Darwin and evolution

[cassini]

There is more to life that just animals and plants. At the base of the tree of life there are three major groups: bacteria, archea and eukaryotes (the viruses evolved later). The eukaryotes are divided into protists, plants, animals and fungi. Protists are always single celled. Plants and fungi may be single celled or multi celled. Animals (metazoa) are all multi celled.

The first living thing was probably a very simple single celled proto-bacterium. It did need to eat and basically it would have eaten the chemicals in the water around it. Bacteria can process many different chemicals and since life is theorised to have arisen in the chemical soup, then the first life would have started off eating that soup.

No. The early earth had almost zero free oxygen; all early life was anaerobic - it did not need oxygen. Many bacteria today do not need oxygen - they form the smelly stagnant mess at the bottom of ponds. Oxygen only became important after photosynthesis evolved. For much of early life oxygen was a poison, see the Oxygen Catastrophe.

You have been misinformed. Anaerobic bacteria and archea do not need air to breathe, and indeed for the great majority of then oxygen is a poison. Early life did not require oxygen and was entirely anaerobic.

Photosynthesis evolved about a billion years after the origin of life, before that there were no plants. Multi-celled animals evolved about two billion years after plants. Early plants were all single celled algae. Conditions on the early earth were very different to conditions now. Life on the early earth was also very different to life now. You seem to be trying to extrapolate the present back into the past, this is a mistake. The distant past was very different.

The first life was very probably very simple proto-bacteria. Archaea are also single celled and probably evolved from bacteria before the arrival of photosynthesis (and hence oxygen). At this point various single celled organisms were eating raw chemicals and each other. Once photosynthesis evolved algae could start making their own food from carbon dioxide, water and sunlight. Some bacteria/archaea evolved to make use of the oxygen that photosynthesis produced while others retreated to places where there was no oxygen - the ancestors of the modern anaerobes. Later still a bacterium and an archaea merged to form the first single celled eukaryote. All eukaryotes use oxygen; we are eukaryotes and our mitochondria are the descendants of the bacterial part of the merger. Different elements of the current system evolved at different times, each new arrival making use of what was already present and the existing organisms adjusting to take account of the new presence.

rossum

When I got to the first ‘PROBABLY’ I switched off. Their whole ‘science’ depends on assumptions, but assumptions are not science but a faith, a belief, a hope their atheism depends on.

 

[shannyk]

Just thought I’d add two interesting links to this threads discussions…

from Sheila Liaugminas’ blog

inforumblog.com/?p=2178

and from Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest, on the upcoming evolution conference in Rome

stoqinternational.org/Evolution-Conferences/Biological-Evolution-Facts-and-Theories.html

and an excerpt…

The public debate tends to feature two ideologies in opposition: anti-religious evolutionism against fundamentalist creationism, including the “Intelligent Design” school of thought.

Many voices challenge Church teaching about evolution without knowing exactly what that teaching is. There is an urgent need for clarity.

In October 1996, Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and pointed to earlier Church writing on evolution. “In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.”

 

[rossum]

You are fully certain that you wish to affirm ‘natural selection’,an idea that was borrowed from an essay on racial supremacy

I suspect that you are misunderstanding the terminology of Darwin’s subtitle, his use of the word “races” referred to what we now call subspecies of animals - different variants within the same species. Humans are hardly mentioned at all in “On the Origin of Species”.

and put into practice by Hitler?

Hitler was not a scientist, and he miesused a great many things, how about:“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
Are you prepared to follow a religion that was put into practice by Hitler? The Argumentum ad Hitlerum is a false argument, Hitler was as bad a theologian as he was a scientist.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

I am not sure it is about weak faith as much as it is about wanting the whole truth. If evolution as it stands was accepted by the Church, it would make no difference in my faith.

Of course it is fear. That is why some people spend so much energy trying to confuse people about the science. Science isn’t easy for most people and it is very easy to make false claims against carbon dating or evolution or the big bang or any other “questionable” (or as another poster on this forum refers to it - “atheistic”) science.

I, like many others, am waiting for the Pope and the Magisterium, for the proper teaching usually given in an encyclical on evolution.

Why? Did you wait for the Pope and the Magisterium to produce an encyclical on gravity?

You mentioned carbon dating. Why would the Vatican produce an encyclical dealing with carbon dating?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Darwinians need to see this video on the Extended Synthesis and how Darwinians are undermining science.

 

[oriel16]

Natural selection has been observed. Do you discount it only on your dislike of Darwin’s approach to race or on the evidence?

Mendel’s approach to genetics has been observed but applying a ‘cause’ for the diversity of life out of an essay on racial supremacy is so shocking that I have to wonder how,in God’s name,did this ever get off the ground

You do realize that was Alfred Wallace and not Charles Darwin, right?

“In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work.” (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, edited by Nora Barlow, 1958

rjohara.net/teaching/uncg/freshman-104w-1-letters

Don’t embarrass yourself like that again !.As for the rest of you here,I hardly know what to think.

Regardless, what evidence do you have that falsifies natural selection?Do you have any evidence that would falsify natural selection? Your rhetoric is boring. Let’s hear your scientific arguments.

Darwin’s distortion of evolution, or rather, his insertion of a ‘cause’ based on an essay on racial supremacy is absolutely shocking but in itself amounts to a symptom of a much bigger issue. The business of establishing a conclusion and finding ‘evidence’ to support it can be easily twisted,as Darwin and Newton did,to distort or adapt evidence to suit the conclusion.Anybody stupid enough to fall for the ‘falsification’ nonsense is hardly capable of dealing with the root cause for the emergence of ideologies which insert ‘causes’ while running roughshod over genuine investigations into biological/geological evolution and astronomy.

I know straight away an empiricist from a genuine scientist by asking a simple question ,it may not be immediately evident,but the question leads back to the root cause of this terrible situation -

How long does it take the Earth to rotate through 360 degrees ? (anyone can answer the question btw)

The empiricist will give the wrong answer to that basic question

 

[Orogeny]

Mendel’s approach to genetics has been observed but applying a ‘cause’ for the diversity of life out of an essay on racial supremacy is so shocking that I have to wonder how,in God’s name,did this ever get off the ground

Natural selection has been observed. Do you have any scientific evidence that natural selection is not a mechanism of evolution?

“In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work.” (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, edited by Nora Barlow, 1958

rjohara.net/teaching/uncg/freshman-104w-1-letters

Yawn. Is this the best you have? It would seem that you are just another wannabe that thinks he is the person who will defeat evolution. Sad.

Do you have any scientific evidence that will overturn evolution?

Don’t embarrass yourself like that again !.As for the rest of you here,I hardly know what to think.

No Wallace this time?

Do you have any scientific evidence that will overturn evolution?

Anybody stupid enough to fall for the ‘falsification’ nonsense is hardly capable of dealing with the root cause for the emergence of ideologies which insert ‘causes’ while running roughshod over genuine investigations into biological/geological evolution and astronomy.

So that is a “no, I don’t have any scientific evidence whatsoever to support my claims”. Not that that is any surprise.

I know straight away an empiricist from a genuine scientist by asking a simple question ,it may not be immediately evident,but the question leads back to the root cause of this terrible situation -

Ooh, a test!

How long does it take the Earth to rotate through 360 degrees ? (anyone can answer the question btw)

Well, if I were cassini, I would say never because the earth doesn’t rotate!

However, I’m not cassini, so I will say approximately 24 hours. Am I a scientist, an “empiricist” or an Astros fan?

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

I suspect that you are misunderstanding the terminology of Darwin’s subtitle, his use of the word “races” referred to what we now call subspecies of animals - different variants within the same species. Humans are hardly mentioned at all in “On the Origin of Species”.

rossum

I do not know how Christians are managing to do this,Darwin explicitly uses an essay on national races and their characteristics without the slightest hint of apology.The worrying part is contemporaries now try to tone down the fact that it is racially based and unbelievably catastrophic for applying to biological evolution -

“In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work.”(The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, edited by Nora Barlow, 1958.)

There is nothing to misread and I question the motives of any person who is prepared to make it something less than it actually is.I do not fault Darwin for being explicit,I do fault you for making him less so and it does refer to human population if he is using Malthus -

"In these savage contests many tribes must have been utterly exterminated. Some, probably, perished by hardship and famine. Others, whose leading star had given them a happier direction, became great and powerful tribes, and, in their turns, sent off fresh adventurers in search of still more fertile seats. The prodigious waste of human life occasioned by this perpetual struggle for room and food was more than supplied by the mighty power of population, acting, in some degree, unshackled from the consent habit of emigration. The tribes that migrated towards the South, though they won these more fruitful regions by continual battles, rapidly increased in number and power, from the increased means of subsistence. Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians, brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation, and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the means of supporting it. "

ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.3.html

Are you going to accuse me of misreading Malthus as well or are you going to face the horror of applying a loose social commentary to God’s creation and promoting it as the cause for evolution ?.

IHitler was not a scientist, and he miesused a great many things, how about:“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
Are you prepared to follow a religion that was put into practice by Hitler? The Argumentum ad Hitlerum is a false argument, Hitler was as bad a theologian as he was a scientist.

rossum

The only reason Hitler appears in a discussion is that his views mirror that of Malthus in terms of population and expansion of territory,how this found its way into biological evolution via Darwin I will never know,not because of the way it happened but that there was no initial opposition based on the genuine science of evolutionary biology/geology.You may be in over your head here and that is the problem,few have a grasp of why the emergence of empirical natural ‘laws’ had bad consequences for both genuine science and religion.

Again,who is not queasy after reading that the reason for biological diversity of life on the planet and evolution is application of an essay by Malthus on racial supremacy ?

 

[Orogeny]

Again,who is not queasy after reading that the reason for biological diversity of life on the planet and evolution is application of an essay by Malthus on racial supremacy ?

Well, if that were the reason for biological diversity of life, Malthus, not Darwin, would be considered the father of evolution. But, it is not.

Do you have any scientific evidence that natural selection is not a mechanism of evolution?

Or maybe, we should just cut to the chase. Do you acknowledge that evolution exists? If so, how does it work. If not, how do you explain the evidence?

Give us a reason to listen to what you have to say other than for comic relief.

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

However, I’m not cassini, so I will say approximately 24 hours. Am I a scientist, an “empiricist” or an Astros fan?

Peace

Tim

You give the incorrect answer,the answer is that it takes exactly 24 hours.

Cassini ,without knowing how timekeeping astronomers developed the relationship between ‘constant’ daily rotation and the ‘average’ 24 hours,can probably give you the correct answer.

The point is,again,that when you arrive at a false conclusion and make up whatever story you like to support it,this empirical approach has catastrophic consequences.The most visible form of a wrong conclusion and the reasoning behind it is that simple question.

 

[hugh_miller]

Popes always speak about evolution but it means very little. The Church’s stance on evolution hasn’t changed.

EVOLUTION VS EVOLUTION:

I would agree but would like the current Pope or perhaps the next one to carry this thought one step further and point out that Macroevolution over billions of years has not been observed by man [obviously] but microevolution or change withiln “kind” has been so observed by man.

The church can easily correct this purposefully & falsely created misunderstanding of the use of the term “evolution” by observing that those billions of years required for macroevolution do not seem to exist because radiocarbon dating of all fossils from diamonds to coal to dinosaur bones are within the range of C-14 dating. Thus these supposedly ancient fossils demonstrates that the long ages for macro-evolution are non-existent and therefore that portion of Darwin’s theory, macroevolution is patently false. Have a nice day.

 

[Orogeny]

You give the incorrect answer,the answer is that it takes exactly 24 hours.

Cassini ,without knowing how timekeeping astronomers developed the relationship between ‘constant’ daily rotation and the ‘average’ 24 hours,can probably give you the correct answer.

The point is,again,that when you arrive at a false conclusion and make up whatever story you like to support it,this empirical approach has catastrophic consequences.The most visible form of a wrong conclusion and the reasoning behind it is that simple question.

So which am I? A scientist, an empiricist or an Astros fan?

Why do we have leap seconds?

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

Well, if that were the reason for biological diversity of life, Malthus, not Darwin, would be considered the father of evolution. But, it is not.

Do you have any scientific evidence that natural selection is not a mechanism of evolution?

Tim

A ‘cause’ was never required to explain biological evolution and is still is not required.The fact that people celebrate the work of a guy who adapts an essay on racial supremacy is ever reason to give it short shrift instead of blowing it up as a major blow to the religions of the world.

To counterbalance the atrocious acts of a German based on racial supremacy,another German,this time a really good man,shows how to approach geological and biological evolution and arrive an enjoyable conclusions that any Christian would be proud of -

“Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all
earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine ‘truth’ here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw.” Alfred Wegener

ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

Wegener does not distort the facts to arrive at his conclusion but leaves the door open for genuine scientists to provide better details.What does Darwin’s evolution do but set the diversity of life on a course that reduces biological evolution to a branch of chemistry with nothing but blind speculation and no contact with other Earth sciences.For his troubles,he was abandoned by his contemporaries.

My own work on climate and geology is dependent on people who can interpret observations correctly and put them into proper context and the same intuitive intelligence that I use to affirm Christ and Christianity,I also use to explore my rich Christian scientific tradition and expand on the details.So far,genuine scientists are hard to find where a high degree of intutive intelligence is required but that is because of all the empirical distractions such as the horror of a racial operspective of biological evolution.

 

[Orogeny]

The church can easily correct this purposefully & falsely created misunderstanding of the use of the term “evolution” by observing that those billions of years required for macroevolution do not seem to exist because radiocarbon dating of all fossils

Radiocarbon dating of fossils? Really now, Hugh, you know better than that.

from diamonds to coal to dinosaur bones are within the range of C-14 dating.

Except for the minor detail that they are not within the range of C14 dating. But of course you already know that.

Thus these supposedly ancient fossils demonstrates that the long ages for macro-evolution are non-existent and therefore that portion of Darwin’s theory, macroevolution is patently false. Have a nice day.

You too!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

A ‘cause’ was never required to explain biological evolution and is still is not required.The fact that people celebrate the work of a guy who adapts an essay on racial supremacy is ever reason to give it short shrift instead of blowing it up as a major blow to the religions of the world.

Do you accept evolution or not?

To counterbalance the atrocious acts of a German based on racial supremacy,another German,this time a really good man,shows how to approach geological and biological evolution and arrive an enjoyable conclusions that any Christian would be proud of -

“Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all
earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine ‘truth’ here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw.” Alfred Wegener

ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

I certainly don’t have a problem with Wegener. Now back to that evidence you have that natural selection is not a mechanism of evolution…

Wegener does not distort the facts to arrive at his conclusion but leaves the door open for genuine scientists to provide better details.What does Darwin’s evolution do but set the diversity of life on a course that reduces biological evolution to a branch of chemistry with nothing but blind speculation and no contact with other Earth sciences.

There are other evolution deniers on this forum that will argue that geology is as bogus a science as evolution is because it is linked to and supports evolution. Several people have tried to dishonestly link radiocarbon dating to fossils, for example.

For his troubles,he was abandoned by his contemporaries.

You don’t know much about Wegener, do you. Was Wegener’s idea welcomed with open arms in the geologic community?

My own work on climate and geology is dependent on people who can interpret observations correctly and put them into proper context and the same intuitive intelligence that I use to affirm Christ and Christianity,I also use to explore my rich Christian scientific tradition and expand on the details.

Now we are getting somewhere. You have research available? I would love to read it. Please give us a link so that we can be enlightened.

So far,genuine scientists are hard to find where a high degree of intutive intelligence is required but that is because of all the empirical distractions such as the horror of a racial operspective of biological evolution.

I’m sure it is.

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

So which am I? A scientist, an empiricist or an Astros fan?

Why do we have leap seconds?

Peace

Tim

We have had 86 400 leap seconds added on Feb 29th for thousands of years and they represent the fact that the annual orbital cycle calculated using equable 24 hour days amounts to 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes.This allows everyone to enjoy the ancient astronomical jewel of converting an astronomical cycle to a linear progression of years.As the 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes does not amopunt exactly to the leap day in a 366 day leap year,they discovered that the calendar was drifting against the natural astronomical cycle and that is where Copernicus enters the picture *.

In short,adding a ‘leap second’ based on the conclusion that the Earth is ‘slowing down’ is utter stupidity and another weakminded empirical conclusion.Leap seconds have always been strictly a relationship between the annual orbital cycle and the calendar convenience which allows humanity to enjoy a linear progression of years.

Nobody believes that we add 86 400 leap seconds every 4th year because the Earth is ‘slowing down’ or some other ridiculous proposal but this shows how little we now know of structural and timekeeping astronomy as opposed to the era of Galileo and Copernicus who dealt with these matters in terms of calendar reform.

Galileo,in his defence of his silly betrayal of the Pope’s confidence, argued accurately that the Church in the era of Copernicus was supportive of heliocentric reasoning but this was not enough to save him in the atmosphere of 17th century Italian politics -

“In order to facilitate their designs, they seek so far as possible (at least among the common people) to make this opinion seem new and to belong to me alone. They pretend not to know that its author, or rather its restorer and confirmer, was Nicholas Copernicus; and that he was not only a Catholic, but a priest and a canon. He was in fact so esteemed by the church that when the Lateran Council under Leo X took up the correction of the church calendar, Copernicus was called to Rome from the most remote parts of Germany to undertake its reform. At that time the calendar was defective because the true measures of the year and the lunar month were not exactly known. The Bishop of Culm, then superintendent of this matter, assigned Copernicus to seek more light and greater certainty concerning the celestial motions by means of constant study and labor. With Herculean toil he set his admirable mind to this task, and he made such great progress in this science and brought our knowledge of the heavenly motions to such precision that he became celebrated as an astronomer” Galileo, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina

 

[Orogeny]

We have had 86 400 leap seconds added on Feb 29th for thousands of years and they represent the fact that the annual orbital cycle calculated using equable 24 hour days amounts to 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes.This allows everyone to enjoy the ancient astronomical jewel of converting an astronomical cycle to a linear progression of years.As the 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes does not amopunt exactly to the leap day in a 366 day leap year,they discovered that the calendar was drifting against the natural astronomical cycle and that is where Copernicus enters the picture *.

Wait a minute. I didn’t ask about leap days, I asked about leap seconds.

In short,adding a ‘leap second’ based on the conclusion that the Earth is ‘slowing down’ is utter stupidity and another weakminded empirical conclusion.Leap seconds have always been strictly a relationship between the annual orbital cycle and the calendar convenience which allows humanity to enjoy a linear progression of years.

So are days longer now than they used to be? I mean, we keep adding seconds only because of some stupid relationship between a day and the rotation of the earth…

Nobody believes that we add 86 400 leap seconds every 4th year because the Earth is ‘slowing down’ or some other ridiculous proposal but this shows how little we now know of structural and timekeeping astronomy as opposed to the era of Galileo and Copernicus who dealt with these matters in terms of calendar reform.

I didn’t mention a leap day. I asked about a leap second. Pay attention.

Do you accept evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

Wait a minute. I didn’t ask about leap days, I asked about leap seconds.

Tim

There is only one leap day constructed of either 24 hours or 1440 minutes or 86 400 seconds.The only acceptable use of leap seconds is specifically a calendar correction based on the annual orbital cycle of the Earth.If you cannot grasp the basic reason why leap seconds/leap minutes/leap day is applied every 4 th year on Feb 29th,how are you going to affirm that this notion of individual leaps seconds applied to daily rotation is utter nonsense.

Maybe I should ask you where the quarter day goes each year to make up the leap day every 4th year ? because I certainly know the timekeeping principles behind it and the sheer admiration for my astronomical ancestors who developed the system .People who inject an individual ‘leap second’ as the ‘cause’ of daily rotation slowing down or speeding up are just playing the wider populations for fools but such is the standard of astronomy today with imaginary celestial objects,time travel,warped space and whatever other ridiculous novelties dumped into the celestial arena under the name of astronomy.This new business of a 'leap second/daily rotation is just another piece of junk in a world that has seen far too much of it…

So are days longer now than they used to be? I mean, we keep adding seconds only because of some stupid relationship between a day and the rotation of the earth…I didn’t mention a leap day. I asked about a leap second. Pay attention.

I am faced with an empirical community who are drawing silly conclusions without the slightest sign that the Christian community has any sense of the great Christian scientific heritage that is being destroyed.I asked the basic question as to how long it takes the Earth to turn 360 degrees (the correct answer is 24 hours) because I know that the 'leap second/daily rotation numbskulls propose an alternative and false 23 hours 56 minute 04 second answer to the same question.

Do you accept evolution?

Peace

Tim

Now you are being just plain silly.The historical lessons of Europe in the 1940’s is a powerful enough reason to return to the core ‘cause’ which empiricists imagine is driving creation via evolutionary biology notwithstanding that it is essentially derived from an essay on racial supremacy.

The question on timekeeping shows that the problem exists further back in the late 17th century .My Christian astronomical ancestors would be ashamed as to how their carefully constructed heritage is falling into disrepute never mind the horror of injecting ‘cause’ directly into the celestial and terrestrial creation under the most spurious of circumstances.

You would be terrified if I asked you where the quarter day goes each year to make up the calendar cycle on Feb 29th every 4th year but it is a complicated answer that takes the mind of an astronomer can enjoy,at least one steeped in the old traditions .Maybe someday Christians will come to their senses and take a fresh look at a heritage that has been all but destroyed,until then,great damage is being done to science and Christianity.

Many do not have the capacity to comprehend the cross current of issues which go into these things and how science,once a treasured part of Christian heritage is now seemingly opposed to it.I tough it out in the empiricists forums where they throw every possible insult and accusation at me but that gift of God which manifests itself in the many Christian scientists,and many others non Christians stretching back to remotre antiquity,flows through my veins also.I think I have said enough,at least in this forum.

 

[Orogeny]

There is only one leap day constructed of either 24 hours or 1440 minutes or 86 400 seconds.The only acceptable use of leap seconds is specifically a calendar correction based on the annual orbital cycle of the Earth.If you cannot grasp the basic reason why leap seconds/leap minutes/leap day is applied every 4 th year on Feb 29th,how are you going to affirm that this notion of individual leaps seconds applied to daily rotation is utter nonsense.

Leap seconds are not applied every 4th year on Feb. 29. You don’t know about leap seconds, do you?

tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html

You see, a day isn’t exactly 86,400 seconds or 24 hours. You might want to be a bit careful when making claims like that. Approximately 24 hours is the correct answer.

So, what does that make me, a scientist, an empiricist or an Astros fan?

Maybe I should ask you where the quarter day goes each year to make up the leap day every 4th year ? because I certainly know the timekeeping principles behind it and the sheer admiration for my astronomical ancestors who developed the system .People who inject an individual ‘leap second’ as the ‘cause’ of daily rotation slowing down or speeding up are just playing the wider populations for fools but such is the standard of astronomy today with imaginary celestial objects,time travel,warped space and whatever other ridiculous novelties dumped into the celestial arena under the name of astronomy.This new business of a 'leap second/daily rotation is just another piece of junk in a world that has seen far too much of it…

Feeling a bit hurt because you didn’t know about leap seconds? Did you read that the massive earthquake in Indonesia that caused the tsunami a couple of years ago was so powerful that it actually slowed down the earths rotation?

I am faced with an empirical community who are drawing silly conclusions without the slightest sign that the Christian community has any sense of the great Christian scientific heritage that is being destroyed.

How is the earth slowing down destroying Christian scientific heritage?

I asked the basic question as to how long it takes the Earth to turn 360 degrees (the correct answer is 24 hours) because I know that the 'leap second/daily rotation numbskulls propose an alternative and false 23 hours 56 minute 04 second answer to the same question.

Yeah, but that wasn’t my answer. Glad to know that I am not a numbskull.

Now you are being just plain silly.The historical lessons of Europe in the 1940’s is a powerful enough reason to return to the core ‘cause’ which empiricists is driving creation via evolutionary biology notwithstanding that it is essentially derived from an essay on racial supremacy.

So is that a yes or a no?

You would be terrified if I asked you where the quarter day goes each year to make up the calendar cycle on Feb 29th every 4th year but it is a complicated answer that the mind of an astronomer can enjoy.

Oh, please, please don’t do that! My numb skull might explode!!!

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel16]

Leap seconds are not applied every 4th year on Feb. 29. You don’t know about leap seconds, do you?

tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html

You see, a day isn’t exactly 86,400 seconds or 24 hours. You might want to be a bit careful when making claims like that. Approximately 24 hours is the correct answer.

Tim

I assure you,the answer is 24 hours exactly even if you are unaware how the average 24 hour day is transfered to daily rotation as a ‘constant’ -

xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Many Christians know how accurate clocks were developed to act as rulers of distance based on 4 minutes of clock time equaling 1 degree of longitude/ geographical separation and 24 hours/360 degrees -

esri.com/lewisandclark/locationthen.html

The empiricist created a conclusion that a star returning back to a location every 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds represents the constant daily rotation of the Earth despite the fact that astronomers since antiquity up to Huygens never ,ever referenced the daily cycle to any external celestial object and never as a ‘constant’,that was something John Flamsteed unfrotunately did.The point here is not that you will defend the false value or the false reasoning behind that conclusion,it is that you cannot alter your views to appreciate the correct value and how clocks were kept in suync with the daily cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees.

So,do Christians really want to be identified with the poorest possible conclusion in astronomy as well as evolutionary biology ?. I can help point towards the correct answers but each individual must look in the mirror ,at least those who wish to become involved,and decide whether they wish to think like a numbskull or act like a Christian.