Proof of Design?: Astronomical Enigma

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2002-05-22 17:42, Denise wrote:
Is religious debate frowned upon on this board? Just curious, and not really wanting to get into it.

Off-topic debates of any kind, whether religious, gardening, or favourite race-car driver, are frowned upon, and rightly so. As long as we can keep fairly close to astronomical subjects, or at least generally-related physics and the like, we can certainly talk about religious aspects of, or reactions to, the topic at hand. But, f'rinstance, if I were to post on why your point claiming that Biblical interpretation changes because our scientific views of the world have changed is wrong, and whether or not the Bible actually teaches a flat earth, is edging into that grey-and-getting-darker area called Off-Topic.

By the way, my attempts at painting BA Phil as a man-eating ogre who violently reacts to any infringement on OT are all intended to be seen as humourous exaggerations. Phil has never come close to saying anything extremely harsh to me personally, although I know he's had to with some other posters. On the other hand, I certainly respect his right to control the content on his bulletin board, and so I'm really engaged more in reminding myself not to step over the edge than I am at (perish the thought!) baiting Phil or any posters here.

Here is a link originally posted on the JREF board for general perusal.

I'm a regular lurker on JREF, although I've stopped posting there due to several considerations.

Anyhow, I think that scientists like this might be a part of the problem. He says the skeleton negates evolution. Ummm... How? Well apparently he's not telling!

Umm, did you read the whole article, Denise? Try paragraph 8. And nowhere in the article does he say "negates evolution"--that's your phrase. Instead, the article says:

"The evidence strongly points to a relatively recent and catastrophic event similar to that described in the Bible as the flood of Noah's day," he said.

"Strongly points to a ... recent ... event" and "negates evolution" are not equivalent phrases. Judging from the article, he's dealing with it as he should: evidence to be evaluated. Sure, he wants to see it as supportive of his belief that the evolutionary theory is wrong; but to say that he's claiming that this one piece of evidence has completely negated the evolutionary theory is to seriously overstate his position.

But enough now. Let's take this to Private Message if you want to continue it. Or Phil really will start measuring my liver for his dinner plate.

The (I hope he enjoys it pre-marinated) Curtmudgeon

[Kizarvexis]

On 2002-05-22 01:20, Prince wrote:
Einstein's disciple Prof Lincoln Barnett said: "We cannot feel or motion through space. Nor has any experiment actually proved that the Earth is in motion!". If you say that Geocentricity is "silly", then you have to say that Einstein (and Mach and Barnett) are also "silly"! Maybe you are one of the growing number of Anti-Relativists? If so, what is your explanation of the MM and MG experiments?
http://www.geocentricity.com

Thank you for the link. The model picture on the first page was the second funniest thing I have read today. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I've bookmarked the post to read in depth.

Kizarvexis
Sorry if I'm seem sarcastic, but it was.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kizarvexis on 2002-05-22 23:11 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

Yes Silas, it was meant as a 'gentle' reprimand, after your comment to my post that went something like "Ouch, I wouldn't have put it that way". I am not qualified to criticize anyone, so don't think that was the intent.

Take the above comment, sarcastic or not, it seems to be an honest response to the web link. I don't take that as making fun of the poster. That might be my kind of sarcasm. In fact, I couldn't help but notice, were those astrology symbols on the diagram?

I found the link to be very odd. I can't picture the planets and sun moving in any way that would even suggest the diagram as a possible model. I wonder how one person could perceive the universe in this manner, and, are there others to whom it sounded logical? What is the point?

[Denise]

Yes, I did read the article! I think I summed it up nicely. One last word on this and I will leave it alone. I promise.

From the article-
"We found a complete section of vertebrae more than 12 feet in length, which was fully articulated. The dinosaur appears to be in much the same position as he was at the time of his death and burial, which must have been virtually instantaneous, and caused by a catastrophic event. Not only was this fully articulated dinosaur found lying in a bed of leaves and plant debris, but there is wood from trees mixed in among the bones, some of which contains petrified and unpetrified elements in the same piece of wood. If this creature were millions of years old, the evidence would look quite different."

Now to my skeptic brain this means that the man is asserting that the fossil is less than millions of years old meaning, or course, that the timeline of evolution on earth subscribed to by most scientist is wrong. Thus negating evolution, or at least a part of it as well as geology etc..

Again from the article -
"Up to now, a well-funded and insular community of evolutionary theorists have dominated the field of paleontology, directing most of the large dinosaur finds to research and museums committed to interpreting the fossil evidence through the faith-driven assumptions of evolution," said Phillips. "To have a dinosaur of this size and significance within the camp of scientists committed to the creation model is nothing short of a coup d'etat."



From Merriam Webster
Main Entry: coup d'état
Variant(s): or coup d'etat /"kü-(")dA-'tä, 'kü-(")dA-", -d&-/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural coups d'état or coups d'etat /-'tä(z), -"tä(z)/
Etymology: French, literally, stroke of state
Date: 1646
: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

Anyhow, I do remember you from the JREF board. It would be nice if you came back!

[Caryn]

How were dinosaurs were even able to exist? As creatures get larger, their weight increases in proportion
to volume. But their strength only increses in proportion to the cross sectional area of muscle in a particular limb -
the familar square-cube problem. In the present environment, the maximum weight for an animal to exist ie. to be able
lift its own weight off the ground can be shown to be the solution to 1,340/340.667 = x/x.667, or about 21,000 pounds.
The heaviest elephant is not more than 14,000 pounds. The Brontosaur, which was mostly gut plus a huge digestive
system for processing low-value foodstuffs, stood in at
70,000 pounds! And the Brontosaur was itself dwarfed by the
Supersaur and Ultrasaur at 180 tons! Was dinosaur muscle
tissue superior to human? The Barosaur stood at 45 feet, and for its blood to
have been able to have reached its brain, the blood pressure
had to be 1,000 mm Hg! A giraffe at 18 feet has a blood
pressure of 200 mm Hg. Why did the Barosaur's vascular
system not rupture? At 25 pounds, hunting eagles, bred for size and
strength, get into the air with the greatest difficulty. Yet
the Pterosaur, at 350 pounds and with a 40 foot wingspan,
broke all the rules of flight engineering, bone strength and
wing musculature. Something must have been very different in
the dinosaur age. Maybe gravity was less than today. Another
possibiliy is the theory that the speed of light was
higher in the past. In addition to having many astronomical
and geological implications, a higher c would have resulted
in lower fluid viscosity, faster nerve impulses, more
efficient breathing, diffusion, growth, blood flow, ion
transfer, and higher lift to drag ratios!

[Firefox]

Does this equation work with land animals only, or animals in general? Blue whales weigh, on average, around 220,000 pounds.


Adam

[Geo3gh]

On 2002-05-23 13:27, Caryn wrote:
How were dinosaurs were even able to exist?

This is getting way off topic. I recommend you go to Talk.Origins for information on this. For specific articles on the topics you mention here, look at:

<ul>[*]The Decay of c-decay[*]Sauropods, Elephants, Weightlifters



_________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
I have Invader's blood coursing through my veins
like radioactive rubber pants! The pants command
me! Do not ignore my veins!
--Invader ZIM

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Geo3gh on 2002-05-23 14:44 ]</font>

[Geo3gh]

On 2002-05-23 13:27, Caryn wrote:
How were dinosaurs were even able to exist? As creatures get larger, their weight increases in proportion
to volume. But their strength only increses in proportion to the cross sectional area of muscle in a particular limb -
the familar square-cube problem. In the present environment, the maximum weight for an animal to exist ie. to be able
lift its own weight off the ground can be shown to be the solution to 1,340/340.667 = x/x.667, or about 21,000 pounds.
The heaviest elephant is not more than 14,000 pounds.

For regulars on Talk.Origins, this is vintage Ted Holden. The figures are wrong, to put it simply. The FAQ from T.O covers it.

[Silas]

On 2002-05-23 13:30, Firefox wrote:
Does this equation work with land animals only, or animals in general? Blue whales weigh, on average, around 220,000 pounds.


Adam

Land animals only... Sea critters are suspended by the water... Since animal flesh is very close to the same density as water, you can (roughly) envision a great whale as "a bag of water in the water."

(But don't tell him that to his face...)

Silas

[Geo3gh]

On 2002-05-23 15:37, Silas wrote:

On 2002-05-23 13:30, Firefox wrote:
Does this equation work with land animals only, or animals in general? Blue whales weigh, on average, around 220,000 pounds.


Adam

Land animals only... Sea critters are suspended by the water... Since animal flesh is very close to the same density as water, you can (roughly) envision a great whale as "a bag of water in the water."

(But don't tell him that to his face...)

Silas

I don't even think that this works for land animals. The equation quoted is from Ted Holden's web page (I can't find the link anymore). What Holden did was work out how large you could make a champion weightlifter so that his weight was equal to his maximum demonstrated lift. So the equation really shows how big a human can get. Holden ignores the differences in physiology, especially in skeletal structure, that would allow animals like elephants and sauropods to be better adapted for large size than H. sapiens.

[Argos]

A Pitagorian revival. The eternal return...
What's next? The music of the spheres?

[Prince]

Some articles supporting a different dinosaurian physiology due to a different G or c by the Kronia Krew:

http://www.kronia.com/thoth.html

[Espritch]

Science is founded on a few basic assumptions. For instance, if I put an jar over a candle 100 times and each time the candle goes out, then assuming that the universe is controlled by consistent natural principals, I can fairly safely bet that on the 101 try, I will get exactly the same result. If, however, there exist a supernatural entity capable of arbitraily rewriting the rules of the game at a whim, then all bets are off and on the 101 try, the candle might miraculously continue burning (like the bush in Genesis).

I feel quite certain that I can duplicate the results wherein the candle goes out. I am also fairly confident that you cannot demonstrate the contrary (without resorting to subterfuge), regardless of how hard you pray (or to which Deity).

So we are left with either a God bound by the laws of his own creation, which would suggest he isn't omnipotent and thus not really God, or else he simply chooses not to interfer with the natural laws of his creation, in which case he's pretty much irrelavent to scientific inquiry.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Espritch on 2002-05-24 13:12 ]</font>

[Geo3gh]

One thing neat about bring Holden into this discussion is the fact that Ted Holden follows Velikovsky, which ties the evolution/sauropod thread to astronomy, however tenuously.

[beskeptical]

Espritch, I like your description, mind if I quote you?

[Espritch]

Espritch, I like your description, mind if I quote you?

I don't mind.

[informant]

Prince wrote:

If Geocentricity could be proven absolutely, it would be a powerful argument in favour of design(...)

Two remarks:

1. The problem is that nothing can be proven "absolutely".
2. If the Bible is right (when taken literally), then Geocentrism, whatever you mean by it, is correct.
However, if geocentrism is correct that doesn't mean that the Bible is right.
This is a basic logical fallacy (I forget the Latin name for it).

(...) but still not enough to convince some diehards!

Wow, I didn't know the satus of "diehard" was so widespread!
I watched the movie too, but I never quite saw myself in Bruce Willis's shoes. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[ktesibios]

On 2002-05-25 09:35, informant wrote:
Two remarks:

1. The problem is that nothing can be proven "absolutely".
2. If the Bible is right (when taken literally), then Geocentrism, whatever you mean by it, is correct.
However, if geocentrism is correct that doesn't mean that the Bible is right.
This is a basic logical fallacy (I forget the Latin name for it).

I think it's the error of the affirmed consequent- arguing in the form if A then B; B, therefore A.

The trouble with this argument is that if B can have an antecedent other than A, B being true doesn't prove A.

Being a troubleshooter by trade, I have to work backwards from effect to cause all the time. The only reasoning that works is in the form of if A then B; B, therefore A is possible but not proved; how can I test A directly?

or if A then B AND C, if D then B AND E, if F then B AND G; only B and C are true, therefore D and F are not true; A remains, therefore I should find a way to test A and not waste time on D or F.

IOW, a variation on the affirmed consequent can be a useful way of eliminating antecedents as impossible, but not of proving them true.

[Roy Batty]

While trying to find the Latin name I came across this logic primer (powerpoint):
http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwphil/campbell/CONDITIONS.PPT
& in not so good html:
www.wlu.ca/~wwwphil/campbell/CONDITIONS.PPT+affirmed+consequent+latin&hl=en&ie= UTF8]google html[/url]

but i'm sure Jay Utah will step in & correct us if anythings wrong though [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

_________________
N6MAA10816

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Roy Batty on 2002-05-26 15:17 ]</font>

[Prince]

Modus Ponendo Ponens

http://www.informatik.htw-dresden.de...ons/rule7.html

Modus Tollendo Tollens

http://www.informatik.htw-dresden.de...ons/rule8.html

[Roy Batty]

Thanks for those links Prince. The most informative ones you've posted yet IMHO.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[ToSeek]

On 2002-05-23 17:26, Geo3gh wrote:

I don't even think that this works for land animals. The equation quoted is from Ted Holden's web page (I can't find the link anymore). What Holden did was work out how large you could make a champion weightlifter so that his weight was equal to his maximum demonstrated lift. So the equation really shows how big a human can get. Holden ignores the differences in physiology, especially in skeletal structure, that would allow animals like elephants and sauropods to be better adapted for large size than H. sapiens.

Humans are also quite weak by animal standards. It's common knowledge among zookeepers that a human being can tighten a bolt as tightly as possible using a wrench, but a chimpanzee, gorilla, or orangutan can undo the bolt with its bare hands.

[Silas]

On 2002-05-31 12:24, ToSeek wrote:
Humans are also quite weak by animal standards. It's common knowledge among zookeepers that a human being can tighten a bolt as tightly as possible using a wrench, but a chimpanzee, gorilla, or orangutan can undo the bolt with its bare hands.

I must express dubiety... Yes, a chimp is much stronger than even a strong man, in terms of rasslin' and grapplin'. Put a chimp in the ring with the WWF group, and he'd clobber 'em all.

But fingers are fingers, no matter which hominid they belong to, and a wrench gives an awful lot of leverage... I can only pinch maybe twenty pounds worth, but with a wrench, I can bear down with my whole weight upon a system that gives maybe 10:1 leverage advantage.

[KAOS Agent Voice]
I find that rather difficult to believe.
[/KAOS Agent Voice]

Silas

[beskeptical]

Give me a big enough wrench and I guarantee I can tighten my oil pan bolt enough so that no beast could pry it loose without another BIG wrench.

Where do all these strange facts originate?

[Kaptain K]

Give me a big enough wrench, and I can tighten my oilpan bolt enough that it will fall out by itself. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] Can you say "stripped threads". Been there, done that, paid for it.

[informant]

[quote]Prince wrote:
Modus Ponendo Ponens

http://www.informatik.htw-dresden.de...ons/rule7.html

Modus Tollendo Tollens

http://www.informatik.htw-dresden.de/~logic/conclusions/rule8.html</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

See also

http://www.informatik.htw-dresden.de...ons/intro.html

nr. 3.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-06-01 10:16 ]</font>

[thkaufm]

tighten a bolt as tightly as possible using a wrench, but a chimpanzee, gorilla, or orangutan can undo the bolt with its bare hands.

No way. That is just plain wrong. They are strong , but they're still just flesh and bones. Even if the muscle strength were there, the skin would peel off and the bones would break before that bolt ever came loose.

Tom

[Silas]

On 2002-06-01 07:51, Kaptain K wrote:
Give me a big enough wrench, and I can tighten my oilpan bolt enough that it will fall out by itself. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] Can you say "stripped threads". Been there, done that, paid for it.

Huge happy guffaw of sympathetic laughter: me too, brother; me too!

But I still doubt the claim about Orangs.

Silas

[beskeptical]

On 2002-06-01 07:51, Kaptain K wrote:
Give me a big enough wrench, and I can tighten my oilpan bolt enough that it will fall out by itself. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] Can you say "stripped threads". Been there, done that, paid for it.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img] Some guy who changed my oil overtightened the pan bolt. I thought it was me, but I tried and tried and finally took my car in and had to pay to have the bolt loosened. Then the station guy just got out a BIG wrench to do it. A not too expensive lesson in leverage so it was worth the trip.

[ToSeek]

On 2002-06-01 12:22, thkaufm wrote:

tighten a bolt as tightly as possible using a wrench, but a chimpanzee, gorilla, or orangutan can undo the bolt with its bare hands.

No way. That is just plain wrong. They are strong , but they're still just flesh and bones. Even if the muscle strength were there, the skin would peel off and the bones would break before that bolt ever came loose.

Animal tracks

See fact #10.

I assume that with a good enough wrench and a good enough bolt, you can defeat an orangutan, but they can still undo bolts by hand that we do with a wrench.