J
johnnyjones
Guest
Have I ever written like that to you? Not necessary.
- Status
J
johnnyjones
Guest
So NASA put 5 foot long thermo probes underneath them, and had them get smashed when landing for cost effectiveness. You thought the circular shape of the feet was just for “ground coverage” ?
J
johnnyjones
Guest
See post 298.
F
Farsight001
Guest
That’s a lie. You will find such an explanation in no textbook that teaches evolution on this entire planet. You are quite literally making stuff up and you need to go to confession about it.
We have checked it and an explanation for why the information was false was given to you. Your refusal to address the explanation is insulting, demeaning, and really just plain childish poor form.
How about you provide the rest of his quote instead of intentionally trying to deceive people by neglecting context? You know, the part where he backtracks and refutes his own sentence and explains in detail why special creation actually fails utterly?
Now you’re lying about what happened, which is really silly, as the posts are there for all to see. You provided one reference to moon dust, which was refuted and it was pointed out that it was the idea of one man who admitted he was likely wrong (in the very same document he wrote his estimates in, no less!). Then YOU again, cited, again, just one man. I repeated what I had already said - that it was just one man. It’s not me trying to have my cake and eat it to. It’s you doing the exact same thing - citing just one man as though it were proof - twice, thinking that it might work the second time even though it didn’t work the first time. I think Albert Einstein’s words are appropriate here - insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
You ARE being lied to. Case in point, the quotes you provided. They’re NOT IN THOSE BOOKS! “The Age of the Earth”, 1987 doesn’t even exist! And the next quote? Doesn’t even mention the moon! Are you beginning to understand what we mean when we say that they’re lying to you now? They’re literally making up quotes and entire books, hoping you won’t go check their citations to confirm.
What in Sam-hill does evolution have to do with space travel? You’re not even making sense anymore.
It wasn’t designed to counteract thick layers of dust. If it was, it would have been one, giant, flat panel along the entire bottom of the lander, not four 1 foot diameter feet. Have you ever seen a pile of dust before? You sink in that far far easier even than fresh snow. Those 4 little feet would never have done the trick if they thought there was a deep layer of dust. The physics behind having those 4 little feet, even under the gravity of the moon, hold such a ship out of the dust is just impossible. It’s not even in the rough order of magnitude estimate range.
How is that a point at all? Stuff hits the moon. So?
F
Farsight001
Guest
I feel like you’ve been nothing but condescending to anyone who doesn’t share your worldview from the get go, so yes, you have written like that to me.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Darwinism isn’t taught. Evolution is taught. Darwinism is an outdated and oversimplistic idea. Like Freud in the psychology world, Darwin is honored for being the spark that lit the fire, but his ideas are just not used or taught anymore.
In addition, evolution does not exclude a deity or any other supernatural entity. It simply does not mention one because it is outside the realm of the study of evolution. Just as one who is musing about the future is not speaking in a historical context, one who is musing about God is not speaking in a natural context. Science is the study of the natural world. It does not study the supernatural, so it does not study God. One is free to muse and believe whatever they want about God and still be an excellent scientist, but the study of God is not part of the realm of science, and you should be thankful for that.
F
Farsight001
Guest
steel probes that can penetrate loose rock as well as dust? Why would they be crushed?
And what in the world does the shape of the feet have to do with their ability to effectively stop one from sinking? It’s about surface area, not shape.
As has already been pointed out to you before, the U.S.A. and Russia had both already landed probes on the moon and everybody already knew how thick the dust was, so your claim that they put feet on the lander out of fear of dust is just plain false, no matter how you want to try to spin it.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you for the correction. What is not needed here is the constant insistence by some that Catholics must give their assent to this, especially when totally unscientific links between science and the Bible are added. These include complete fantasies that pre-humans somehow reached a point in their development where they could detect God.
It’s one thing to present a scientific theory. That’s fine, but it is not logical or rational to do the following:
- A provisional theory which is open to refinement and new discoveries requires that some post here to claim it as fact. That is incorrect, especially when it is also pointed out that nothing is proven in science, it’s just ‘as much as we know at the present time.’
- The totally non-scientific idea that there is any connection to this theory and the Bible or Church teaching.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm
Pope Benedict XVI
"Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”
“What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.”
Peace,
Ed
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Stop the hostility. This is a Catholic Answers Forum and although we have passions your getting a bit out of control. Child-like applies to language as well. Civility please.That’s a lie. You will find such an explanation in no textbook that teaches evolution on this entire planet. You are quite literally making stuff up and you need to go to confession about it.
We have checked it and an explanation for why the information was false was given to you. Your refusal to address the explanation is insulting, demeaning, and really just plain childish poor form.
How about you provide the rest of his quote instead of intentionally trying to deceive people by neglecting context? You know, the part where he backtracks and refutes his own sentence and explains in detail why special creation actually fails utterly?
Now you’re lying about what happened, which is really silly, as the posts are there for all to see. You provided one reference to moon dust, which was refuted and it was pointed out that it was the idea of one man who admitted he was likely wrong (in the very same document he wrote his estimates in, no less!). Then YOU again, cited, again, just one man. I repeated what I had already said - that it was just one man. It’s not me trying to have my cake and eat it to. It’s you doing the exact same thing - citing just one man as though it were proof - twice, thinking that it might work the second time even though it didn’t work the first time. I think Albert Einstein’s words are appropriate here - insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
You ARE being lied to. Case in point, the quotes you provided. They’re NOT IN THOSE BOOKS! “The Age of the Earth”, 1987 doesn’t even exist! And the next quote? Doesn’t even mention the moon! Are you beginning to understand what we mean when we say that they’re lying to you now? They’re literally making up quotes and entire books, hoping you won’t go check their citations to confirm.
What in Sam-hill does evolution have to do with space travel? You’re not even making sense anymore.
It wasn’t designed to counteract thick layers of dust. If it was, it would have been one, giant, flat panel along the entire bottom of the lander, not four 1 foot diameter feet. Have you ever seen a pile of dust before? You sink in that far far easier even than fresh snow. Those 4 little feet would never have done the trick if they thought there was a deep layer of dust. The physics behind having those 4 little feet, even under the gravity of the moon, hold such a ship out of the dust is just impossible. It’s not even in the rough order of magnitude estimate range.
How is that a point at all? Stuff hits the moon. So?
Lets say big bang, where did those elements come from, and then the elements of those elements etc.
As far as the quote you site, you determined I was trying to deceive, and frankly I resent it. I wrote that he was an evolutionist. Who said he was “all in” the creationist camp. He made a good point. People make good points. They don’t always have to agree with other parties. YOU CHOSE to interpret it that way because you think based on my writings, that I’m some kind of duped trickster. Please stop that.
I don’t call you brainwashed or something to that effect. The moon dust was refuted by YOU and those in your camp. There was no factual evidence. I provided information you refuse to accept. Again, stop with accusations that I’m lying. When you say “for all to see”, is that empowering you? The Age of the Earth is a book, period.
B
buffalo
Guest
So this top evo didn’t say this? Another lie?
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. “Professor Richard Lewontin”
K
kama3
Guest
So is Kepler-22b: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-22b
Fun fact – both Venus and Mars would be habitable with a different atmospheric makeup. Also – six billion years from now Titan will be sort of habitable, although only for a short period of time (less than a billion years).
Another fun fact – recent data (as of 2011) suggest that the Milky Way Galaxy contains on the order of 100 billion (10^11) planets. The visible universe is estimated to contain on the order of 10^11 galaxies. That works out to about 10^22 planets in total. With 10^22 planets, some are bound to meet physical criteria for the creation of life, by the chance alone. If you assume that only one in a million (10^6) planets is habitable, we get 10^7 habitable planets in the galaxy and 10^16 habitable planets in the visible universe.
In fact, we are currently discovering exoplanets by hundreds, so the claim of our exceptionality looks less and less convincing every day.
Actually it is. Nowadays, it gets hit with a world-ending asteroids every 65 million years or so. The last one took out the dinosaurs 65 millions years ago. Which means that we should be expecting the next one just about now. That makes some astronomers a bit panicked
Also – nothing in the Solar System is currently being bombarded with asteroids, because most of them are already gone. Asteroids are junk left over from the planetary formation stage, but over the last several billion years, most of that junk has already impacted something. So there was a time, when Earth was being blasted pretty heavily: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment
With 10^16 tries, nothing is ridiculously fortunate.
Errr… planets aren’t created. Planets form from a protoplanetary disk: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk The protoplanetary disk, in turn, together with the star in the center, forms from a gas cloud created in a supernova explosion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
K
kama3
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
There is documentation and there is documentation. For example:
Sheep have souls:
“one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep.” [KJV - Numbers 31:28]
Jesus was a sheep:
“John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God…’” [John 1:29]
Jesus only saves Israeli sheep:
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” [Matthew 15:24]
These sheep hate their parents:
“For I have come to set a man against his father” [Matthew 10:35], [Luke 14:26]
The sheep are all atheists:
“There is no God” [Psalms 14:1, 53:1]
They eat mutton:
“he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” [John 6:54]
But they can’t eat lobsters:
“But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales … is an abomination to you” [Leviticus 11:10]
It is amazing what you can “prove” with a few quotes. It’s all documented.
rossum
K
kama3
Guest
Show me any function a human has that a chimp does not. Human has all the functions the chimp does, they are just more developed. (And not even much more developed. There was at least one chimp who demonstrated ability to understand abstract concepts for example).
Actually, there is a whole sub-field of computer science which specializes in applying Darwinian principles to computer programs. It works.
eecs.harvard.edu/~rad/courses/cs266/papers/koza-sciam03.pdf
L
LJH_80
Guest
There is a difference between being able to support life and being able to support the types of life present on Earth.
Your math’s off. 10^11 in the galaxy, 10^-6 habitable means 10^5 habitible ones in the galaxy. No worries, on a logrithmic scale, you were really close, and you got the final number right.
Also, not all points in the galaxy are created equal. Inside the galactic core, the amount of energy hitting us would be significantly different.
But that’s beside the point.
I still say we’re exceptional. If you’re in the top 0.001% of intelligence, you’re exceptional no matter what size population you’re in. Likewise, we are far on the tail of the probability curve. The fact that the curve keeps getting bigger doesn’t deny that this location is still quite improbable.
That’s cute, but the error bars on this are large enough that I’m quite comfortable. Think about it more like rolling a 65,000,000 sided die anually, where a roll of 1 causes a huge asteroid impacting the Earth. Now, you’ve avoided rolling a 1 for the last 64,999,999 times so what’s your probability of rolling a 1 on the next roll? Still 1/65,000,000.Actually it is. Nowadays, it gets hit with a world-ending asteroids every 65 million years or so. The last one took out the dinosaurs 65 millions years ago. Which means that we should be expecting the next one just about now. That makes some astronomers a bit panicked
Still, if we shaved a power of 10 off that improbability, again, life would be significantly different.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Use the same techinque on your sources.There is documentation and there is documentation. For example:
Sheep have souls:
“one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep.” [KJV - Numbers 31:28]
Jesus was a sheep:
“John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God…’” [John 1:29]
Jesus only saves Israeli sheep:
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” [Matthew 15:24]
These sheep hate their parents:
“For I have come to set a man against his father” [Matthew 10:35], [Luke 14:26]
The sheep are all atheists:
“There is no God” [Psalms 14:1, 53:1]
They eat mutton:
“he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” [John 6:54]
But they can’t eat lobsters:
“But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales … is an abomination to you” [Leviticus 11:10]
It is amazing what you can “prove” with a few quotes. It’s all documented.
rossum
J
johnnyjones
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
All that shows is the possibility of common design.
F
Farsight001
Guest
I don’t care if you don’t give your assent to evolution. If you want to believe that God created the universe as is 6-10 thousand years ago, that’s fine, as long as you take it on faith. Consider it an opportunity to express your faith. The problem here is people rambling on and on about how “weak” evolution is when they don’t even seem to fully grasp the very definition of evolution, let alone core concepts about it. Like anti-Catholics who claim adamantly that we worship Mary and aren’t allowed to read the bible - the stuff you and the others are saying here have no grounding in science. Faith? Sure, ok. But you are trying to suggest that many many many things are true about evolution which are not, and many many many things are not true about it which are. Our response is frustration at the heaps and heaps of deception being disseminated en masse by people who don’t even realize what they’re doing.
It’s one thing to present a scientific theory. That’s fine, but it is not logical or rational to do the following:
There’s no such thing as a provisional theory, and as we have already explained, the theory only exists in the first place because evolution is a fact. No fact means no theory. There’s nothing incorrect about that. We post it because it’s true, and therefore, it IS logical and rational to do.
Haven’t seen anyone do this, except to admit that they believe that God was behind evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is time once again to play - The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge
- Status