Evolution is Junk Science and Secular Religion

[TeleMad]

Skimming back through the posts I noticed an error by FreeThinker that not only wasn’t caught, but was used again both by FreeThinker and even another person.

 

FreeThinker:

 

*********************************

CD27:so, for something to evolve over "millions of years" is really a quite stupid idea, considering that the earth is not even that old...hm, now that sure does take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

*********************************

 

We have received light from galaxies billions of light years away. A "light year" is how far light travels in one year. If the source is a billion light years away, that light started to travel a billion years ago.

 

If every thing in existence was created 6,000 years or so ago, the light would not even have started to make the trip all the way to earth. We would not be able to see anything further away then 6,000 light years. We'd see perhaps 3-4 stars in the sky. Here are the nearest stars:

 

Common Name Distance (light years)

 

Proxima Centauri 4.2

Rigil Kentaurus 4.3

Alpha Cen B 4.3

Barnard's Star 6.0

Wolf 359 7.7

 

So we would not see Wolf, and Barnards would have flashed in a few years ago?

 

 

And then …

 

FreeThinker:

 

***********************************

CD27: those stars could really only be a couple thousand years olod, and because they are so far away, tehy would seem like billions of years old,

***********************************

 

What is it about the speed of light that you find impossible to comprehend? Or again is it that it destroys your Christian nonsense so you refuse to acknowledge the reality of it?

 

if "they are so far away" (billions of light years), their light is going to take billions of years for their light to get here NO MATTER WHAT. No matter where a center is, no matter when they or the universe came into existence. If the universe is 6,000 years old, you would only see stars closer than 6,000 light years away. All 4 of them! LOL!

 

 

And then Uncle Martin picked up on it…

 

Uncle Martin: I would also like CD27 to explain why we see more than the 4 stars that his 6000 year old universe predicts. (I wonder if he'll ever get that?)

 

Well?

 

 

But go back and look at FreeThinker’s first statements on this. The Earth is being assumed to be 6 THOUSAND years old, not just 6 years old. So the stars that we would be seeing would be those that are 6 THOUSAND light years or less distance from us. Since we are about 20 or so thousand light years out from the galactic nucleus, and that is about 2/3 of the way out, then we would be able to see virtually all of the stars that lie outside of our position and about 1/3 or ¼ of the stars that lie inside of our position, not to mention a whole slew of stars on either our forward or backward motion directions that couldn’t be seen in just 6 years.

 

So FreeThinker’s list should actually contain thousands – if not more – stars.

 

******************************

As far as the standard Creationist explanation for why we can see stars billions of light years away even though the universe is supposedly only 6 – 10 thousand years old, it’s the same as other explanations: God create the Universe “mature”. God didn’t create the Earth flat and then make it “evolve” mountains over time – he put the fully formed mountains there right off. God didn’t create bacteria on Earth and then make it evolve into humans – he put humans there right off. And Adam and Eve didn’t start off as children and then grow to be adults – God started them off as adults. In the same way, God started with photons are various distances already traveling towards us. So when he put a star 3 billion light years away, he put some of its photons starting off at just 2 billion light years away from us, and some at 1 billion

[Uncle Martin]

TeleMad,

 

FT and I were toying with CD27. The (I wonder if he'll ever get that) should have tipped you off. We both know better. Just an attempt at some light hearted, sarcastic humor.

 

I am glad that someone did finally see it. It has taken way too long.

[TeleMad]

Young-Earth Creationism vs. Science

 

Astronomy

 

1) Why do astronomers detect light from billions of light years away?

According to the Big Bang theory, our Universe began about 14 billion years ago. Astronomers have been peering farther and farther back in time as their telescopes improved, and have observed regions of space that are over 10 billion light years distant. Since these regions of space are greater than 10 billion light years away, it has taken the light from them more than 10 billion years to reach us.

 

But Young-Earth Creationists claim the Universe is only 6 to 10 thousand years old, so how can astronomers be receiving photons that are 10 billion years old or older? YECs use the same general logic as they do for other phenomena: God created the Universe mature. For example, God didn’t create the Earth flat and then make it “evolve” mountains and valleys over time – He put the fully formed mountains and valleys there right from the start. And God didn’t create single-celled organisms on Earth and then make them evolve into humans over time – He put humans here right from the start. And Adam and Eve didn’t start off as babies and then grow to be adults over many years – God started them off grown. Basically, whatever modern science considers life, Earth, and the Universe to have been like 6 to 10 thousand years ago, Young Earth Creationists just claim that God started things off that way. In one sense, then, YEC can be viewed is an ad hoc religious attempt to mimic key scientific findings to make those parts of YEC indistinguishable from science. As science learns something knew that contradicts YEC, they can just mold their malleable ad hoc position around it to incorporate it, and still retain their supposed 6,000-year-old Universe because “God just did it that way”.

 

Since, science says that 6,000 years ago there were photons from a galaxy 10 billion light years away headed towards Earth, YEC just claim that when God created those stars that far away that He also placed some of their photons already in route to the Earth at various distances, such that they would be observed as though they left the stars 10 billion light years ago. In other words, some of their photons were placed just a few thousand light years away from Earth even though the stars were created billions of light years distant. Deceit? Sounds like it to me.

 

Let’s see if we can easily come up with a satisfactory explanation – besides deceit – that God would have done so.

 

Could it be so that plants could photosynthesize? No, because the Sun is all plants need, not stars from outside our own galaxy.

 

Could it be so that travelers could navigate? No. First, stars and galaxies billions of light years distant are not even visible with the naked eye, so they could not possibly be used for navigation. Second, there are likely plenty of stars within a 10,000-light-year radius from Earth - which would be visible to the naked eye - that could serve for navigation.

 

 

 

2) Why have astronomers detected millions of quasars?

Stars and galaxies – which still exist - are one thing, but quasars are a whole new ball game. They don’t exist now and didn’t exist 10 thousand years ago. So why would God create the illusion that something that never existed in His universe – quasars – did exist billions of years ago? That takes deceit to a whole new level.

 

The word quasar comes from “quasi stellar” and refers to small (solar system size) but extremely energetic sources of energy (output as much energy as large galaxies). More importantly, it is now known that quasars lie at great distances from our own galaxy (the theories that suggested they were local have been discredited by multiple lines of compelling evidence). The key is, that quasars only occur at vast distances from the Earth, which means they occurred only in the very distant past: billions of years ago. In fact, the existence of quasar

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

i agree with you that the "old-fashion" type of christianity is harmful to the world.

 

but the newly "evolved" christianity is a helpful accessory to this world.

I don;t want this to go too far off topic. Tormod will get mad at me when he gets back esp if I am the guilty one. But since this is about religion and science, I guess it will be appropraite for a while.

 

It is CURRENT Christians that are trying to force the rest of us to wallow in their intentionally forced ignorance. Such as their rejection of the very solidly established Theory of Evolution. Just as they are allowing lot of pepople to die by stopping Stem Cell research. How much immoral can one be that to intentionally stop research which can save thousands of lives?

 

And you call this a "helpful accessory to this world"?

 

How is "helping" thousands to die more rapidly and painfully than needed, a "helpful accessory to this world"?

 

The world needs to get rid of such horrendeous "accessor(ies)". We are in the 21st Century. It's time to shed those antiquated superstitions.

 

and if christianity is "the worst problem", i would say "money" is even worse (see how many stealing there are, and how many ppl die b/c of it).

"stealing...and how many ppl die b/c of it" is NOT the fault of "money". It is the fault of the current DISTRIBUTION of money. These acts are the result of POVERTY. If wealth was more evenly distributed, there would not be the need nor desire to steal. Ya there are a few with mental compunctions, kleptomaniacs, but that is a different discussion.

 

Religion (bringing this back around) fosters the idea of the haves and have nots. Religion promotes that some work and then give to their mythical god, THRU the authoritive structure of the church. Some PERSON Is greatfuly their to accept your contribution in the name of his boss upstairs.

 

And he is equally willing to pass along what his upper level manager commands the masses to do. As he sees fit.

 

Thus the effort to stop people from discovering how bogus religious superstition is. Thus the effort to stop the expansion of scientific knowledge, such as the efforts to stop children from recieving a fact based science education with Evolution as a cornerstone.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

almost all the christianitians ive seen are friendly, amicable...

This is what is called "Anecdotal", Tim. MOST people are friendly and amicable. It is because it is the way we are. It is not BECAUSE of their religion, it is most often INSPITE of their religion.

no much people read the whole bible and remember the whole book like crazy.

 

people just got the idea of christianity, like love your enemy, helping others, forgive....so on,

 

christianity is like for a better personality.

See Tim, this is EXACTLY the problem. MOSt people are ignorant of the bible just like you show yourself to be. And they are equally willing to CLAIM to know what is says anyway.

 

Yes you are right. Eight out of 10 Americans name the bible as the most influential book in human history, the book they love to quote and the book they would most likely turn to in time of trouble.

 

In fact, according to a survey by the Barna Research Group, Americans swear by the bible. They just don't read it.

 

Nine out of 10 Americans own a bible (or several) even I do, and 4 out of 10 say bible reading is very important to them. Only one out of five Americans, however, has read the whole bible. Even fewer, 17%, read it regularly. Nearly half, 45%, of the 1,000 adults randomly surveyed rarely or never read the bible. And that is just what they will ADMIT. How many would CLAIM to read the bible just to

 

But the bible does NOT tell it's followers to love people. These warm fuzzy notions are LIES built by religious authorities to keep the funds rolling in.

"Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who teaches my hands to wage war, and my fingers to do battle." Psalms 144:1

 

"And I will dash them one against each other, the fathers and the sons, says the Lord. I will not pity or spare or have compassion, that I should not destroy them." Jeremiah 13:14

 

A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed! Jeremiah 48:10

 

"But for these very enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence" Luke 19:27

 

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, and wife and children, and and brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" Luke 14:26

 

"Do not think that I have come to send peace upon the earth; I have come to bring the sword, not peace"... "I have come to set man at variance with his father, and a daughter with her mother, and a daughter in-law with her mother in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household" Matt 10:34-36

 

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

 

Ah yes, such wonderful words to live by! Warms one's heart doesn't it!

 

But people stay ignorant of what the bible ACTUALLY says and then blindly supply support for it by claiming:

christianity is like for a better personality.

Ya, if you like murdering maniacs!

 

Fortunately, as you first indicated, people generally are compasionate caring individuals. We just need to EDUCATE them on the REALITY of WHY they are that way. We need to stop LYING to them about it being a religious view. It is NOT it is a SECULAR view that they are following, they just falsely give credit to their religion becuase they are too ignorant to know better.

 

i would feel better to have a god rely on, when i do something wrong, god will forgive me, when i fail something, god is with me.

Yes it is always easier to have someone else to lay the blame on.

 

Being an Atheist requires having a higher level of personal responsbility. There is no god to blame. No god to except special help from. You want it done? DO IT! If it fails, accept responsibilit

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

Evolution is a fact.

 

And it is a Theory.

 

That Evolution as a process is seen in nature, is a FACT.

 

The THEORY of Evolution is the most accurate one by far to explain the diversity of species on earth today.

 

Thus Evolution is BOTh a FACT and a Theory.

[Uncle Martin]

TeleMad,

 

I cannot find any data for stars within 6000 light years, but there are 600,000,000 known stars within 5,000 light years. 4 vs 600,000,000--- I can't believe CD didn't pick up on that.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

Skimming back through the posts I noticed an error by FreeThinker that not only wasn’t caught, but was used again both by FreeThinker and even another person.

 

But go back and look at FreeThinker’s first statements on this. The Earth is being assumed to be 6 THOUSAND years old, not just 6 years old. So the stars that we would be seeing would be those that are 6 THOUSAND light years or less distance from us. Since we are about 20 or so thousand light years out from the galactic nucleus, and that is about 2/3 of the way out, then we would be able to see virtually all of the stars that lie outside of our position and about 1/3 or ¼ of the stars that lie inside of our position, not to mention a whole slew of stars on either our forward or backward motion directions that couldn’t be seen in just 6 years.

 

 

 

So FreeThinker’s list should actually contain thousands – if not more – stars.

You are correct. I realized my error some time later as I was formulating it for other discussions. By then the discussion had moved on quite a bit and it was not an issue under discussion.

 

If your intent was to make sure that information on this site is as acurate as possible, thanks from all of us.

 

If you did it to start the type arguments you started when you first came here....

 

I notice you did not bother to add any useful information to the discussion along with your correction.

 

While I was way off in terms of numbers of stars, because of my mis-placed decimal place (I grew up on a slide rule and that was often an error) the concept is still very valid.

 

The Milky Way itself is estimated to be 100,000 light years (LY) avross. We are at an otter part of an arm. So we are seeing light from star just in the Milky Way alone that we could not see if the earth was 6,000 years old. In fact, if we are at an outer point in the Milky Way, 100,000 across, the cneter would be 45,000- 50,000 LY away and we could not see it. In fact all we could see would be those few stars in the Milky Way that are within 6,000 LY. That would still be an incredibly small percent of what we see now. More than 4-6 Oh ya.

 

But a miniscule number compared to what we see around us now.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

As far as the standard Creationist explanation for why we can see stars billions of light years away even though the universe is supposedly only 6 – 10 thousand years old, it’s the same as other explanations: God create the Universe “mature”.

Which was exactly the trap I was setting for him.

[Uncle Martin]

Well Hell,

 

I thought we were just messing with CD's head.

 

Telemad, it seems I alone was messing with CD's little mind. I hope this is all cleared up now.

 

FT, your integrity is to be commended. You didn't have to come clean, yet you did. I know few people that would do that.

 

Here's a link that I find very informative:

 

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/5000lys.html

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

Young-Earth Creationism vs. Science

2) Why have astronomers detected millions of quasars?

 

3) Why is there a 2.73 kelvin cosmic microwave background radiation?

 

First, why did God put any microwave background radiation in space, in agreement with the BB theory? It seems to serve no purpose, except to help confirm the Big Bang theory.

 

Second, why did God distribute the CMBR evenly throughout space, in agreement with the BB theory?

 

Third, why did God make the CMBR such that it would be about 3 kelvin when measured, in agreement with the BB theory?

 

Why did God plant the CMBR evidence in such a manner – with three different properties that all point to the universe being over 10 billion years old - as to deceive scientists?

 

Fine SCIENTIFIC questions. There is no doubt that anyone wishinv go use REASON in their personal philosophy would recognize how well supported an old universe theory is. But once they are pushed to that point. Once they are forced to admit that the facts do not support their personal delusions, they revert to their good ole days "Faith".

 

2 Thessolonians 2:11-12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

Their god is just waiting for the chance to punish us! What greater thrill for this vendictive monster god than to watch someone he intentionally caused to be misled, to be tortured beyond imagination for eternity. Just for trying to understand the very things this god put in place.

 

But this is a good thing remember!

 

These are just a few examples. In Young-Earth Creationism, over and over God plants misleading information, fooling scientists into believing that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old. Young-Earth Creationists turns their own God into the ultimate deceiver.

But only because he LOVES us! And loves lying to us and torturing us for believing it.

 

That is why I stay away from that approach.

 

You assume Christians will use the same logical approach you might.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

FT, your integrity is to be commended. You didn't have to come clean, yet you did. I know few people that would do that.

Thanks. But I don't think it should be a big thing. The reason you find it unusual is religious mindsets don't allow for one to admit error. That perfect knowledge thing again. And even if a Christian will finally be pushed into admitting they could be wrong about their whole god thing, they will still claim they beleive it to be true even though they do not have the fist single shred of valid reason to. How honest is that?

 

Where I am not locked into ANY stance. I merely accept for convenience at the time what ever is supported by the most factual information. As new info comes along, I have no baggage to get rid of before I can just move on.

 

Thus when I make a mistake or have wrong info, I am always pleased to be corrected. Then I won;t make the same mistake again, intentionally anyway.

 

Here's a link that I find very informative:

 

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/5000lys.html

Thanks for that. I had originally done a search which is where I came up with the wrong star count. I found a chart and I thought it was labled in thousands of light years not just light years. So 6 became 6,000 in my mind.

 

But as I posted elsewhere, the comparison is still valid. Based on the % of visible stars, we would only see a fraction of the Milkyway and no other galaxies.

 

But we have heard about the creation concept of a fully functional universe at creation and the scientific reasons why it could only mean intentional lies. As if that would stop a Christian.

[oblivion]

This thread = over done.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: oblivion

This thread = over done.

 

Please feel free to take it in the direction you feel is appropriate. A fresh point of view is always welcome.

[Pyrotex]

What's wrong with silliness?

I believe in a creator, creation however, that is difficult to accept (very).

Aha! So the validity of a subject is dependent upon YOUR ability to understand or accept it, right?

 

Do YOU understand rocket science? Do you know the equations that relate fuel burnage to acceleration and final velocity and can you use them intelligently? No? Then obviously rocket science is "junk science".

 

Do YOU understand the molecular structure of antibiotics, and how they kill invasive microbes in the body without damaging the body's own cells? Can you understand the manufacturing process of creating an antibiotic? No? Then obviously modern medicine is "junk science".

 

What DO you know? What are you an expert on? Medieval Literature? Then is everything else in the totality of Human Knowledge and Experience just "junk" because YOU don't fully understand it?

 

Perhaps you can't accept evolution as a successfull explanation of the biological realm around us because you are ignorant of it. Lose your ignorance then come back and comment on any insights you may have.

[jetzeppelin]

Tormod, I must say that Im suprised that you're letting this guy's opinion get to you like this. I realize ignorance is no excuse for attempting to force one's beliefs on others, but I think you proved your point.

 

At any rate, I wholeheartedly agree with the evolution theory, or theorem as it may be. The fact that there may be no fossils, or a "missing link" proves nothing, nor does it vaguely support the creationist theory. Perhaps these things have just not been given enough time to be found yet?

Perfusionista, you talk about how in 25 years, man has not been able to create anything in the way that life was orginally created. Don't you think that 25 years is a VERY short period of time to be jumping to such conclusions? 21st century technologies might be incredible, but they are FAR from perfect. In addition to that, I think that one must consider the moral/ethical consequences before "playing God" and just jumping into something and creating life or modifying life as we know it. Think of the effects that may happen should some scientist start fooling around with genes, DNA and chemicals and create something which may turn into Godzilla or some damn thing. Thats just not responsible reasearch. One must be careful in dealing with such things!!

As for this whole mutation discussion, I believe that you're really confining your defintition of "mutation" into meaning a purely bad thing. If you look at the evolution of man in the past say 50,000 years, our skull shape has changed considerably, we grow much less hair than our ancestors, and our intelectual capacity has grown exponentially. I believe the definition of mutation is more like "change" or a "differentiation" from the standard, and the fact of the matter is, evolution is a VERY, VERY slow action - or mutation if you will. Human beings, like all life on this planet, adapt to it's surroundings to take advantage of whatever it can to propagate the species.

Lets look at the Dinosaurs for example. When that asteroid hit the earth, our planet was predominatly inhabited by reptiles, cold blooded reptiles. It is said that this asteroid created a nuclear winter so to speak. Cold-blooded beings do not do well in subzero temperatures right? Whereas mammals can survive easily given the right circumstances and resources. One can only assume that the smalller reptiles were able to migrate to warmer places where they evolved to adapt to their new surroundings. The dinosaurs died, thus ending that era of life of Earth.

 

Like Tormod said, the Earth has been around for 4.6 billion years. That is a LONG time for life to evolve, adapt, die or survive. Don't get me wrong here, I like to believe in a higher power, but as of right now, there may be evidence to substantiate the creationist theory, however there is NO PROOF. Evidence and proof are two VERY different things. As of right now, there is far too much evidence in favour of evolution to take a creationist theory serious.

I hate to bash someone else's opinion, especially if I can't prove them wrong. However, I really don't like the way you presented yours Perusionista. However, I am - as always - open to any arguement you may have against mine.

 

 

Thanks,

Ben

 

It's not just one missing link.

 

We have fossils that are 100% bird, 100% reptile, 100% amphibian, 100% fish.

 

But where lies the millions (that is a conservative number) of fossils of the prerunners to the species? We have never discovered a cold-blooded bird, or a warm blooded reptile, nor much fossil evidence of either. ( I will say that paleontologists speculate that dinosaurs such dimetridons [that spelled correct?] were warm blooded. Even if they were warm blooded, the dimetridons supposedly went extinct millions of years before the appearance of mammals, and an evolutionary link between shrews and large warm blooded dinosaurs such as the dimetridon is quite ridiculous). Where are the intermediates? Where are the half birds (archaepteryx was a bird, examine also the quezacoatl of S. America, which is a bird that incredibly similar to the extinct archaepteryx). and half mammals? Evolutionary data (and statistics) imply that fossils of intermediates would be easily found, but none have.

 

Also 4.6 billion years is a short amount of time for evolution. (I would recommend some of the later research of Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the original proponents of the Big Bang theory for more statistics) . Stephen Jay Gould affirmed that it would take 60,000,000,000 advantageous mutations over 4.6 billion years for man to be in the state he is today. That is an average of around 40 advantageous mutations occurring daily over the period of 4 and a half billion years. Research on the genetic level shows mutations to be almost always more harmful than not.

 

I am not here to bash evolution ( I hope it doesn't seem that is my purpose), so I will expect no ad hominem, and I hope I will find none =). I'm here to learn from others, and to teach them also.

[ughaibu]

Is there any chance of reducing the number of threads disputing evolution?