, that is to say designed through natural forces that shape and form according to selection and mutation.
Hello Rose

There is NO "design process" in evolution. I am saying that for you. This is what you must say in order to believe in evolution.
Hello David

Did you notice I said "look designed"? Organisms are not intelligently designed by a creator, rather they are designed by the natural process of natural selection to be able to survive in their environment. If organisms don't evolve properly to be able to adapt to their environment they die off, simple as that.



She was an advocate for evolution right up to her death (not long ago), but she did not agree with the evidence/argument presented by Evolutionists.

Unfortunately, the false published material of long past is there to keep us confounded and is regurgitated by those not keeping up. The word of God has not changed from the day it was first given.

If you are never going to know for sure, why waste time reading about those things you can never be sure of?

God designed humans to be "clever" and creative. Humans can make clothes and decide when and where to wear them. How "clever" does that make God which designed of man? I am sure of that.

If there is a creator god why didn't he make humans with a better body to start with? Our bodies are much more fragile then many other species of animals. Women die in childbirth at a much higher rate than any other animal (it's rare for any other animal to die in childbirth), if animals die in childbirth their offspring also end up dying, so the species ends up dying off. Also, humans suffer greatly from back problems because of our standing position. If god made humans to walk upright why didn't he design our spines to work optimally in that position? Eyesight starts deteriorating with most humans in their mid to late forty's, yet the Bible says that god gave humans seventy years ... why would he design our eyes to give out before our bodies? I could go on ...


The sensible thing for evolution (assuming evolution could decide or design) would be for that particular flower to make pollination easier; not more difficult. For every bird that did not have a long enough beak (and the bird can only survive on that one flower), the bird born with the short beak dies. It is too late to decide to grow a longer beak once it is dead. The flower would also not reproduce when it puts its nectar out of reach of the bird. A step too far in the opposite direction for both parties causes death to both. We envisage that with varying lengths of beak and flower chambers that started off short and of varying lengths, a point of equilibrium is reached, in which beaks do not get shorter and chambers do not get longer. Evolution must therefore have stopped for that pairing. Where else would evolution of that flower or that bird in this symbiotic relationship lead to? There is no sense for the flower to lengthen its chamber without first telling the bird to lengthen its beak. Without that essential communication in evolution, the symbiotic relationship would not continue in the direction it has taken. The only reasonable explanation is that it had to be designed that way from the start.

All the best
David

Evolution is not teleological, it does not have a purposeful end in mind ... if organisms don't reproduce well they die off, it happens all the time in nature. Evolution is a process of trial and error, if it doesn't work out it changes or dies off ... we see this all the time in nature. 95% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, which fits perfectly with theory of evolution ... it doesn't fit with the idea of a intelligent designer, unless he's really bad at designing! :p

Take care,
Rose

David M
09-12-2013, 05:04 AM
Hello David

Did you notice I said "look designed"? Organisms are not intelligently designed by a creator, rather they are designed by the natural process of natural selection to be able to survive in their environment. If organisms don't evolve properly to be able to adapt to their environment they die off, simple as that. Hello Rose
You also said; "in the way that the natural process of evolution would design them". Evolution relies on incremental small changes which we can call adaptation. There is no design element at all to evolution and the word "design" ought not to be mentioned in any way with it by an evolutionist. Everything has formed by random chance starting from the point of atoms, then stars, then the elements made by the stars. Then all the different molecules have randomly formed from the elements and the molecules have randomly formed to the point of everything we see. There has not been a designer involved anywhere in the process unless that is the only explanation for how atoms or the most basic components of matter are made. Hence, I did ask the question; "What if there is a God (a designer who kick-started the process).


If there is a creator god why didn't he make humans with a better body to start with? Our bodies are much more fragile then many other species of animals. Women die in childbirth at a much higher rate than any other animal (it's rare for any other animal to die in childbirth), if animals die in childbirth their offspring also end up dying, so the species ends up dying off. Also, humans suffer greatly from back problems because of our standing position. If god made humans to walk upright why didn't he design our spines to work optimally in that position? Eyesight starts deteriorating with most humans in their mid to late forty's, yet the Bible says that god gave humans seventy years ... why would he design our eyes to give out before our bodies? I could go on ... If only you had the power to create your own perfect human, we could tell if you are correct. I think none of us have the intelligence to be able to design better than the human body is, taking into account the human body being optimally designed to give it the greatest amount of skills and adaptability to its environment. It is easy to say the body should have this or that, but how do you know what difficulties that would involve? I mentioned intelligence and that is what separates us from the animals. The brain is incredibly complex. Our intelligence enables us to reason. I think when you look at all the abilities and skills of all individuals put together and put that capability into one person, then that shows how incredible the human body and mind has been designed.


Evolution is not teleological, it does not have a purposeful end in mind ... if organisms don't reproduce well they die off, it happens all the time in nature. Evolution is a process of trial and error, if it doesn't work out it changes or dies off ... we see this all the time in nature. 95% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, which fits perfectly with theory of evolution ... it doesn't fit with the idea of a intelligent designer, unless he's really bad at designing Maybe 99.9999999....%? of all species have died off. What really is a species that is part-way defined by all the intermediary steps between species? Maybe you are a different species to me, because there are probably more minor differences between us than there are similarities.

All the best
David

Rose
09-12-2013, 12:46 PM
Hello Rose
You also said; "in the way that the natural process of evolution would design them". Evolution relies on incremental small changes which we can call adaptation. There is no design element at all to evolution and the word "design" ought not to be mentioned in any way with it by an evolutionist. Everything has formed by random chance starting from the point of atoms, then stars, then the elements made by the stars. Then all the different molecules have randomly formed from the elements and the molecules have randomly formed to the point of everything we see. There has not been a designer involved anywhere in the process unless that is the only explanation for how atoms or the most basic components of matter are made. Hence, I did ask the question; "What if there is a God (a designer who kick-started the process).

Hello David

Everything cannot be lumped into random chance, much of what happens in the universe is predictable. Negative and positive always attract each other, certain atoms always make bonds with other atoms, when certain molecules are combined specific chemical reactions occur, when certain elements are put under pressure, heat or are frozen they react in predictable ways ... these reactions do not happen randomly they can be predicted. For example if you combine 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen you will always get a molecule of water ... it's predictable, not random. The same goes for what happens in the heart of stars like our sun - under extreme pressure and heat hydrogen atoms produce helium through the process of fusion ... it's predictable not random. Predictability is what allows us to make all the components in our cars, computers and medicines ... elements will always react in the same way.

If you feel the need for a god to "kick start" the universe, then that is something that will never be able to be proven one way or the other because it brings up the age old question of "Who created god?". And yes, I know the answer that is given is that god didn't need to be created because he has always existed, but that is not a valid reason. I could just as easily say the same for the universe.


If only you had the power to create your own perfect human, we could tell if you are correct. I think none of us have the intelligence to be able to design better than the human body is, taking into account the human body being optimally designed to give it the greatest amount of skills and adaptability to its environment. It is easy to say the body should have this or that, but how do you know what difficulties that would involve? I mentioned intelligence and that is what separates us from the animals. The brain is incredibly complex. Our intelligence enables us to reason. I think when you look at all the abilities and skills of all individuals put together and put that capability into one person, then that shows how incredible the human body and mind has been designed.

Should anything be too difficult for a god who supposedly created the universe?

Yes, I agree human brains are complex, but so is a chimpanzee's brain and a bonobo's brain. The human brain differs from other primate brains by very little, we have more neurons and specific areas of our brains are more developed which allows for language, speech and reasoning skills making us self aware. Because of a mutation in a specific gene that limited the number of neurons our ancestors brains produced the number of neurons was able to increase, thus allowing for more data processing capacity and reasoning abilities to develop. Scientists are discovering more and more how slight variations in genes or gene expression leads to large differences in abilities. Biology, genetics and evolution are fascinating fields of study, with new discoveries happening daily.


Maybe 99.9999999....%? of all species have died off. What really is a species that is part-way defined by all the intermediary steps between species? Maybe you are a different species to me, because there are probably more minor differences between us than there are similarities.

All the best
David

The definition of a species is organisms that can interbreed and reproduce. If organisms in the same species are separated for long periods of time speciation occurs, which means that enough genetic variation and mutationhas happened in the DNA, making it impossible for those organisms to reproduce.

Take care
Rose

David M
09-17-2013, 05:53 AM
Hello Rose


Hello David
Everything cannot be lumped into random chance, much of what happens in the universe is predictable. Negative and positive always attract each other, certain atoms always make bonds with other atoms, when certain molecules are combined specific chemical reactions occur, when certain elements are put under pressure, heat or are frozen they react in predictable ways ... these reactions do not happen randomly they can be predicted. For example if you combine 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen you will always get a molecule of water ... it's predictable, not random. The same goes for what happens in the heart of stars like our sun - under extreme pressure and heat hydrogen atoms produce helium through the process of fusion ... it's predictable not random. Predictability is what allows us to make all the components in our cars, computers and medicines ... elements will always react in the same way.
Man has determined physical and chemical laws according to what already exists and is working. Some things can be predictable based on those laws. All man can do is describe events by formulae. There is a level that within predictability, there is randomness. When we look deep into this as possible we end up in quantum physics where nothing appears certain. According to John Wheeler (eminent physicist);” Instead of a traditional static, unchanging zero state, quantum mechanics allows for far more dynamic, chaotic possibilities”. What brings order out of chaos is the unanswerable question. We have order and the progression appears to going towards chaos. Man brings order to chemicals/material things and then those things which he has made, eventually decay into disorder again. Evolution has had no maker to bring order to it.


If you feel the need for a god to "kick start" the universe, then that is something that will never be able to be proven one way or the other because it brings up the age old question of "Who created god?". And yes, I know the answer that is given is that god didn't need to be created because he has always existed, but that is not a valid reason. I could just as easily say the same for the universe. We know the universe exists, because we see it. The universe will exist when we do not. Just because something cannot be seen does not mean it does not exist. We deal with what we have. I appreciate science has to try and find out as much as possible and is forging links as with evolution to come up with an explanation. Is it predictable that man will find out everything and when he has, he will be as God, or is it predictable man will not find out everything?


Should anything be too difficult for a god who supposedly created the universe? That which is impossible for man to know, is not impossible for God, because God already knows it.


Yes, I agree human brains are complex, but so is a chimpanzee's brain and a bonobo's brain. The human brain differs from other primate brains by very little, we have more neurons and specific areas of our brains are more developed which allows for language, speech and reasoning skills making us self aware. Because of a mutation in a specific gene that limited the number of neurons our ancestors brains produced the number of neurons was able to increase, thus allowing for more data processing capacity and reasoning abilities to develop. Brains are similar, but the same old argument continues. Science has no alternative other than to find a connection between the similarities to prove an evolutionary link. There is no way of proving that the scientific explanation is correct however good the explanation appears to be.


Scientists are discovering more and more how slight variations in genes or gene expression leads to large differences in abilities. Biology, genetics and evolution are fascinating fields of study, with new discoveries happening daily. Man is discovering what already exists. Man finds something and then has to explain its existence. Man does not know anything about what has not been discovered and you do not know anything about what man will not find out.


The definition of a species is organisms that can interbreed and reproduce. If organisms in the same species are separated for long periods of time speciation occurs, which means that enough genetic variation and mutation has happened in the DNA, making it impossible for those organisms to reproduce. As I see it, we begin with basic organisms that are not species at first, any species. Those organisms breed in which small changes take place until the changes become so great as the new organisms cannot breed with the original organisms and only those organisms that can breed belong to a species. Within those species you say that the organisms change to the point that separate species form and those species cannot interbreed. From the original organisms, there were many changes taking different directions so that multiple species occurred and those multiple species could then not interbreed and produce offspring. Kinds are species that cannot interbreed. We can agree the Bible definition of a kind, a as a species that cannot interbreed. Once again, the problem of the theory of evolution is that too many steps are not provable and a what point is "a gene too far" whereby reproduction ceases? On paper there is an infinite variation within organisms and species to say that evolution might have possibly happened and given enough time it could have happened. Maybe God created the kinds and there has been so much variation of the species within kinds that that the kinds begin to look as if they could be related. The fact is, we are all traced back to chemicals and molecules and atoms.

All the best
David

Rose
09-17-2013, 09:52 AM
Hello Rose


Man has determined physical and chemical laws according to what already exists and is working. Some things can be predictable based on those laws. All man can do is describe events by formulae. There is a level that within predictability, there is randomness. When we look deep into this as possible we end up in quantum physics where nothing appears certain. According to John Wheeler (eminent physicist);” Instead of a traditional static, unchanging zero state, quantum mechanics allows for far more dynamic, chaotic possibilities”. What brings order out of chaos is the unanswerable question. We have order and the progression appears to going towards chaos. Man brings order to chemicals/material things and then those things which he has made, eventually decay into disorder again. Evolution has had no maker to bring order to it.

We know the universe exists, because we see it. The universe will exist when we do not. Just because something cannot be seen does not mean it does not exist. We deal with what we have. I appreciate science has to try and find out as much as possible and is forging links as with evolution to come up with an explanation. Is it predictable that man will find out everything and when he has, he will be as God, or is it predictable man will not find out everything?

That which is impossible for man to know, is not impossible for God, because God already knows it.


Brains are similar, but the same old argument continues. Science has no alternative other than to find a connection between the similarities to prove an evolutionary link. There is no way of proving that the scientific explanation is correct however good the explanation appears to be.

Man is discovering what already exists. Man finds something and then has to explain its existence. Man does not know anything about what has not been discovered and you do not know anything about what man will not find out.
Hello David

Do you realize that you have already made a choice of who to believe? You have choosen between the facts and evidence presented by scientists, and primitive men who believed that thunder was the booming voice of god. The only knowledge you have of god is from an ancient book that has been proved wrong over and over again! Science on the other hand could not continue if its predictions were consistently wrong. Religious writings are not held to the same criteria, or standard, so it doesn't matter how wrong they are people still believe in them :confused:

You have no first hand knowledge of gods existence, all your information comes from the writings of primitive men who lived in a time when everything was magical and mysterious. Why would you choose to believe in their magical thinking when science has solid evidence backed up by methods that work and are predictable? A computer works because all of the laws and principles discovered by science are true, it doesn't matter what any individual says to the contrary ... the proof is that things work.

Granted, science does not have all the answers, but when things don't work they are discarded and new theories are tested. Excuses and justifications don't have to be made as to why things don't work, all that needs to be said is the theory was wrong and they need to try again. The scientific method is testable, if theories fail the test they are discarded.


As I see it, we begin with basic organisms that are not species at first, any species. Those organisms breed in which small changes take place until the changes become so great as the new organisms cannot breed with the original organisms and only those organisms that can breed belong to a species. Within those species you say that the organisms change to the point that separate species form and those species cannot interbreed. From the original organisms, there were many changes taking different directions so that multiple species occurred and those multiple species could then not interbreed and produce offspring. Kinds are species that cannot interbreed. We can agree the Bible definition of a kind, a as a species that cannot interbreed. Once again, the problem of the theory of evolution is that too many steps are not provable and a what point is "a gene too far" whereby reproduction ceases? On paper there is an infinite variation within organisms and species to say that evolution might have possibly happened and given enough time it could have happened. Maybe God created the kinds and there has been so much variation of the species within kinds that that the kinds begin to look as if they could be related. The fact is, we are all traced back to chemicals and molecules and atoms.

All the best
David

There is no problem with the theory of evolution ... it is testable. All living things can be traced back to a common ancestor because DNA is the information source all life draws from. Evolution happens over time, micro steps add up to macro steps, there is nothing mysterious about the process. On the other hand when you introduce the Biblegod into the picture all sorts of problems arise ... you have to resort to saying things like "Maybe god did this, or maybe god did that" and introduce terms like "kinds" which have no scientific meaning.

The bottom line is that god is not necessary for the theory of evolution to work, the only reason primitive men inserted god into the picture is because they were ignorant of science ... you don't have to hold on to beliefs that were held in ignorance, you can move forward as understanding, and knowledge are made available. If the Biblegod were truly who the authors say he is, where is the evidence of his existence? Why has he made himself invisible? Why would he make modern humans dependent on the writings of ignorant, primitive men who had no scientific knowledge or understanding, in order to know him? Lastly, the single most important thing to the Biblegod is that humans worship and praise him ... sounds an awful lot like the rules of an arrogant, power-hungry human dictator to me.

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
09-18-2013, 03:00 AM
Hello David

Do you realize that you have already made a choice of who to believe? You have choosen between the facts and evidence presented by scientists, and primitive men who believed that thunder was the booming voice of god. The only knowledge you have of god is from an ancient book that has been proved wrong over and over again! Science on the other hand could not continue if its predictions were consistently wrong. Religious writings are not held to the same criteria, or standard, so it doesn't matter how wrong they are people still believe in them :confused:

You have no first hand knowledge of gods existence, all your information comes from the writings of primitive men who lived in a time when everything was magical and mysterious. Why would you choose to believe in their magical thinking when science has solid evidence backed up by methods that work and are predictable? A computer works because all of the laws and principles discovered by science are true, it doesn't matter what any individual says to the contrary ... the proof is that things work.

Granted, science does not have all the answers, but when things don't work they are discarded and new theories are tested. Excuses and justifications don't have to be made as to why things don't work, all that needs to be said is the theory was wrong and they need to try again. The scientific method is testable, if theories fail the test they are discarded.



There is no problem with the theory of evolution ... it is testable. All living things can be traced back to a common ancestor because DNA is the information source all life draws from. Evolution happens over time, micro steps add up to macro steps, there is nothing mysterious about the process. On the other hand when you introduce the Biblegod into the picture all sorts of problems arise ... you have to resort to saying things like "Maybe god did this, or maybe god did that" and introduce terms like "kinds" which have no scientific meaning.

The bottom line is that god is not necessary for the theory of evolution to work, the only reason primitive men inserted god into the picture is because they were ignorant of science ... you don't have to hold on to beliefs that were held in ignorance, you can move forward as understanding, and knowledge are made available. If the Biblegod were truly who the authors say he is, where is the evidence of his existence? Why has he made himself invisible? Why would he make modern humans dependent on the writings of ignorant, primitive men who had no scientific knowledge or understanding, in order to know him? Lastly, the single most important thing to the Biblegod is that humans worship and praise him ... sounds an awful lot like the rules of an arrogant, power-hungry human dictator to me.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

I want to comment on one point you said. "The scientific method is testable, if theories fail the test they are discarded."

That statement is NOT true! If a theory fails it is NOT always discarded. First of all the scientific methods are NOT testable. Einstien proposed lots of theories which unless we are able to produce a perfect vaccuum environment cannot be tested with any degree of reliability. The whole evolutionary origin argument has never been "tested". You know and I know that will NEVER happen. The first primordial soup cannot be duplicated now or ever! So scientists test aspects of the evolutionary model and then speculate about the origins of the model. Never discarding things which they have no interest in proving or falsifying. And if anyone ever does falsify one of the beloved building blocks of the evolutionary model the person is declared a quack and the scientific community moves on as if they are still correct.

http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

The official explanation of the NASA image states, "Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319 [center] and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space. NGC 4319 is 80 million light-years from Earth. Markarian 205 (Mrk 205) is more than 14 times farther away, residing 1 billion light-years from Earth. The apparent close alignment of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319 is simply a matter of chance." Professional astronomers seem to be so enamored of their 'redshift equals distance' theory that it damages their eyesight.

Stephan's Quintet
In "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies" (p. 96-101) Halton Arp discusses the five interacting galaxies NGC 7317, 7318A, 7318B, 7319, and 7320 that constitute Stephan's Quintet. The last one, NGC 7320, has a redshift value of 800 km/sec. The other four have redshifts of either 5700 km/sec or 6700 km/sec. Mainstream astronomers therefore claim those last four are about eight times farther away from us than NGC 7320. Therefore, they say, there cannot be any interaction between 7320 and the others.

Arp states "The deepest 200 inch (Mt. Palomar) plates that I have been able to obtain clearly show a 'tail' coming out of the southeast end of NGC 7320." He points out, "A tail like this from NGC 7320... must be an interaction tail - which could arise only from physical interaction with the adjacent high-redshift members of the Quintet."

He then states that at least one amateur has been able to see the tail but, "it is amazing that so many professionals have difficulty seeing it." NASA routinely crops their images of Stephan's Quintet to exclude the area where this tail would be seen.

However, my good friend, amateur astronomer John Smith acquired a full image of the Quintet.


The large, dark galaxy on the left is the low redshift NGC 7320. Then going counter-clockwise we have 7317, 7318A, 7318B, and 7319. At the top of the image is the small galaxy NGC 7320C. After some digital image processing (which only increased contrast), the result shown below was obtained.



It is apparent that a 'tail' does indeed extend out from NGC 7320 toward the left. In fact it appears to curve around and connect to the small galaxy NGC 7320C. The redshift of this small companion galaxy is z = 0.02 which is about 10 times that of NGC 7320.

So, once again we have evidence of a physical connection between two objects that have vastly different redshift values.


Inherent Redshift
Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherentiredshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift.

In addition, these inherent redshift z values of quasars seem to be quantized! Unusually tight groupings of those calculated values occur centered around values of
z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+z2) = 1.23(1+z1). [For example, 1.23(1+0.3) = 1.60].
The very existence of this quantization alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement. Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything!

Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.

Evidence Says Arp is Right - A Quasar In Front of a Nearby Galaxy
The final irrefutable falsification of the "Redshift equals distance" assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy.



In fact, a higher magnification image of the quasar (below) shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar.





So, Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe - but they are among the youngest.

The Big Bang Theory is false - not because I or others claim it to be false - but because it has been scientifically falsified by the work of people such as Halton Arp and his associates.Arp now lives in retirement in Germany.

I know you insist that Dr. Arp is a quack and that his theories have been proven "false"... BUt that is just not the case... There are questions to parts of his theories but the fact that his work falsified the Big Bang model means that science should GIVE UP THE BIG BANG MODEL! But no one has!!


Namaste,

Mystykal

L67
09-18-2013, 05:12 AM
Mystykal,


Why are you posting that BS again? Arp's theories have been tested and there is no evidence for his claims. That website you posted is committed to pseudoscience. Arp never falsified the Big Bang theory. That is something crackpot creationist have claimed. And you obviously believe the Bs because I have debunked your claims before and here you are again posting that junk. It really inspires confidence in a creator when creationists have to lie about their arguments. And they are lying about Arp's claims because the TRUTH is out there. It's pretty funny you think the Big Bang model has been proven wrong by Arp.:lol:

You can read what happens when REAL science is explored. Theories with no evidence are then discarded.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/


Here is the conclusion for Arps theory. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41T

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1+z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp#Critics

"... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [...] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency."[10]

Rose
09-18-2013, 11:30 AM
Hi Rose:

I want to comment on one point you said. "The scientific method is testable, if theories fail the test they are discarded."

That statement is NOT true! If a theory fails it is NOT always discarded. First of all the scientific methods are NOT testable. Einstien proposed lots of theories which unless we are able to produce a perfect vaccuum environment cannot be tested with any degree of reliability. The whole evolutionary origin argument has never been "tested". You know and I know that will NEVER happen. The first primordial soup cannot be duplicated now or ever! So scientists test aspects of the evolutionary model and then speculate about the origins of the model. Never discarding things which they have no interest in proving or falsifying. And if anyone ever does falsify one of the beloved building blocks of the evolutionary model the person is declared a quack and the scientific community moves on as if they are still correct.



Namaste,

Mystykal

Hi Mystykal

Scientific theories that fail are discarded in the sense that they cannot be used as a foundation for understanding the underlying principles until they have been revised and retested. Speculation happens all the time, but speculation gets you nowhere until your predictions become models that are testable and hold up.

Origins of life are still in the speculation stage, since no one has been able to create life from chemicals yet, the same goes for the origins of the universe. Evolution on the other hand happens before our eyes and can be seen on the micro and macro levels, the same holds true for understanding the formation of the universe beginning about 300,000 years after its birth.

God will never be able to be tested unless he reveals himself in a manner that can be physically experienced by all people. Revealing himself to primitive men through a booming voice that sounds like thunder just doesn't cut it!

Take care
Rose

David M
09-20-2013, 03:37 AM
Hello Rose


Hello David

Do you realize that you have already made a choice of who to believe? You have chosen between the facts and evidence presented by scientists, and primitive men who believed that thunder was the booming voice of god. That is your opinion. You cannot question people living at the time of Jesus (who were not primitive bronze-age people) and who wrote their testimony which we have on record.


The only knowledge you have of god is from an ancient book that has been proved wrong over and over again! Science on the other hand could not continue if its predictions were consistently wrong. Religious writings are not held to the same criteria, or standard, so it doesn't matter how wrong they are people still believe in them :confused: You talk from selective ignorance. I have reasons to believe God's word, but then there is no point discussing prophecy with you. Science makes hypotheses, which are often wrong. I agree, scientific theories are good in the sense of derived mathematical equations which can be reliably used, but that is not to say the theories are perfect and the most accurate.


You have no first hand knowledge of gods existence, all your information comes from the writings of primitive men who lived in a time when everything was magical and mysterious. Why would you choose to believe in their magical thinking when science has solid evidence backed up by methods that work and are predictable? A computer works because all of the laws and principles discovered by science are true, it doesn't matter what any individual says to the contrary ... the proof is that things work. Fulfilled prophecy is proof. You ignore prophecy and believe none have been fulfilled, so end of discussion on this point.


Granted, science does not have all the answers, but when things don't work they are discarded and new theories are tested. Excuses and justifications don't have to be made as to why things don't work, all that needs to be said is the theory was wrong and they need to try again. The scientific method is testable, if theories fail the test they are discarded. Certain things are not testable and so the scientific principle cannot be applied. Hypotheses remain where something is not testable.


There is no problem with the theory of evolution ... it is testable. All living things can be traced back to a common ancestor because DNA is the information source all life draws from. Evolution happens over time, micro steps add up to macro steps, there is nothing mysterious about the process. On the other hand when you introduce the Biblegod into the picture all sorts of problems arise ... you have to resort to saying things like "Maybe god did this, or maybe god did that" and introduce terms like "kinds" which have no scientific meaning. Evolution is not testable when scientists cannot produce anything like a dna molecule or prove the links that are being claimed. At best there are similarities and possibilities.
Actually Rose, you brought into the subject "kinds" by when referring to organisms that evolved to the point where they could not interbreed among the species. I was confirming the point that we end up with "kinds". It is just a matter of how those "kinds" came to be; creation or evolution.


The bottom line is that god is not necessary for the theory of evolution to work, the only reason primitive men inserted god into the picture is because they were ignorant of science ... you don't have to hold on to beliefs that were held in ignorance, you can move forward as understanding, and knowledge are made available. If the Biblegod were truly who the authors say he is, where is the evidence of his existence? Why has he made himself invisible? Why would he make modern humans dependent on the writings of ignorant, primitive men who had no scientific knowledge or understanding, in order to know him? You have all the answers to those questions in the Bible. I understand, and I accept. You do not accept, which begs the question; did you ever understand?


Lastly, the single most important thing to the Biblegod is that humans worship and praise him ... sounds an awful lot like the rules of an arrogant, power-hungry human dictator to me. What if someone insults you as the mother of your children or makes insults about your children which you find offensive and hurtful? This has nothing to do with being "power hungry". This is a term you want to use as an excuse for not believing in God. God is all powerful (compared to humans) and it is just as well God is long-suffering and loving as well as being the righteous judge. The fact that we are here and we have the opportunity to see God has proved himself by the things that are made (not evolved), and that events are taking place in the nations as predicted by God, we can be assured of his promises in the future. This is not a message which can be accepted by the masses and that is a never-ending battle between those in the know and those without the knowledge.

Alas, Rose, we are unable to reason about the Bible, because you are now blinkered to accept that it might be true. You are not averse to quoting words from it to suit your purpose. If only you could see the words of wisdom and "get understanding". It is inevitable that many of the subjects on this forum will have some connection to the Bible so most of the time, we are going to disagree and all we can do is express our opinions and leave it at that. This is not the place to have arguments, and as you say, and quote, we have to try and reason.

Have you anything more to say about high altitude fossils?

All the best

David

David M
09-20-2013, 04:12 AM
Hello L67

Mystykal,
Why are you posting that BS again? why are you bothering to quote on a subject that has nothing to do with this thread. I would like to ask you a question and this can be started in another thread and not continued here.

As I read the articles you gave the links to, it becomes obvious to me that science has reached the limit of measuring distances using the triangulation method. The angles are just too small to measure accurately. It now appears that science is using red-shift to gauge distance and distance means age. Maybe this is not an accurate method to take over from the triangulation method. What else besides red shift can be used to determine distance or age?

David

L67
09-20-2013, 07:22 AM
Hello L67
why are you bothering to quote on a subject that has nothing to do with this thread. I would like to ask you a question and this can be started in another thread and not continued here.

As I read the articles you gave the links to, it becomes obvious to me that science has reached the limit of measuring distances using the triangulation method. The angles are just too small to measure accurately. It now appears that science is using red-shift to gauge distance and distance means age. Maybe this is not an accurate method to take over from the triangulation method. What else besides red shift can be used to determine distance or age?

David

What is wrong with you David? It was Mystykal who brought the subject up. I was merely correcting that BS article. Why don't you question the person who started it in the first place?

Rose
09-20-2013, 02:36 PM
Hello Rose

That is your opinion. You cannot question people living at the time of Jesus (who were not primitive bronze-age people) and who wrote their testimony which we have on record.

You talk from selective ignorance. I have reasons to believe God's word, but then there is no point discussing prophecy with you. Science makes hypotheses, which are often wrong. I agree, scientific theories are good in the sense of derived mathematical equations which can be reliably used, but that is not to say the theories are perfect and the most accurate.

Fulfilled prophecy is proof. You ignore prophecy and believe none have been fulfilled, so end of discussion on this point.
Hello David


Jesus relied on the Old Testament (claiming it was his fathers word) which was written by primitive men as the foundation of what he promoted as the New Covenant. Jesus gave us nothing new, only a modified version of the rules and laws contained in the Old Covenant. Nothing in the Old Covenant is allowed to change according to Jesus, and anyone who breaks the least of its commandments will be called least in the kingdom.
Matt.5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Even if some of the prophecies could be interpreted as being fulfilled, what about all the prophecies that are wrong?


Certain things are not testable and so the scientific principle cannot be applied. Hypotheses remain where something is not testable.

Evolution is not testable when scientists cannot produce anything like a dna molecule or prove the links that are being claimed. At best there are similarities and possibilities.
Actually Rose, you brought into the subject "kinds" by when referring to organisms that evolved to the point where they could not interbreed among the species. I was confirming the point that we end up with "kinds". It is just a matter of how those "kinds" came to be; creation or evolution.
Just because scientists cannot produce DNA has nothing to do with whether or not it can be tested. In order for something to qualify as a scientific hypothesis it must be able to be tested that is why any hypothesis for god fails because it cannot be tested.

You are the one who introduced "kinds" into the discussion not me. Kinds is not a scientific term, whereas species is.


You have all the answers to those questions in the Bible. I understand, and I accept. You do not accept, which begs the question; did you ever understand?
The Bible has no answers for the scientific mind, nor does it answer the question as to why the Biblegod chose to reveal himself only to primitive men. In the past when I was content to live in ignorance I could believe in god, but the moment I started asking the "why" questions my "god bubble" burst. It is really no different then when a child finds out that Santa Claus is not real.


What if someone insults you as the mother of your children or makes insults about your children which you find offensive and hurtful? This has nothing to do with being "power hungry". This is a term you want to use as an excuse for not believing in God. God is all powerful (compared to humans) and it is just as well God is long-suffering and loving as well as being the righteous judge. The fact that we are here and we have the opportunity to see God has proved himself by the things that are made (not evolved), and that events are taking place in the nations as predicted by God, we can be assured of his promises in the future. This is not a message which can be accepted by the masses and that is a never-ending battle between those in the know and those without the knowledge.

Alas, Rose, we are unable to reason about the Bible, because you are now blinkered to accept that it might be true. You are not averse to quoting words from it to suit your purpose. If only you could see the words of wisdom and "get understanding". It is inevitable that many of the subjects on this forum will have some connection to the Bible so most of the time, we are going to disagree and all we can do is express our opinions and leave it at that. This is not the place to have arguments, and as you say, and quote, we have to try and reason.

Have you anything more to say about high altitude fossils?

All the best

David

If someone insulted me or my children I know for a fact I would not go on a killing rampage like the Biblegod is portrayed as doing. If god doesn't like the way humans turned out why did he create them in the first place?

As I have said many times before, I believe the Bible is a book written solely from the minds of men and as such contains many words of wisdom along with many words of ignorance.

Nothing other than what I have said comes to mind at the moment concerning high altitude fossils.

Take care
Rose

David M
09-20-2013, 02:53 PM
Hello L67


What is wrong with you David? It was Mystykal who brought the subject up. I was merely correcting that BS article. Why don't you question the person who started it in the first place?

So why have you not answered my question in the post you are responding to. There is no point discussing anything with you as you are not doing what you say you do. Here is my question again. You will not I read the articles you gave links to.


What else besides red shift can be used to determine distance or age?

Regards
David

L67
09-20-2013, 06:05 PM
Hello L67



So why have you not answered my question in the post you are responding to. There is no point discussing anything with you as you are not doing what you say you do. Here is my question again. You will not I read the articles you gave links to.


Earth to David. Did this slip your mind?
I would like to ask you a question and this can be started in another thread and not continued here.

So which is it? Do you want to stay on topic or start another thread?

Richard Amiel McGough
09-21-2013, 12:40 PM
That theory is far from being proven,
Ha! You crack me up every time you say that because your theory that the Bible is God's Word has no evidence of any kind, whereas scientific theories are based on demonstrable evidence.

Mystykal
09-23-2013, 02:46 AM
Mystykal,


Why are you posting that BS again? Arp's theories have been tested and there is no evidence for his claims. That website you posted is committed to pseudoscience. Arp never falsified the Big Bang theory. That is something crackpot creationist have claimed. And you obviously believe the Bs because I have debunked your claims before and here you are again posting that junk. It really inspires confidence in a creator when creationists have to lie about their arguments. And they are lying about Arp's claims because the TRUTH is out there. It's pretty funny you think the Big Bang model has been proven wrong by Arp.:lol:

You can read what happens when REAL science is explored. Theories with no evidence are then discarded.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/


Here is the conclusion for Arps theory. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41T

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1+z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp#Critics

"... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [...] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency."[10]

==============
Hi L67:

I had a hell of a time trying to find this post! I was gone for a few days...
Please try and keep an open mind to the views I am placing in front of you. I do not think that they have been discredited. Quite the opposite! The problem is on of concrete facts. The issues of perspective have to do with the different ways models in science are created in the first place.....

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41T

Those who possess even a modest familiarity with Halton Arp's arguments should be highly dubious of the analysis presented on this page. The following statement does not fully address the possible causes for the *intrinsic* redshift, whether it's an accurate representation of Arp's claims, or not. And that means that this analysis should be rejected as an incomplete rebuttal for the claim of intrinsic redshift:

"Astronomy has long had a handful of fringe scientists who argue that at least some of the redshifts we see are non-cosmological in origin. In particular, Halton Arp, most famous for a catalog of galaxies with disturbed morphologies (as a result of interactions), argues that quasars aren't really cosmologically distant objects at all, but are rather objects ejected from nearby galaxies, SHOWING THEIR REDSHIFTS AS THE RESULT OF AN EXTREME DOPPLER SHIFT DUE TO THEIR HIGH EJECTION VELOCITIES."

To my knowledge, the intrinsic component to the observed raw redshift is *quantized*. Thus, how does it even make any sense that ejection velocities would be the inferred cause? What causes the quantization? What we are seeing here, by necessity, is a microscopic process playing out in a macroscopic manner.

There is arguably a large set of explanations which could be tapped into to explain this observation of quantized inherent redshifts. Ejection velocity is hardly one of the more convincing inferences.

One idea which has emerged from the EU camp is that, observationally speaking, there appears to exist an increase in the mass of the quasars as the quantized redshift in quasars falls. This is an important aspect of Arp's observations which was noteworthy enough to end up in the documentary, "The Cosmology Quest". It also appears quite clearly on page 108 of Seeing Red, Arp's explanation for his observations, where he states:

"Now comes a key point: If the mass of an electron jumping from an excited atomic orbit to a lower level is smaller, then the energy of the photon of light emitted is smaller. If the photon is weaker it is redshifted ... it suffices here to understand that lower-mass electrons will give higher redshifts and that younger electrons would be expected to have lower mass."

The point here is that the analysis presented on this page does not appear to reflect the full argument which Arp and others are making. So, it appears to me that you are (intentionally or not) confusing people.

One way to explain intrinsic redshift is as quantized changes in energy levels of electrons, protons and neutrons within the atom. Within the EU view, the masses of subatomic particles change in response to electrical stress. In an Electric Universe, that includes magnetic and gravitational stress. Wal Thornhill argues that increasing negative charge on bodies increases their mass and gravity (see "Orbital Energy" in http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s).

So, how could we reconcile this? One way -- and I'm just throwing this out there as an example -- would be to realize that the plasmoid formed in a plasma gun is the most copious beamed source of neutrons known. So, most of the mass ejection will be neutral and decaying, once free of the plasmoid's electromagnetic influence, into protons and electrons (nascent hydrogen).

The second fact is that electrons, being much lower in mass than protons, will remain entangled in the plasmoid in greater numbers and for longer than protons. Also, strong electric fields in the plasmoid will tend to separate the electrons and protons, giving oppositely directed beams.

There are almost surely other inferences which could explain the full set of observations. But, the trick is in getting people to leave their comfortability zone of the gravitational framework sufficient to postulate plasma physics explanations. Whatever the proposed explanation is, it needs to be proposed within a plasma universe framework. This is where most conventional thinkers go wrong: They fail to absorb the plasma universe materials sufficient to even make such propositions.

It always amuses me when people point to a statistical analysis in order to prove that somebody else's theory is wrong. Yes, it is unfortunately common today, but there exists a very large set of misconceptions or dirty tricks which can bias the results to accommodate any pre-existing worldview. The human mind oftentimes looks for shortcuts to avoiding uncertainty. We often times want to believe *something*, and it might as well be that which we've been already taught.

Furthermore, many of the bridges that Arp points to are startlingly apparent to the human eye, once the proper spectra are included. That you decide to focus upon the statistics instead of the stronger bridge evidence, I think speaks to your desire to fight the battle on terms which the general public cannot understand. You are essentially winnowing down the set of people who can argue against you.
An arguably far better way to test Arp's theory would be to look for "quantum graininess" in particle mass increases within particle acceleration experiments. But, I suspect that your intentions do not so much align with curiosity as they do with an attempt to justify your current belief system. So, I don't expect that you would follow up on such a suggestion, or even think anything of it if the hunch was confirmed. This is what happens when physicists are trained in just one theory. It is not so much a product of science, as it is human psychology. Teaching a student one theory suggests memorization. Critical thinking -- which results from a process of comparing and contrasting -- does not truly begin until the student is taught two competing sets of ideas.

This is consistent with the scientific model making approach.

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
09-25-2013, 03:44 PM
Hello Rose
As you have said you have nothing else to say about high altitude fossils, I guess we have said all we can say on the matter. I shall deal with any questions you have asked in this post and add a final comment on what you have said.


Hello David


Jesus relied on the Old Testament (claiming it was his fathers word) which was written by primitive men as the foundation of what he promoted as the New Covenant. Jesus gave us nothing new, only a modified version of the rules and laws contained in the Old Covenant. Nothing in the Old Covenant is allowed to change according to Jesus, and anyone who breaks the least of its commandments will be called least in the kingdom.
Matt.5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
If you asked Jesus; who wrote the their ancient scriptures, he would not say the people were primitive. Not so advanced technology-wise, but every bit as intelligent as you and me. In that respect, man has not advanced in 6,000 years. The rules did not require modifying because they were already perfect. Jesus only summed up the the commandments into two commandments. I do not know what you are trying to prove by that last quote. We are not to add or take away from God's instructions. These are the basic rules for living and if everyone kept the ten commandments, we would have no problems in the world.


Even if some of the prophecies could be interpreted as being fulfilled, what about all the prophecies that are wrong? What prophecies are wrong? You should try harder to understand the prophecies that have been fulfilled and the ones to be completed. There are prophecies to be fulfilled in the future despite what Preterists say. If you just go along blindly to everything that supports your reason for denying God, then you will not listen to reason.


Just because scientists cannot produce DNA has nothing to do with whether or not it can be tested. In order for something to qualify as a scientific hypothesis it must be able to be tested that is why any hypothesis for god fails because it cannot be tested. Prophecy is proving God more than you care to admit. Scientific hypotheses once tested and found to work, become theories. Scientists are tinkering with DNA and maybe some predictions are possible. I can play with Leggo and produce things that I know will fit together. Scientists are a long way off making predictions as to the way DNA will change within their life time and cannot predict the way evolution would go since there is no design or predicted path to evolution that is testable. Please come up with some solid evidence to support your claim.


You are the one who introduced "kinds" into the discussion not me. Kinds is not a scientific term, whereas species is. I have already explained that what you say is species that cannot any longer interbreed have become kinds. Kinds cannot interbreed. You are disguising kinds because you do not like the word because of its association with creation. A spade is a spade and that is what a kind is, species that cannot interbreed with any other species than itself.


The Bible has no answers for the scientific mind, nor does it answer the question as to why the Biblegod chose to reveal himself only to primitive men. In the past when I was content to live in ignorance I could believe in god, but the moment I started asking the "why" questions my "god bubble" burst. It is really no different then when a child finds out that Santa Claus is not real. A child can find God in place of Santa Claus and you would rather children find out nothing about God who offers eternal life. You say primitive man as though they were of lesser intelligence. I think you should stop using that term. Of course you will not because it suits your purpose to mislead other into believing there is no God.


If someone insulted me or my children I know for a fact I would not go on a killing rampage like the Biblegod is portrayed as doing. If god doesn't like the way humans turned out why did he create them in the first place? God like the potter knows that there will be a percentage of rejects. God is interested in the pots that are acceptable. Reprobates are noting in God's sight. Reprobates would kill your children and you would not want to take revenge. Pull the other leg.


As I have said many times before, I believe the Bible is a book written solely from the minds of men and as such contains many words of wisdom along with many words of ignorance. Wise words indicate intelligence. Primitive man is a misnomer. When we are talking about the last 6,000 years there were intelligent minds that built the Pyramids and things we still cannot explain fully today. The Bible contains the wisdom of God that is far superior to man's wisdom. Unless you have what I call your spiritual spectacles or spiritual filters, you will not recognize the wisdom that runs throughout the whole of the Bible uniting its writings. That is why harmony and consistence can be found in its writings, but like the parables, if you do not search out the meaning, you will not see what the spiritual message is.


Nothing other than what I have said comes to mind at the moment concerning high altitude fossils. I think a comparison can be done to compare fossils found at various heights around the world. Fossils are found all over the world. Whether at one time or over a long period of time, a catastrophe took place in all parts of the world. What appears like separate events could be one long event. You do not know how God could cause things to happen faster than you think possible. The resulting chaos of a world-wide Tsumani would not leave uniform traces.

All the best

David

David M
09-25-2013, 03:58 PM
Earth to David. Did this slip your mind?


Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
I would like to ask you a question and this can be started in another thread and not continued here.

So which is it? Do you want to stay on topic or start another thread?

I will leave that to you. Just let me know what you intend to do so I know the reason you are not answering here. Do you intend to answer and when? That is all I need to know.