Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atheism

2012-02-20T16:59:41Z

RachelW: /* Is atheism protected by the First Amendment? */

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2012-02-19T13:15:34Z

RachelW: /* Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. */

2012-01-31T01:40:08Z

RachelW: /* 39 billion light years away? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-31T01:08:15Z

RachelW: /* 39 billion light years away? */

2012-01-30T22:29:56Z

RachelW:

The '''starlight problem''', or '''starlight travel-time problem''' concerns the placement of stars at distances so far from Earth that starlight could not traverse that distance, at its current velocity, in less than the age of the universe. Yet the light has reached Earth anyway. This raises a question under any creation-based theory, including the [[Big Bang theory]]: how did this starlight reach Earth so quickly? This is a major point of interest in the question of an [[Old Earth Creationism | old universe]] vs. [[young earth creationism | young universe]].

There is no conflict with the description in Genesis, which says, "let there be light, and there was light." It does not say, "let there be stars to generate light that can illuminate darkness," or "let there be light, and there was darkness that light later reached."

The most likely explanation is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old; the oldest objects visible today are gamma ray bursts over 13 billion light years away.<ref>http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang</ref> Other possible explanations include the possibility that light traveled faster at higher energies in the past, and/or space has expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light.

[[image:Crab composite cx.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Crab nebula, a supernova remnant]]

== The size of the universe ==
The maximum distance that can be determined using parallax calculations is about 3300 light years.<ref>[http://bccp.lbl.gov/Academy/pdfs/Parallax.pdf Parallax], site http://bccp.lbl.gov</ref> Indirect measures, correlating the brightness of stars called ''cepheids'' with the period of their variability, estimate the [[Milky Way]] diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years, although others estimate the size of the entire universe to be as narrow as only 12,000 light years across.<ref>Fangrad, Richard, 2007.</ref>

Calculations based on the observed brightness of [[supernova]]e of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a galaxy cluster is estimated to be approximately thirteen billion light-years away from Earth, observed by the [[Hubble Telescope]] using gravitational lensing.<ref>Amos, 2004</ref>

==Starlight Problem for the Big Bang Theory==

Although [[atheist]]s simplistically use the starlight problem to argue against a young Earth, the [[Big Bang theory]] has greater difficulty in explaining its own light travel problem, known as the [[horizon problem]].

The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the [[Cosmic Microwave Background]] (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform<ref name="Lisle">Lisle, 2003</ref> (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background]</ref>).
{{QuoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref name="Lisle" />}}

A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including several versions of an "inflationary model", in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light early in the Big Bang, but ''after'' different areas exchanged radiation to even out the temperature.
However, there is no consensus on which explanation is correct, and each of the proposed solutions has its own problems.<ref name="Lisle" />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== Flaws in arguing for an old universe based on starlight ==

The observation that many stars are millions of light years away is one of ''distance'', not ''time''.

=== Light created in transit ===
Some creationists have proposed that the light we see from stars more than 6,000 light years away was not emitted by those stars, but was created 'in transit' by God.

=== Moon-Spencer theory ===
Some creationists promoted an idea by Parry Moon and Domina Spencer that light somehow takes a shortcut through "Riemannian Space", taking no more than 15 years to reach Earth from the outer limits of the universe.
However, this idea never really caught on and appears to no longer have adherents.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p. 46.</ref>

=== Decrease in the speed of light ===

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|150px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past. <ref>Norman and Setterfield, 1986</ref>
This idea initially found wide acceptance by creationists, but is now widely rejected, although some still hold to the idea.

One criticism of it by anticreationists was that if the speed of light had changed, we should see the difference in the [[Fine Structure Constant]] as measured by nearby stars versus distant stars, but this was not observed.
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in [[Sydney]], Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant may indeed have changed. They subsequently published this in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>Physical Review Letters 091301, 2001</ref><ref>Sarfati, 2001</ref>
However, although this showed that mainstream scientists are open to new and controversial ideas, the methods Webb used were shown to contain simple flaws, which discredited the results. <ref>M. T. Murphy, J. K. Webb, V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 239001 (2007)</ref>. A later study of 23 absorption systems using the 'Very Large Telescope' found no measurable changes.<ref>H. Chand et al., Astron. Astrophys. 417, 853 (2004)</ref>.

These problems with the theory have led most creationists to drop the idea, although some credit it with stimulating further research.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p.128</ref>. Systematic uncertainties are difficult to quantify and so Webb's results still need to be checked by independent analyses, using quasar spectra from different telescopes. Their efforts are ongoing, apparently by several different teams of scientists.

=== Humphreys' model ===
In 1994 Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a new cosmology<ref>Batten et. al., 2007, p.90, Humphreys, 1994</ref> that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger.
In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a [[gravity well]], meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of [[creation week]] were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe.
According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is ''some'' time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref> Furthermore, in the event the Earth was in the center of a immense gravity well, the core of the planet should be composed of a soup of subatomic particles, like a Neutron fluid.<ref name="neutronsoup">http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html</ref>

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

=== Time dilation field ===

Dr. [[John Hartnett]], a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative [[time dilation]] model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
According to the Bible, God "stretched out"<ref>For example, {{Bible ref|Isaiah|40:22}}</ref> the heavens (space), and this movement during [[creation week]] caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[Special Theory of Relativity]], adding to the time dilation caused by [[gravity]], per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's [[General Theory of Relativity]].<ref>Hartnett, 2003, Hartnett 2007</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* [http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1 Inconstant constant?] ''Physical Review Letters 091301'' (9th August 2001)</ref>
* Amos, Jonathan, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3490657.stm Hubble sees 'most distant object'], BBC News, 15th February, 2004.
* Batten, Don, Catchpoole, David, Sarfati, Jonathan, Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of The Creation Answers Book, 2007.
* Fangrad, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5425 The media spin on the creationists] (Creation Ministries International), 14th November, 2007.
* Hartnett, John C., A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1616/ HTML] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf PDF]
* Hartnett, John, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Book Publishers, 2007 ISBN 978-0-949906-68-7
* Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994, ISBN 0-89051-202-7.
* Laird, Jeff, [http://swordofthemind.blogspot.com/2008/05/starlight-time-and-new-physics-review.html "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics" (Review)], Gladio Mentis, 26th May, 2008.
* Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.
* Norman, T.G. and Setterfield, B., ''The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'', SRI International Invited Research Report, Menlo Park, 1986.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430 Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?] 22nd August, 2001 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], 9th August 2002 (Creation Ministries International).

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-30T22:28:22Z

RachelW: /* 39 billion light years away? */

Starlight problem

2012-01-30T22:17:09Z

RachelW:

The '''starlight problem''', or '''starlight travel-time problem''' concerns the placement of stars at distances so far from Earth that starlight could not traverse that distance, at its current velocity, in less than the age of the universe. Yet the light has reached Earth anyway. This raises a question under any creation-based theory, including the [[Big Bang theory]]: how did this starlight reach Earth so quickly? This is a major point of interest in the question of an [[Old Earth Creationism | old universe]] vs. [[young earth creationism | young universe]].

There is no conflict with the description in Genesis, which says, "let there be light, and there was light." It does not say, "let there be stars to generate light that can illuminate darkness," or "let there be light, and there was darkness that light later reached."

The most likely explanation is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old; the oldest objects visible today are gamma ray bursts over 13 billion light years away.<ref>http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang</ref> Other possible explanations include the possibility that light traveled faster at higher energies in the past, and/or space has expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light.

[[image:Crab composite cx.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Crab nebula, a supernova remnant]]

== The size of the universe ==
The maximum distance that can be determined using parallax calculations is about 3300 light years.<ref>[http://bccp.lbl.gov/Academy/pdfs/Parallax.pdf Parallax], site http://bccp.lbl.gov</ref> Indirect measures, correlating the brightness of stars called ''cepheids'' with the period of their variability, estimate the [[Milky Way]] diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years, although others estimate the size of the entire universe to be as narrow as only 12,000 light years across.<ref>Fangrad, Richard, 2007.</ref>

Calculations based on the observed brightness of [[supernova]]e of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a galaxy cluster is estimated to be approximately thirteen billion light-years away from Earth, observed by the [[Hubble Telescope]] using gravitational lensing.<ref>Amos, 2004</ref>

==Starlight Problem for the Big Bang Theory==

Although [[atheist]]s simplistically use the starlight problem to argue against a young Earth, the [[Big Bang theory]] has greater difficulty in explaining its own light travel problem, known as the [[horizon problem]].

The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the [[Cosmic Microwave Background]] (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform<ref name="Lisle">Lisle, 2003</ref> (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background]</ref>).
{{QuoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref name="Lisle" />}}

A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including several versions of an "inflationary model", in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light early in the Big Bang, but ''after'' different areas exchanged radiation to even out the temperature.
However, there is no consensus on which explanation is correct, and each of the proposed solutions has its own problems.<ref name="Lisle" />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== Flaws in arguing for an old universe based on starlight ==

The observation that many stars are millions of light years away is one of ''distance'', not ''time''.

=== Light created in transit ===
Some creationists have proposed that the light we see from stars more than 6,000 light years away was not emitted by those stars, but was created 'in transit' by God.

=== Moon-Spencer theory ===
Some creationists promoted an idea by Parry Moon and Domina Spencer that light somehow takes a shortcut through "Riemannian Space", taking no more than 15 years to reach Earth from the outer limits of the universe.
However, this idea never really caught on and appears to no longer have adherents.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p. 46.</ref>

=== Decrease in the speed of light ===

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|150px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past. <ref>Norman and Setterfield, 1986</ref>
This idea initially found wide acceptance by creationists, but is now widely rejected, although some still hold to the idea.

One criticism of it by anticreationists was that if the speed of light had changed, we should see the difference in the [[Fine Structure Constant]] as measured by nearby stars versus distant stars, but this was not observed.
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in [[Sydney]], Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant may indeed have changed. They subsequently published this in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>Physical Review Letters 091301, 2001</ref><ref>Sarfati, 2001</ref>
However, although this showed that mainstream scientists are open to new and controversial ideas, the methods Webb used were shown to contain simple flaws, which discredited the results. <ref>M. T. Murphy, J. K. Webb, V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 239001 (2007)</ref>. A later study of 23 absorption systems using the 'Very Large Telescope' found no measurable changes.<ref>H. Chand et al., Astron. Astrophys. 417, 853 (2004)</ref>.

These problems with the theory have led most creationists to drop the idea, although some credit it with stimulating further research.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p.128</ref>. Systematic uncertainties are difficult to quantify and so Webb's results still need to be checked by independent analyses, using quasar spectra from different telescopes. Their efforts are ongoing, apparently by several different teams of scientists.

=== Humphreys' model ===
In 1994 Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a new cosmology<ref>Batten et. al., 2007, p.90, Humphreys, 1994</ref> that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger.
In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a [[gravity well]], meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of [[creation week]] were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe.
According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is ''some'' time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref> Furthermore, in the event the Earth was in the center of a immense gravity well, the core of the planet should be composed of a soup of subatomic particles, like a Neutron fluid.<ref name="neutronsoup">http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html</ref>

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

=== Time dilation field ===

Dr. [[John Hartnett]], a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative [[time dilation]] model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
According to the Bible, God "stretched out"<ref>For example, {{Bible ref|Isaiah|40:22}}</ref> the heavens (space), and this movement during [[creation week]] caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[Special Theory of Relativity]], adding to the time dilation caused by [[gravity]], per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's [[General Theory of Relativity]].<ref>Hartnett, 2003, Hartnett 2007</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* [http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1 Inconstant constant?] ''Physical Review Letters 091301'' (9th August 2001)</ref>
* Amos, Jonathan, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3490657.stm Hubble sees 'most distant object'], BBC News, 15th February, 2004.
* Batten, Don, Catchpoole, David, Sarfati, Jonathan, Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of The Creation Answers Book, 2007.
* Fangrad, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5425 The media spin on the creationists] (Creation Ministries International), 14th November, 2007.
* Hartnett, John C., A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1616/ HTML] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf PDF]
* Hartnett, John, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Book Publishers, 2007 ISBN 978-0-949906-68-7
* Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994, ISBN 0-89051-202-7.
* Laird, Jeff, [http://swordofthemind.blogspot.com/2008/05/starlight-time-and-new-physics-review.html "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics" (Review)], Gladio Mentis, 26th May, 2008.
* Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.
* Norman, T.G. and Setterfield, B., ''The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'', SRI International Invited Research Report, Menlo Park, 1986.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430 Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?] 22nd August, 2001 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], 9th August 2002 (Creation Ministries International).

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-30T22:13:04Z

RachelW: /* 39 billion light years away? */

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-01-30T22:09:23Z

RachelW: 39 billion light years?

Starlight problem

2012-01-30T21:23:33Z

RachelW:

The '''starlight problem''', or '''starlight travel-time problem''' concerns the placement of stars at distances so far from Earth that starlight could not traverse that distance, at its current velocity, in less than the age of the universe. Yet the light has reached Earth anyway. This raises a question under any creation-based theory, including the [[Big Bang theory]]: how did this starlight reach Earth so quickly? This is a major point of interest in the question of an [[Old Earth Creationism | old universe]] vs. [[young earth creationism | young universe]].

There is no conflict with the description in Genesis, which says, "let there be light, and there was light." It does not say, "let there be stars to generate light that can illuminate darkness," or "let there be light, and there was darkness that light later reached."

The most likely explanation is that the universe is in fact billions of years old, allowing the starlight the time necessary to reach Earth. Other possible explanations include the possibility that light traveled faster at higher energies in the past, and/or space has expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light.

[[image:Crab composite cx.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Crab nebula, a supernova remnant]]

== The size of the universe ==
The maximum distance that can be determined using parallax calculations is about 3300 light years.<ref>[http://bccp.lbl.gov/Academy/pdfs/Parallax.pdf Parallax], site http://bccp.lbl.gov</ref> Indirect measures, correlating the brightness of stars called ''cepheids'' with the period of their variability, estimate the [[Milky Way]] diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years, although others estimate the size of the entire universe to be as narrow as only 12,000 light years across.<ref>Fangrad, Richard, 2007.</ref>

Calculations based on the observed brightness of [[supernova]]e of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a galaxy cluster is estimated to be approximately thirteen billion light-years away from Earth, observed by the [[Hubble Telescope]] using gravitational lensing.<ref>Amos, 2004</ref>

==Starlight Problem for the Big Bang Theory==

Although [[atheist]]s simplistically use the starlight problem to argue against a young Earth, the [[Big Bang theory]] has greater difficulty in explaining its own light travel problem, known as the [[horizon problem]].

The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the [[Cosmic Microwave Background]] (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform<ref name="Lisle">Lisle, 2003</ref> (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background]</ref>).
{{QuoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref name="Lisle" />}}

A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including several versions of an "inflationary model", in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light early in the Big Bang, but ''after'' different areas exchanged radiation to even out the temperature.
However, there is no consensus on which explanation is correct, and each of the proposed solutions has its own problems.<ref name="Lisle" />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== Flaws in arguing for an old universe based on starlight ==

The observation that many stars are millions of light years away is one of ''distance'', not ''time''.

=== Light created in transit ===
Some creationists have proposed that the light we see from stars more than 6,000 light years away was not emitted by those stars, but was created 'in transit' by God.

=== Moon-Spencer theory ===
Some creationists promoted an idea by Parry Moon and Domina Spencer that light somehow takes a shortcut through "Riemannian Space", taking no more than 15 years to reach Earth from the outer limits of the universe.
However, this idea never really caught on and appears to no longer have adherents.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p. 46.</ref>

=== Decrease in the speed of light ===

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|150px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past. <ref>Norman and Setterfield, 1986</ref>
This idea initially found wide acceptance by creationists, but is now widely rejected, although some still hold to the idea.

One criticism of it by anticreationists was that if the speed of light had changed, we should see the difference in the [[Fine Structure Constant]] as measured by nearby stars versus distant stars, but this was not observed.
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in [[Sydney]], Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant may indeed have changed. They subsequently published this in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>Physical Review Letters 091301, 2001</ref><ref>Sarfati, 2001</ref>
However, although this showed that mainstream scientists are open to new and controversial ideas, the methods Webb used were shown to contain simple flaws, which discredited the results. <ref>M. T. Murphy, J. K. Webb, V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 239001 (2007)</ref>. A later study of 23 absorption systems using the 'Very Large Telescope' found no measurable changes.<ref>H. Chand et al., Astron. Astrophys. 417, 853 (2004)</ref>.

These problems with the theory have led most creationists to drop the idea, although some credit it with stimulating further research.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p.128</ref>. Systematic uncertainties are difficult to quantify and so Webb's results still need to be checked by independent analyses, using quasar spectra from different telescopes. Their efforts are ongoing, apparently by several different teams of scientists.

=== Humphreys' model ===
In 1994 Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a new cosmology<ref>Batten et. al., 2007, p.90, Humphreys, 1994</ref> that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger.
In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a [[gravity well]], meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of [[creation week]] were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe.
According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is ''some'' time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref> Furthermore, in the event the Earth was in the center of a immense gravity well, the core of the planet should be composed of a soup of subatomic particles, like a Neutron fluid.<ref name="neutronsoup">http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html</ref>

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

=== Time dilation field ===

Dr. [[John Hartnett]], a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative [[time dilation]] model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
According to the Bible, God "stretched out"<ref>For example, {{Bible ref|Isaiah|40:22}}</ref> the heavens (space), and this movement during [[creation week]] caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[Special Theory of Relativity]], adding to the time dilation caused by [[gravity]], per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's [[General Theory of Relativity]].<ref>Hartnett, 2003, Hartnett 2007</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* [http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1 Inconstant constant?] ''Physical Review Letters 091301'' (9th August 2001)</ref>
* Amos, Jonathan, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3490657.stm Hubble sees 'most distant object'], BBC News, 15th February, 2004.
* Batten, Don, Catchpoole, David, Sarfati, Jonathan, Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of The Creation Answers Book, 2007.
* Fangrad, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5425 The media spin on the creationists] (Creation Ministries International), 14th November, 2007.
* Hartnett, John C., A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1616/ HTML] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf PDF]
* Hartnett, John, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Book Publishers, 2007 ISBN 978-0-949906-68-7
* Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994, ISBN 0-89051-202-7.
* Laird, Jeff, [http://swordofthemind.blogspot.com/2008/05/starlight-time-and-new-physics-review.html "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics" (Review)], Gladio Mentis, 26th May, 2008.
* Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.
* Norman, T.G. and Setterfield, B., ''The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'', SRI International Invited Research Report, Menlo Park, 1986.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430 Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?] 22nd August, 2001 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], 9th August 2002 (Creation Ministries International).

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Talk:Rugby World Cup

2012-01-30T20:56:54Z

RachelW:

Talk:Evolution

2012-01-30T20:16:19Z

RachelW: /* Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off */ Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own website?

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off ==

News item: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-question-evolution-campaign.html Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off]
[[File:Rocket.jpg|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

:Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own personal website? This isn't the place for his spam, and its not like the site has any new or interesting information about it. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Factual error ==

Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact. The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory. Someone might want to fix this.[[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact. The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution. Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself. Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
::::He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Oh--Sorry. Hmmmmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
:::::::The agnostic [[Carl Sagan]], who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.]]
As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory Second, theory has a number of definitions. Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the [[evolution]] page. Give me a few minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Here are some articles that could be created: [[Evolution as hypothesis]],[[Evolution is a religion]], [[Evolution disproved]], [[Disproving evolution]], [[Evolution and Karl Popper]], [[Evolution is a lie]] and [[Evolution is a deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle. Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article. --X. Dulks
:Well, I'm not sure because the article isn't about how evolution works or why people might believe it. If you want, you could create a [[Mechanisms of Evolution]] page or something like that. I guess you could even create a [[Why some people might believe in Evolution]] page, as long as you were super careful to follow the Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 18:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::A well done [[Mechanisms of microevolution]] article would be an excellent article and be much more encyclopedic/less speculative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::Yes good point. The article should be [[Mechanisms of microevolution]]. The "microevolution" v "Evolution" is indeed important. Actually, there is already a [[Natural selection]] article, and I believe an inclusion of the Hardy Weinberg Principle there would be good as well if not entirely sufficient in itself. I don't know if X. Dulks wants to take that on. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism ==
[[File:Eagle and fish.jpg|thumbnail|right|400px|A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/linda-schaible/6063077714/ Flickr], Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism]

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T15:47:46Z

RachelW: /* Question E: What is the purpose of life ? */

==Question 1: How can a major mutation happen while transitional states are not viable ?==
While eyes or wings are undoubtedly advantages, those evolutions did not happen in 1 generation. And, as it is often quoted, Evolution is blind. How 10% of an eye or 10% of a could have been be useful ?

:The transitional states ARE viable, and the eye is a very good example of that. The first "eye" was just a primitive patch of photosensitive cells on a creature's head that could tell light from dark. This became more complex, becoming a concave eye cup capable of telling the direction of light. Eventually, a clear covering for the eye cup developed to protect it. That clear coating played the role of a lens soon enough, and the eye became capable for the first time of resolving images.

The question should not be "What would you do with 10% of an eye?" Instead, ask "What would you do with an eye 10% as good as the one you've got! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 2: How can speciation happen without geographic separation ?==
: Geographic separation is the best way to get two groups of the same species to evolve differently from one another. However, any phenomenon which causes two groups to stop interbreeding can cause speciation. The term for it is sympatric speciation.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 3: Who was the first Homo Sapiens ?==
Was his father a homo sapiens as well ?

::There was no "first" ''Homo sapiens''. Evolution does not work like that. Evolution works through gradual changes within a '''population''' over generations. The "boundary" of speciation is not a defined threshold. Rather, speciation occurs gradually as allele frequency and genomic structure changes subtly, within a population, from one generation to the next. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 4: How would an evolutionist define a specie ?==
Is it even possible to do so ?
::Taxonomy is a human construct designed to make classifying animals easier. When two groups of animals can no longer interbreed, we usually call them different species, but the universe doesn't give a wet slap what we call animals, and indeed many "separate" species can interbreed to make hybrids. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 5: How is Evolution more scientific than Creation ?==
How isn't it a question of faith?

:Evolution was formalized by careful study of natural evidence, and not widely accepted as a valid theory until large amounts of supporting data were found, and the theory was altered and fleshed out, a process still continuing today. There is no part of the evolutionary theory that is not subject to question or debate, as long as the evidence for an argument can be presented. This is the scientific process, and the theory of evolution is one of humanity's crowning achievements in the sciences. There is no such thing as "evolutionary dogma."

Creationism uses as its primary source of information the vaguely worded and most likely metaphorical creation story in Genesis. Creationism explains nothing about how life developed, only that it was put here by means that could never be tested or verified. Central to creationist belief is the historical truth of the Genesis account, but since there exists no evidence that could prove or disprove a supernatural source of the first life on Earth, it is a position one must take on faith alone.

In other words, Evolution is a properly vetted scientific theory which can be tested, and Creationism is a religious position that does not attempt to explain specific evidence of the Earth's age or of the provenance of animals, relying instead on faith in the Genesis account.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 6: Is evolution a science ?==
As defined by wikipedia, ''Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe''. 
Is is testable ? Can we do predictions over millions of years ? And finally, could the theory be falsified?

Evolution can be and is empirically tested every day. Like astronomy, evolution relies primarily on observational data to form its theories. Those theories are tested by observing other parts of nature and seeing if the theory holds. It is also possible to experimentally demonstrate evolution. The Lenski experiments, well known on this site, are only one of the many experiments in which evolution has been demonstrated.

If you want to falsify evolution in a way that scientists would accept, the easiest way would be to find an organism too complex to have evolved gradually, in other words, find and demonstrably prove that such an organism is "irreducibly complex," that previous forms of the animal could not have possibly survived. Attempts to do so using such characteristics as wings and eyes have failed, as the evolution of these traits are well understood, but it is possible, though I personally would wager that such a creature does not exist. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 7: Some great advantages are not very often seen==
Why is that we do not see many big-brain species, it seems to be a pretty good strategy.
:It is a very expensive advantage as well. Our large brains are very delicate, consume huge amounts of energy and make childbirth much more difficult for us than other primate species. Also, remember that "big brain" doesn't always mean "more intelligence," especially in larger animals that need more and more of their brains to control autonomic processes in their bodies. It is easy to see that evolving a large brain might not be as advantageous for other species as it is for us.

On a more general note, the process of genetic mutation is somewhat random, so it is very difficult to predict which specific adaptations will develop in a creature, if any at all. Just because a trait is beneficial doesn't mean that anyone in the species will ever develop the first mutations necessary to set them on that path. And remember, behavior is as affected by evolution as a creature's physical makeup, and much adaptation happens in how animals respond to the environment behaviorally. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:15, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 8: What is the evolutionary advantage of Art ?==
: Art is most likely an exaptation of the primate sense of shapes, and the ability to quickly pick out and identify shapes in patterns and images. This sense seems to be instinctual in pirmate species, and is the reason that humans see shapes in clouds and the surface of the Moon. Art was very likely a unifying force in early communities, where artists could use images to teach people about their history, how to hunt, which plants not to eat, and so on. What we call "cave art" may well have been vital information for our ancestors, as well as something nice to look at. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 9: Is Evolution unfalsifiable ?==

==Question 10: Is Evolution exempt of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?==

The second law of thermodynamics states the entropy increases over time in a closed system. Evolution does not violate this. A common creationist misconception is that evolution absolutely requires new information. However, this is not always the case. A simple change to a number of already existing genes can bring about big changes to the organism. For example, tetrapod limbs are said to have evolved from fish fins. This was a change of already existing information, and not an increase in the amount of information. Therefore, not only is the accusation incorrect, but the accusation also works off of a strawman argument. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:57, 30 January 2012 (GMT)

The Second Law only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. I really wish creationists wouldn't use this argument because it makes us look ignorant. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 08:59, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 11: How would you explain self-destructive behavior ?==
Smokers, drug addicts, alcohol drinkers should not survive and should not attract the opposite sex.

::If humans lived in an environment where such vices impeded the ability of people to survive to childbearing age, then this argument would be valid. However, since our society guarantees that the large majority of people survives to reproductive age, natural selection has little to do with these behaviors. As for what attracts the opposite sex, it is entirely possible for someone to drink, smoke, and still have traits that make them attractive, but this is more of a sociology question then one related to evolutionary biology. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question related to Evolution but not challenging the theory==

===Question A: According to Evolution, degrading biodiversity does not matter===
According to evolutionists, there has already been many great extinction followed by explosion of diversity. If so, It does not really matter if we degrade biodiversity, it will be fixed by itself.

===Question B: According to Evolution, a human is not more important than a cockroach===
So why should we kill cockroaches and not humans ?

::Evolution does not make judgements about which species is "more important." That is a philosophical question that cannot be empirically tested or even objectively defined. Evolution only says that cockroaches, humans, and all other forms of life have an ancient, common ancestor, not that they are all morally equivalent. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===Question C: Is Evolution compatible with the Soul ?===
If yes, how did it begin ? Did homo habilis have a soul ?

:The soul is a unfalsifiable explanation for human consciousness invented by thinkers who did not have the benefit of modern medicine or neuroscience. Evolution has nothing to say on the existence of the soul, in homo habilis or otherwise. The definition of the soul, what it entails and is responsible for, has changed over the centuries as new information about human behavior and physiology has become available. If it exists, it is most likely an emergent property of the brain, and may very well exist in other animals and in previous hominid species. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:45, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===Question D: What do you find illogical with creationism ?===

===Question E: What is the purpose of life ?===
In the biochemical sense, the function of life is to perpetuate itself. Natural selection has refined DNA into a very potent machine for reproduction and survival. In the moral sense, this is a religious and philosophical question unrelated to how we developed over time. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T15:45:04Z

RachelW: /* Question C: Is Evolution compatible with the Soul ? */

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T15:40:02Z

RachelW: /* Question B: According to Evolution, a human is not more important than a cockroach */

==Question 1: How can a major mutation happen while transitional states are not viable ?==
While eyes or wings are undoubtedly advantages, those evolutions did not happen in 1 generation. And, as it is often quoted, Evolution is blind. How 10% of an eye or 10% of a could have been be useful ?

:The transitional states ARE viable, and the eye is a very good example of that. The first "eye" was just a primitive patch of photosensitive cells on a creature's head that could tell light from dark. This became more complex, becoming a concave eye cup capable of telling the direction of light. Eventually, a clear covering for the eye cup developed to protect it. That clear coating played the role of a lens soon enough, and the eye became capable for the first time of resolving images.

The question should not be "What would you do with 10% of an eye?" Instead, ask "What would you do with an eye 10% as good as the one you've got! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 2: How can speciation happen without geographic separation ?==
: Geographic separation is the best way to get two groups of the same species to evolve differently from one another. However, any phenomenon which causes two groups to stop interbreeding can cause speciation. The term for it is sympatric speciation.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 3: Who was the first Homo Sapiens ?==
Was his father a homo sapiens as well ?

::There was no "first" ''Homo sapiens''. Evolution does not work like that. Evolution works through gradual changes within a '''population''' over generations. The "boundary" of speciation is not a defined threshold. Rather, speciation occurs gradually as allele frequency and genomic structure changes subtly, within a population, from one generation to the next. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 4: How would an evolutionist define a specie ?==
Is it even possible to do so ?
::Taxonomy is a human construct designed to make classifying animals easier. When two groups of animals can no longer interbreed, we usually call them different species, but the universe doesn't give a wet slap what we call animals, and indeed many "separate" species can interbreed to make hybrids. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 5: How is Evolution more scientific than Creation ?==
How isn't it a question of faith?

:Evolution was formalized by careful study of natural evidence, and not widely accepted as a valid theory until large amounts of supporting data were found, and the theory was altered and fleshed out, a process still continuing today. There is no part of the evolutionary theory that is not subject to question or debate, as long as the evidence for an argument can be presented. This is the scientific process, and the theory of evolution is one of humanity's crowning achievements in the sciences. There is no such thing as "evolutionary dogma."

Creationism uses as its primary source of information the vaguely worded and most likely metaphorical creation story in Genesis. Creationism explains nothing about how life developed, only that it was put here by means that could never be tested or verified. Central to creationist belief is the historical truth of the Genesis account, but since there exists no evidence that could prove or disprove a supernatural source of the first life on Earth, it is a position one must take on faith alone.

In other words, Evolution is a properly vetted scientific theory which can be tested, and Creationism is a religious position that does not attempt to explain specific evidence of the Earth's age or of the provenance of animals, relying instead on faith in the Genesis account.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 6: Is evolution a science ?==
As defined by wikipedia, ''Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe''. 
Is is testable ? Can we do predictions over millions of years ? And finally, could the theory be falsified?

Evolution can be and is empirically tested every day. Like astronomy, evolution relies primarily on observational data to form its theories. Those theories are tested by observing other parts of nature and seeing if the theory holds. It is also possible to experimentally demonstrate evolution. The Lenski experiments, well known on this site, are only one of the many experiments in which evolution has been demonstrated.

If you want to falsify evolution in a way that scientists would accept, the easiest way would be to find an organism too complex to have evolved gradually, in other words, find and demonstrably prove that such an organism is "irreducibly complex," that previous forms of the animal could not have possibly survived. Attempts to do so using such characteristics as wings and eyes have failed, as the evolution of these traits are well understood, but it is possible, though I personally would wager that such a creature does not exist. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 7: Some great advantages are not very often seen==
Why is that we do not see many big-brain species, it seems to be a pretty good strategy.
:It is a very expensive advantage as well. Our large brains are very delicate, consume huge amounts of energy and make childbirth much more difficult for us than other primate species. Also, remember that "big brain" doesn't always mean "more intelligence," especially in larger animals that need more and more of their brains to control autonomic processes in their bodies. It is easy to see that evolving a large brain might not be as advantageous for other species as it is for us.

On a more general note, the process of genetic mutation is somewhat random, so it is very difficult to predict which specific adaptations will develop in a creature, if any at all. Just because a trait is beneficial doesn't mean that anyone in the species will ever develop the first mutations necessary to set them on that path. And remember, behavior is as affected by evolution as a creature's physical makeup, and much adaptation happens in how animals respond to the environment behaviorally. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:15, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 8: What is the evolutionary advantage of Art ?==
: Art is most likely an exaptation of the primate sense of shapes, and the ability to quickly pick out and identify shapes in patterns and images. This sense seems to be instinctual in pirmate species, and is the reason that humans see shapes in clouds and the surface of the Moon. Art was very likely a unifying force in early communities, where artists could use images to teach people about their history, how to hunt, which plants not to eat, and so on. What we call "cave art" may well have been vital information for our ancestors, as well as something nice to look at. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 9: Is Evolution unfalsifiable ?==

==Question 10: Is Evolution exempt of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?==

The second law of thermodynamics states the entropy increases over time in a closed system. Evolution does not violate this. A common creationist misconception is that evolution absolutely requires new information. However, this is not always the case. A simple change to a number of already existing genes can bring about big changes to the organism. For example, tetrapod limbs are said to have evolved from fish fins. This was a change of already existing information, and not an increase in the amount of information. Therefore, not only is the accusation incorrect, but the accusation also works off of a strawman argument. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:57, 30 January 2012 (GMT)

The Second Law only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. I really wish creationists wouldn't use this argument because it makes us look ignorant. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 08:59, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 11: How would you explain self-destructive behavior ?==
Smokers, drug addicts, alcohol drinkers should not survive and should not attract the opposite sex.

::If humans lived in an environment where such vices impeded the ability of people to survive to childbearing age, then this argument would be valid. However, since our society guarantees that the large majority of people survives to reproductive age, natural selection has little to do with these behaviors. As for what attracts the opposite sex, it is entirely possible for someone to drink, smoke, and still have traits that make them attractive, but this is more of a sociology question then one related to evolutionary biology. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question related to Evolution but not challenging the theory==

===Question A: According to Evolution, degrading biodiversity does not matter===
According to evolutionists, there has already been many great extinction followed by explosion of diversity. If so, It does not really matter if we degrade biodiversity, it will be fixed by itself.

===Question B: According to Evolution, a human is not more important than a cockroach===
So why should we kill cockroaches and not humans ?

::Evolution does not make judgements about which species is "more important." That is a philosophical question that cannot be empirically tested or even objectively defined. Evolution only says that cockroaches, humans, and all other forms of life have an ancient, common ancestor, not that they are all morally equivalent. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===Question C: Is Evolution compatible with the Soul ?===
If yes, how did it begin ? Did homo habilis have a soul ?

===Question D: What do you find illogical with creationism ?===

===Question E: What is the purpose of life ?===

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T15:34:41Z

RachelW: /* Question 11: How would you explain self-destructive behavior ? */

==Question 1: How can a major mutation happen while transitional states are not viable ?==
While eyes or wings are undoubtedly advantages, those evolutions did not happen in 1 generation. And, as it is often quoted, Evolution is blind. How 10% of an eye or 10% of a could have been be useful ?

:The transitional states ARE viable, and the eye is a very good example of that. The first "eye" was just a primitive patch of photosensitive cells on a creature's head that could tell light from dark. This became more complex, becoming a concave eye cup capable of telling the direction of light. Eventually, a clear covering for the eye cup developed to protect it. That clear coating played the role of a lens soon enough, and the eye became capable for the first time of resolving images.

The question should not be "What would you do with 10% of an eye?" Instead, ask "What would you do with an eye 10% as good as the one you've got! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 2: How can speciation happen without geographic separation ?==
: Geographic separation is the best way to get two groups of the same species to evolve differently from one another. However, any phenomenon which causes two groups to stop interbreeding can cause speciation. The term for it is sympatric speciation.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 3: Who was the first Homo Sapiens ?==
Was his father a homo sapiens as well ?

::There was no "first" ''Homo sapiens''. Evolution does not work like that. Evolution works through gradual changes within a '''population''' over generations. The "boundary" of speciation is not a defined threshold. Rather, speciation occurs gradually as allele frequency and genomic structure changes subtly, within a population, from one generation to the next. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 4: How would an evolutionist define a specie ?==
Is it even possible to do so ?
::Taxonomy is a human construct designed to make classifying animals easier. When two groups of animals can no longer interbreed, we usually call them different species, but the universe doesn't give a wet slap what we call animals, and indeed many "separate" species can interbreed to make hybrids. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 5: How is Evolution more scientific than Creation ?==
How isn't it a question of faith?

:Evolution was formalized by careful study of natural evidence, and not widely accepted as a valid theory until large amounts of supporting data were found, and the theory was altered and fleshed out, a process still continuing today. There is no part of the evolutionary theory that is not subject to question or debate, as long as the evidence for an argument can be presented. This is the scientific process, and the theory of evolution is one of humanity's crowning achievements in the sciences. There is no such thing as "evolutionary dogma."

Creationism uses as its primary source of information the vaguely worded and most likely metaphorical creation story in Genesis. Creationism explains nothing about how life developed, only that it was put here by means that could never be tested or verified. Central to creationist belief is the historical truth of the Genesis account, but since there exists no evidence that could prove or disprove a supernatural source of the first life on Earth, it is a position one must take on faith alone.

In other words, Evolution is a properly vetted scientific theory which can be tested, and Creationism is a religious position that does not attempt to explain specific evidence of the Earth's age or of the provenance of animals, relying instead on faith in the Genesis account.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 6: Is evolution a science ?==
As defined by wikipedia, ''Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe''. 
Is is testable ? Can we do predictions over millions of years ? And finally, could the theory be falsified?

Evolution can be and is empirically tested every day. Like astronomy, evolution relies primarily on observational data to form its theories. Those theories are tested by observing other parts of nature and seeing if the theory holds. It is also possible to experimentally demonstrate evolution. The Lenski experiments, well known on this site, are only one of the many experiments in which evolution has been demonstrated.

If you want to falsify evolution in a way that scientists would accept, the easiest way would be to find an organism too complex to have evolved gradually, in other words, find and demonstrably prove that such an organism is "irreducibly complex," that previous forms of the animal could not have possibly survived. Attempts to do so using such characteristics as wings and eyes have failed, as the evolution of these traits are well understood, but it is possible, though I personally would wager that such a creature does not exist. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 7: Some great advantages are not very often seen==
Why is that we do not see many big-brain species, it seems to be a pretty good strategy.
:It is a very expensive advantage as well. Our large brains are very delicate, consume huge amounts of energy and make childbirth much more difficult for us than other primate species. Also, remember that "big brain" doesn't always mean "more intelligence," especially in larger animals that need more and more of their brains to control autonomic processes in their bodies. It is easy to see that evolving a large brain might not be as advantageous for other species as it is for us.

On a more general note, the process of genetic mutation is somewhat random, so it is very difficult to predict which specific adaptations will develop in a creature, if any at all. Just because a trait is beneficial doesn't mean that anyone in the species will ever develop the first mutations necessary to set them on that path. And remember, behavior is as affected by evolution as a creature's physical makeup, and much adaptation happens in how animals respond to the environment behaviorally. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:15, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 8: What is the evolutionary advantage of Art ?==
: Art is most likely an exaptation of the primate sense of shapes, and the ability to quickly pick out and identify shapes in patterns and images. This sense seems to be instinctual in pirmate species, and is the reason that humans see shapes in clouds and the surface of the Moon. Art was very likely a unifying force in early communities, where artists could use images to teach people about their history, how to hunt, which plants not to eat, and so on. What we call "cave art" may well have been vital information for our ancestors, as well as something nice to look at. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 9: Is Evolution unfalsifiable ?==

==Question 10: Is Evolution exempt of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?==

The second law of thermodynamics states the entropy increases over time in a closed system. Evolution does not violate this. A common creationist misconception is that evolution absolutely requires new information. However, this is not always the case. A simple change to a number of already existing genes can bring about big changes to the organism. For example, tetrapod limbs are said to have evolved from fish fins. This was a change of already existing information, and not an increase in the amount of information. Therefore, not only is the accusation incorrect, but the accusation also works off of a strawman argument. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:57, 30 January 2012 (GMT)

The Second Law only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. I really wish creationists wouldn't use this argument because it makes us look ignorant. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 08:59, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 11: How would you explain self-destructive behavior ?==
Smokers, drug addicts, alcohol drinkers should not survive and should not attract the opposite sex.

::If humans lived in an environment where such vices impeded the ability of people to survive to childbearing age, then this argument would be valid. However, since our society guarantees that the large majority of people survives to reproductive age, natural selection has little to do with these behaviors. As for what attracts the opposite sex, it is entirely possible for someone to drink, smoke, and still have traits that make them attractive, but this is more of a sociology question then one related to evolutionary biology. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question related to Evolution but not challenging the theory==

===Question A: According to Evolution, degrading biodiversity does not matter===
According to evolutionists, there has already been many great extinction followed by explosion of diversity. If so, It does not really matter if we degrade biodiversity, it will be fixed by itself.

===Question B: According to Evolution, a human is not more important than a cockroach===
So why should we kill cockroaches and not humans ?

===Question C: Is Evolution compatible with the Soul ?===
If yes, how did it begin ? Did homo habilis have a soul ?

===Question D: What do you find illogical with creationism ?===

===Question E: What is the purpose of life ?===

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T14:20:58Z

RachelW: /* Question 8: What is the evolutionary advantage of Art ? */

==Question 1: How can a major mutation happen while transitional states are not viable ?==
While eyes or wings are undoubtedly advantages, those evolutions did not happen in 1 generation. And, as it is often quoted, Evolution is blind. How 10% of an eye or 10% of a could have been be useful ?

:The transitional states ARE viable, and the eye is a very good example of that. The first "eye" was just a primitive patch of photosensitive cells on a creature's head that could tell light from dark. This became more complex, becoming a concave eye cup capable of telling the direction of light. Eventually, a clear covering for the eye cup developed to protect it. That clear coating played the role of a lens soon enough, and the eye became capable for the first time of resolving images.

The question should not be "What would you do with 10% of an eye?" Instead, ask "What would you do with an eye 10% as good as the one you've got! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 2: How can speciation happen without geographic separation ?==
: Geographic separation is the best way to get two groups of the same species to evolve differently from one another. However, any phenomenon which causes two groups to stop interbreeding can cause speciation. The term for it is sympatric speciation.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 3: Who was the first Homo Sapiens ?==
Was his father a homo sapiens as well ?

::There was no "first" ''Homo sapiens''. Evolution does not work like that. Evolution works through gradual changes within a '''population''' over generations. The "boundary" of speciation is not a defined threshold. Rather, speciation occurs gradually as allele frequency and genomic structure changes subtly, within a population, from one generation to the next. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 4: How would an evolutionist define a specie ?==
Is it even possible to do so ?
::Taxonomy is a human construct designed to make classifying animals easier. When two groups of animals can no longer interbreed, we usually call them different species, but the universe doesn't give a wet slap what we call animals, and indeed many "separate" species can interbreed to make hybrids. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 5: How is Evolution more scientific than Creation ?==
How isn't it a question of faith?

:Evolution was formalized by careful study of natural evidence, and not widely accepted as a valid theory until large amounts of supporting data were found, and the theory was altered and fleshed out, a process still continuing today. There is no part of the evolutionary theory that is not subject to question or debate, as long as the evidence for an argument can be presented. This is the scientific process, and the theory of evolution is one of humanity's crowning achievements in the sciences. There is no such thing as "evolutionary dogma."

Creationism uses as its primary source of information the vaguely worded and most likely metaphorical creation story in Genesis. Creationism explains nothing about how life developed, only that it was put here by means that could never be tested or verified. Central to creationist belief is the historical truth of the Genesis account, but since there exists no evidence that could prove or disprove a supernatural source of the first life on Earth, it is a position one must take on faith alone.

In other words, Evolution is a properly vetted scientific theory which can be tested, and Creationism is a religious position that does not attempt to explain specific evidence of the Earth's age or of the provenance of animals, relying instead on faith in the Genesis account.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 6: Is evolution a science ?==
As defined by wikipedia, ''Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe''. 
Is is testable ? Can we do predictions over millions of years ? And finally, could the theory be falsified?

Evolution can be and is empirically tested every day. Like astronomy, evolution relies primarily on observational data to form its theories. Those theories are tested by observing other parts of nature and seeing if the theory holds. It is also possible to experimentally demonstrate evolution. The Lenski experiments, well known on this site, are only one of the many experiments in which evolution has been demonstrated.

If you want to falsify evolution in a way that scientists would accept, the easiest way would be to find an organism too complex to have evolved gradually, in other words, find and demonstrably prove that such an organism is "irreducibly complex," that previous forms of the animal could not have possibly survived. Attempts to do so using such characteristics as wings and eyes have failed, as the evolution of these traits are well understood, but it is possible, though I personally would wager that such a creature does not exist. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 7: Some great advantages are not very often seen==
Why is that we do not see many big-brain species, it seems to be a pretty good strategy.
:It is a very expensive advantage as well. Our large brains are very delicate, consume huge amounts of energy and make childbirth much more difficult for us than other primate species. Also, remember that "big brain" doesn't always mean "more intelligence," especially in larger animals that need more and more of their brains to control autonomic processes in their bodies. It is easy to see that evolving a large brain might not be as advantageous for other species as it is for us.

On a more general note, the process of genetic mutation is somewhat random, so it is very difficult to predict which specific adaptations will develop in a creature, if any at all. Just because a trait is beneficial doesn't mean that anyone in the species will ever develop the first mutations necessary to set them on that path. And remember, behavior is as affected by evolution as a creature's physical makeup, and much adaptation happens in how animals respond to the environment behaviorally. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:15, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 8: What is the evolutionary advantage of Art ?==
: Art is most likely an exaptation of the primate sense of shapes, and the ability to quickly pick out and identify shapes in patterns and images. This sense seems to be instinctual in pirmate species, and is the reason that humans see shapes in clouds and the surface of the Moon. Art was very likely a unifying force in early communities, where artists could use images to teach people about their history, how to hunt, which plants not to eat, and so on. What we call "cave art" may well have been vital information for our ancestors, as well as something nice to look at. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 9: Is Evolution unfalsifiable ?==

==Question 10: Is Evolution exempt of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?==

The second law of thermodynamics states the entropy increases over time in a closed system. Evolution does not violate this. A common creationist misconception is that evolution absolutely requires new information. However, this is not always the case. A simple change to a number of already existing genes can bring about big changes to the organism. For example, tetrapod limbs are said to have evolved from fish fins. This was a change of already existing information, and not an increase in the amount of information. Therefore, not only is the accusation incorrect, but the accusation also works off of a strawman argument. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:57, 30 January 2012 (GMT)

The Second Law only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. I really wish creationists wouldn't use this argument because it makes us look ignorant. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 08:59, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 11: How would you explain self-destructive behavior ?==
Smokers, drug addicts, alcohol drinkers should not survive and should not attract the opposite sex.

==Question related to Evolution but not challenging the theory==

===Question A: According to Evolution, degrading biodiversity does not matter===
According to evolutionists, there has already been many great extinction followed by explosion of diversity. If so, It does not really matter if we degrade biodiversity, it will be fixed by itself.

===Question B: According to Evolution, a human is not more important than a cockroach===
So why should we kill cockroaches and not humans ?

===Question C: Is Evolution compatible with the Soul ?===
If yes, how did it begin ? Did homo habilis have a soul ?

===Question D: What do you find illogical with creationism ?===

===Question E: What is the purpose of life ?===

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T14:15:19Z

RachelW: /* Question 7: Some great advantages are not very often seen */

==Question 1: How can a major mutation happen while transitional states are not viable ?==
While eyes or wings are undoubtedly advantages, those evolutions did not happen in 1 generation. And, as it is often quoted, Evolution is blind. How 10% of an eye or 10% of a could have been be useful ?

:The transitional states ARE viable, and the eye is a very good example of that. The first "eye" was just a primitive patch of photosensitive cells on a creature's head that could tell light from dark. This became more complex, becoming a concave eye cup capable of telling the direction of light. Eventually, a clear covering for the eye cup developed to protect it. That clear coating played the role of a lens soon enough, and the eye became capable for the first time of resolving images.

The question should not be "What would you do with 10% of an eye?" Instead, ask "What would you do with an eye 10% as good as the one you've got! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 2: How can speciation happen without geographic separation ?==
: Geographic separation is the best way to get two groups of the same species to evolve differently from one another. However, any phenomenon which causes two groups to stop interbreeding can cause speciation. The term for it is sympatric speciation.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 3: Who was the first Homo Sapiens ?==
Was his father a homo sapiens as well ?

::There was no "first" ''Homo sapiens''. Evolution does not work like that. Evolution works through gradual changes within a '''population''' over generations. The "boundary" of speciation is not a defined threshold. Rather, speciation occurs gradually as allele frequency and genomic structure changes subtly, within a population, from one generation to the next. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 4: How would an evolutionist define a specie ?==
Is it even possible to do so ?
::Taxonomy is a human construct designed to make classifying animals easier. When two groups of animals can no longer interbreed, we usually call them different species, but the universe doesn't give a wet slap what we call animals, and indeed many "separate" species can interbreed to make hybrids. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 5: How is Evolution more scientific than Creation ?==
How isn't it a question of faith?

:Evolution was formalized by careful study of natural evidence, and not widely accepted as a valid theory until large amounts of supporting data were found, and the theory was altered and fleshed out, a process still continuing today. There is no part of the evolutionary theory that is not subject to question or debate, as long as the evidence for an argument can be presented. This is the scientific process, and the theory of evolution is one of humanity's crowning achievements in the sciences. There is no such thing as "evolutionary dogma."

Creationism uses as its primary source of information the vaguely worded and most likely metaphorical creation story in Genesis. Creationism explains nothing about how life developed, only that it was put here by means that could never be tested or verified. Central to creationist belief is the historical truth of the Genesis account, but since there exists no evidence that could prove or disprove a supernatural source of the first life on Earth, it is a position one must take on faith alone.

In other words, Evolution is a properly vetted scientific theory which can be tested, and Creationism is a religious position that does not attempt to explain specific evidence of the Earth's age or of the provenance of animals, relying instead on faith in the Genesis account.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 6: Is evolution a science ?==
As defined by wikipedia, ''Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe''. 
Is is testable ? Can we do predictions over millions of years ? And finally, could the theory be falsified?

Evolution can be and is empirically tested every day. Like astronomy, evolution relies primarily on observational data to form its theories. Those theories are tested by observing other parts of nature and seeing if the theory holds. It is also possible to experimentally demonstrate evolution. The Lenski experiments, well known on this site, are only one of the many experiments in which evolution has been demonstrated.

If you want to falsify evolution in a way that scientists would accept, the easiest way would be to find an organism too complex to have evolved gradually, in other words, find and demonstrably prove that such an organism is "irreducibly complex," that previous forms of the animal could not have possibly survived. Attempts to do so using such characteristics as wings and eyes have failed, as the evolution of these traits are well understood, but it is possible, though I personally would wager that such a creature does not exist. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 7: Some great advantages are not very often seen==
Why is that we do not see many big-brain species, it seems to be a pretty good strategy.
:It is a very expensive advantage as well. Our large brains are very delicate, consume huge amounts of energy and make childbirth much more difficult for us than other primate species. Also, remember that "big brain" doesn't always mean "more intelligence," especially in larger animals that need more and more of their brains to control autonomic processes in their bodies. It is easy to see that evolving a large brain might not be as advantageous for other species as it is for us.

On a more general note, the process of genetic mutation is somewhat random, so it is very difficult to predict which specific adaptations will develop in a creature, if any at all. Just because a trait is beneficial doesn't mean that anyone in the species will ever develop the first mutations necessary to set them on that path. And remember, behavior is as affected by evolution as a creature's physical makeup, and much adaptation happens in how animals respond to the environment behaviorally. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:15, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 8: What is the evolutionary advantage of Art ?==

==Question 9: Is Evolution unfalsifiable ?==

==Question 10: Is Evolution exempt of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?==

The second law of thermodynamics states the entropy increases over time in a closed system. Evolution does not violate this. A common creationist misconception is that evolution absolutely requires new information. However, this is not always the case. A simple change to a number of already existing genes can bring about big changes to the organism. For example, tetrapod limbs are said to have evolved from fish fins. This was a change of already existing information, and not an increase in the amount of information. Therefore, not only is the accusation incorrect, but the accusation also works off of a strawman argument. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:57, 30 January 2012 (GMT)

The Second Law only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. I really wish creationists wouldn't use this argument because it makes us look ignorant. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 08:59, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 11: How would you explain self-destructive behavior ?==
Smokers, drug addicts, alcohol drinkers should not survive and should not attract the opposite sex.

==Question related to Evolution but not challenging the theory==

===Question A: According to Evolution, degrading biodiversity does not matter===
According to evolutionists, there has already been many great extinction followed by explosion of diversity. If so, It does not really matter if we degrade biodiversity, it will be fixed by itself.

===Question B: According to Evolution, a human is not more important than a cockroach===
So why should we kill cockroaches and not humans ?

===Question C: Is Evolution compatible with the Soul ?===
If yes, how did it begin ? Did homo habilis have a soul ?

===Question D: What do you find illogical with creationism ?===

===Question E: What is the purpose of life ?===

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T14:06:06Z

RachelW: /* Question 6: Is evolution a science ? */

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T13:56:26Z

RachelW: /* Question 5: How is Evolution more scientific than Creation ? */

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T13:44:56Z

RachelW: /* Question 4: How would an evolutionist define a specie ? */

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T13:41:52Z

RachelW: /* Question 2: How can speciation happen without geographic separation ? */