Changes
:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The second paragraph from the top of the article has a confusion of phases of the Moon with eclipses. The phases of the moon are because of the shadow of the Moon, not the Earth. Or, in other words, parts of the visible Moon are dark because it's local night there. [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 07:18, 2 November 2008 (EST)
: Fixed, thanks. It's not locked; you could have fixed it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:40, 2 November 2008 (EST)
== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==
Feel free to declare victory on this point. You are quite far away from your earlier position that your view is the only legitimate view, but now it is merely one view that could be logically possible. If you are happy with such a minimal position, I'd call that a victory too. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)
: I've never said that "my view is the only legitimate view" in so many words. That's your spin. I have said that the young-Earth view is the only legitimate way to understand the Bible, but I never said that the colophon explanation of how Genesis was written was the only legitimate view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Your way is only one way to understand the bible, since it may be translated in different ways, understood in different ways, and interpreted in different ways, different theories how the bible came about. And saying that your interpretation might be logical possible, that is not exactly much. There are other interpretations that are logically possible, too. It seem like you are arguing with the desired outcome in mind, namely that the scripture must be correct on a fairly literal level, and with that in mind there indeed only a few possible interpretations. And yours might be one of them. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh dear, we've been over this already. There's so many unsubstantiated generalisations in that paragraph that I'm not going to repeat myself going over them all again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:49, 21 December 2007 (EST)
===Scientific Claims===
: Also, perhaps you could give me an example of something that exhibits evidence of design (i.e. structure and complexity) but which we know from observation of it occurring was not designed by an intelligent being. Exclude life itself (because that's what we are discussing and we didn't see the origins of life), exclude individual living things because we know that they come about from other living things, and tracing it back gets back to the origin of life, already excluded), and exclude crystals, because they are not complex and derive any apparent design they have from their chemical properties (unlike complex things). Can you provide any examples?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:22, 20 December 2007 (EST)
You can do it without this little game with the two definitions of design, can't you. Because in your very first senetence you do it straight again. Argue from first structure, and then switch to the definition from origin. So call it ''apparent design''. Or structure. And nature exhibits structure. And there is structure in nature that is not biological.
Selection is no random at all. That is the the crucial point. If all pandas go extinct, then that is not random. That cases of infections with penicillin resistant golden staph bacteria increases is not random.
If your argument is from letters making up a sentence, then you should allow genetic algorithms, because that is exactly how they work, on strings. And don't give me a link telling be that a certain dam example isn't anything like biological evolution. That is arguing from a single non-related example. It has been mathematically proven, that the average fitness of a set of sample solutions multi-dimensional optimization problems of finite dimensionality, will improve from one iteration to the next under a scheme of mutations and selection. Your string with about 30 characters is peanuts compared to optimization problems that have been tackles with such algorithms.
So, and I am a bit disappointed that you gave up to provide an example. If you cannot give a single example for something where the lack of purpose implies randomness, your claim that lack of purpose implies randomness can't be that strong. It seems like you cannot come up with evidence for your own position, but only criticize the position of others. Creationists are often blamed for arguing along the line "you cannot explain everything therefore my explanation must be right". We all know that that is a poor argument. It seems like you ask me for an example, rather than do your own homework, because this is the only way you know to argue your case. You still operate under the assumption that I want to convince you of evolution, or the the big bang, while my position merely that you should be able to admit to yourself that your view could be wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:21, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: I DID give you an example, and I reminded you that I gave you an example. Saying that I didn't does not make it so. And I asked you to point out the flaws in the sentence example I gave you, and asked for an example of something that appears to be designed but isn't. You neither pointed out any flaws (calling it "peanuts" is not pointing out a flaw), nor provided the example that I asked for. What do you mean by my view "could be wrong". I'm not claiming infallibility, if that's what you're after. But I am claiming that the evidence is on my side, and if you want me to admit that I "could be wrong", then the onus is on you to show how it "could be wrong". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 21 December 2007 (EST)
You repeated the observation that mutations are random, which is probably true and barely contested, but you didn't show that it is the lack of purpose that makes it random. And that was your claim. Because you used the general claim that lack of purpose implies randomness, to characterize all of evolution as random, even the bits that aren't random. So, we are still waiting for an example where randomness is caused by a lack of purpose.
The Creation Study Committee for the Presbyterian Church made very detailed report about how you could be wrong. It is nice that you ask me to come up with a theory, but you might already have noticed that I am fairly reluctant to play along with the creationist game of criticizing others, under the assumption that this proves their theory to be right. If you claim to have the evidence on your side, you could tell us what this evidence is. We will then see how strong your evidence is and if it measures up to your testability criterion. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:49, 21 December 2007 (EST)
: That a "lack of purpose...makes it random" is true ''by definition'': "Random, ''adj.'' 1. going, made, occurring, etc., without definite aim, purpose, or reason." <small>(The Penguin Macquarie Dictionary)</small>.
: You'll need to remind me what it is that you think I "could be wrong" on.
: Creationists do not criticise others under the assumption that this proves their theory to be right.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:50, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks to admit that you use random according to this definition. And nobody contests that evolution is thought to be random under this definition. Which is distinct from the definition: uniform distribution over a sample space. But you wanted to compute probabilities. What are the other definitions in your dictionary? In Merrian Webster the second meaning is that of uniform distributions over a sample space. So, when are you going to present an instance where a lack of purpose or design leads necessarily to a uniform distribution over a sample space? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)
===Interpretations===
It seems like you want use the strict eyewitness standard on others, but use a more reasonable standard for yourself. You want it both ways. But under your strict eyewitness standard, you weren't even able to show that the gospels were legit, while the non-canonical gospels weren't. You aren't, for example, able to distinguish between the gospel of Luke, Thomas, and Joseph Smith. All you could produce was secondary evidence, but no eyewitness accounts of them receiving or not receiving the divine word. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:56, 18 December 2007 (EST)
: I wasn't referring to the ''technology'' of TV so much as the rapid dissemination of views that it enables. Sure, people talked to other people, but as far as the rapid dissemination of views is concerned, there's a whole order of magnitude of difference. I disagree that physical evidence is generally more useful than corroborated eyewitnesses, although I don't doubt that there are plenty of examples both ways. Short of a comprehensive study on this that we can quote to each other, though, I'd suggest that this is one issue on which the best we can do is anecdotal evidence, non-representative examples, and opinion. Although I can offer an ''expert'' opinion. The former Chief Magistrate of [[New South Wales]] referred to eyewitness testimony as "the best testimony of all", and said that "Lawyers all know the value of witnesses who corroborate each other." (See link below.)
: I have made up my mind on whether the past is falsifiable, and explained that in my previous post. Scientific falsifiability does not use eyewitnesses. It uses repeatable tests. If scientist A proposes that reaction B produces product C, and person D says "I saw that happen once", that is not science. To be science, someone must cause reaction B and see if it produces product C, and other scientists do the same (repeatability) to check the results. You seem to be calling ''all'' research and information gathering 'science'. Science is a specific field of endeavour, not a word that covers everything. Tests require logic, but logic doesn't require tests, so they are not the same thing.
: I've already answered about eyewitnesses to the eyewitnesses, but I'll add that you don't need eyewitnesses to the eyewitnesses. Nobody expects that. You need (a) eyewitnesses, (b) corroboration (i.e. more than one eyewitness), and (c) credibility, which can be determined in a number of ways. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4994 here] for a discussion on this, not exactly to do with your questions about the gospels, but close.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, we do not only have to rely on anecdotal evidence, there have been studies into false testimonies, false memories, and how and when they happen. And that the TV is a different medium doesn't matter for our case. The problem is not the speed, but the fact that witnesses talk to people, and all of your eyewitness reports were written and edited way after the event, so quite some time to talk to other people. But agreed this game of finding site is a bit cumbersome. You can keeping quoting the creationweb, but I can as easily point you to say Bishop Spong. As I said in the beginning, I see litle use in repeating the apologist arguments of the last 2000 years. That they exist is sufficient proof for me that your view isn't the only valid one.
You really stick to this idea that you cannot make a scientific theory about the past. The big bang theory might be wrong but it predicted fairly accurately background radiation which can be measured now. The theory that there was significant trade in Europe way before the Romans, might be wrong, but is supported by archaeological evidence, which can be dug up now. The theory that certain Indian tribes in the US are offspring of Jews, led to the prediction that you should find genetic traces, and that theory has been proven to be wrong by genetic analysis in the present. There is still nothing that keep science from making statements about the past. Your view of science is that it has to take place in a lab, but most science doesn't.
But lets stick to your testability criterion for a while, since as I said I don't want to convince you that I am right, but to concinve you that you might be wrong. Can you give me a repeatable test that we could run to distinguish between the authenticity of the gospels of Luke, Thomas and Joseph Smith? [[User:Order|Order]] 10:48, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: If you pointed me to Spong, I'd probably show you where he was wrong, because he is about so much. ''What'' apologist arguments for the last 2000 years? For most of the last 2000 years the church (the apologists) argued essentially what I've been arguing.
: The claim that the Big Bang idea accurately predicted the background radiation is nowhere near as clearcut as your comment would imply[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4678/]. I've already said (in other conversations if not this one) that science can be ''useful'' in studying history; by testing some details of the historical claims, but that it cannot test for the actual events themselves occurring. So I accept the archaeological evidence example, and the DNA example too, for that matter. But aren't DNA tests done in a lab?
: Repeatable testing is part of the scientific method, which I've said can't be used on past events, such as the writing of the books you mentioned, so I don't see why you would ask me for such tests of them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 21 December 2007 (EST)
Of course you would like to show where Spong is wrong, but even if he is wrong, that won't make your position right. You might be more inclined to accept the work of the Creation Study Group of the Presbyterian Church, in particular their observation that different views and interpretation go back to eve before Christ.
Thanks for pointing me to a creation website trying to prove a scientific theory to be wrong. You quoting it proves that even you believe that this scientific position is falsifiable. Which cannot be said, by your admission, about your interpretation of the scripture. I did ask you to come up with a test, because you ask this from people who disagree with you. If you criticize theories about the past for not being testable, you better make sure that you own theories are testable. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:11, 21 December 2007 (EST)
: I never claimed that Spong being wrong would make me right. But him being wrong means that your argument that you could use him to counter my points fails.
: The Study Group didn't show what you claim it to show. It did show that (a) a ''few'' early people argued for non-literal days, and (b) more do in recent times. On the whole, however, what I said is true (emphasis added): "For ''most'' of the last 2000 years the church (the apologists) argued ''essentially'' what I've been arguing."
: Some specific details of the Big Bang idea are falsifiable even though the overall concept is not. So there's no inconsistency there.
: I don't criticise theories about the past for not being testable. I criticise ''the idea'' that they ''are'' testable when they are not.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, I could still use some of the arguments Spong puts forward, for example that the gospel were written some 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion. So even though there was no TV, there was ample of time to taint any eyewitness reports. We do not even know if the writers were eyewitnesses. And the different gospels do differ on details. I assume that you have a good excuse for these differences, under your interpretation, and Spong has a different interpretation. Problem is, you still haven't provided a test how to distinguish between canonical, and non-canonical gospels, or say the gospel of Joseph Smith, or between your and Spong's interpretation.
The "few" people in mentioned by the creation study group were not the least scholars. But, since we are at it. Do you have proof that most people did argue your way? Can you produce a poll?
So, if it is not falsifiable, why did you bother to make an attempt to falsify? You are probably still claiming that the big bang theory is not testable, because we cannot go back in time? Or are there any other part on the big bang theory that are not testable? Do you have a testable alternative? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:41, 29 December 2007 (EST)
===Legitimate views===
Of course you do think to be one of the wiser brethren. Otherwise you wouldn't defend you position. But Augustine statement is a warning, and as with any warning one should try to assess if the warning applies to oneself. I might make factual mistakes in my arguments, but even if I did, I do not use the scripture to defend my position, so his warning doesn't really apply to me. Whether it applies to you, you may decide for yourself. Your argument is that it does only not apply to you, because you are right on the scientific part. If that is true, you are set. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:14, 18 December 2007 (EST)
:"''Using your literal interpretation it might.''": Well, that's kinda the point, isn't it? You seemed to be suggesting that it ''wasn't'', although perhaps I misunderstood you.
: I'm not following your point about astronomy. I would say that we observe it in the present, and I do agree that the creation account was written in the past and that we read it in the present. And that's the point, that we see these things ''in the present'', and we cannot observe the past. Astronomy is a bit of a special case, though.
: I guess that it depends on what you mean by "wiser brethren". You must be too, by your definition, as you too are defending your position. Which begs the question, though, wiser than who?
: I'm not suggesting that Augustine's warning applies to you, because he was talking about Christians (do you consider yourself one?). I maintain that it doesn't apply to me (on this issue) for two reasons, although they likely boil down to the same reason: One, that he is talking about observations in the ''present'', not accounts of events in the past as we are discussing, and the other because he is talking about "nonsense", contrasted with things that non-Christians know to be "certain from reason and experience". You don't know that the secular view of origins is true ''from experience'', nor from formal logic (which is what, I suggest, he is referring to by "reason"). Instead, the secular view that you hold to is based on (materialistic/naturalistic) ''ideology''.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 20 December 2007 (EST)
My point always was that there are apologist who are able to argue either way. From the very beginning I was hammering that it might be right under your interpretation.
So, if you can only read the scripture in the present, how do make any statement about the past, e.g. when the scripture was written. Or should I say allegedly written, because you seem to claim that you cannot say nothing certain about the past.
When it come to theories about the present, you discount quite a few theories about the present, most notably that selection is random. Or that purpose implies randomness, for which you haven't even found a single instance, let alone a convincing argument for the general claim. Or that you cannot make falsifiable claims about the past. And we know that you think that you are right, and you are indeed of the hook, if you are right about all of your various scientific statements that you made.
Not sure why you keep arguing against my alleged position. As said before, I asked you to defend your position, not make up a position that I might have and attack it. And with your tight eyewitness standard, and insistence that you can only make falsifiable claims about the present, you kind of got rid of all possible evidence you might have to support you claims, just because you hoped it would undermine my position that you don't know. But to shed some light on my view on the matter, this little anecdote. Earlier today I read an article explaining that the scientific explanation for the origin of the moon might have to be changed due to new evidence. Especially the time when the moon formed. I read the article, and once I was done I thought to myself, that it is interesting to know, but that this probably not the last word on the subject. And I amended my previous held belief with the new information in less than three seconds, mostly because the origin of the moon doesn't affect any of my core beliefs. See I got no problem with the fact that scientific theories can be wrong or change. That they are wrong doesn't make your explanation right. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: Just because you can't ''scientifically test'' past events doesn't mean that you can't "make any statements about the past". There are other sources than scientific tests. You can, for example, look at the language used (vocabulary, idioms, etc.) and see when that language was used to see when it was written. This is not absolute like a scientific test would be, but neither does it mean that you have no idea. Depending on what evidence is available, you can often come to reasonably certain conclusions.
: I didn't deny that natural selection is non-random. I said that if natural selection wasn't designed, then it must be random. However the evidence is that it's non-random, which means that it was designed.
: I'm not making up a position that you might have. I'm responding to claims that you are making.
: "''I amended my previous held belief with the new information in less than three seconds, mostly because '''the origin of the moon doesn't affect any of my core beliefs.'''''" (emphasis added) Exactly. The same applies to me. But if it did?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:29, 21 December 2007 (EST)
So, you won't care much if it turned out that the moon was 30 million years older than you previously thought? Interesting.
Selection is not-random, but there are two problems with you suggestion that it therefore must have been designed. First, you still haven't given a single example where lack of purpose, leads necessarily to randomness. Second, that selection is not random, is not a matter of design, but a matter of the definition of selection. Selection refers to the observation that the frequency of genetic traits that lead to a better adaptation of the phenotype to the environment will increase in the gene pool over time. If you however argue instead that someone/something is steering the selection, then that is akin to advocating a version of theistic evolution. Not sure, if that is your aim, but theistic evolution entails that evolutions works.
Looking at language, vocabulary, idioms, etc is science, but we already know that you stick to a very limited view of science. Essentially, you want to use all the tools and techniques commonly used in science for yourself, to get from the evidence to "reasonably certain conclusions". But you don't want scientists to use the same tools and methods to get to reasonably certain conclusion? Using your own standard, you too will have to admit that you never heard a native speaker of old semitic languages such as Aramaic, but of course you won't hold this against yourself, only against scholars that disagree with you. It seems like you feel the need to measure with two measures to be able to defend your position. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:43, 21 December 2007 (EST)
:I'm not sure exactly what was in my mind with my comment about the moon. But it was probably that the precise details could change, just as with you. But no, if the claim about the moon's age increased by 30 million years, it wouldn't change much: both the old and new figures would be wrong. But more to the point, ''any'' such date is based on assumptions that I would reject. But you didn't answer my equivalent question to you. I asked what if a new age ''did'' affect your core beliefs. I'll refine the question further in light or your question to me. What if new evidence showed it to be 6,000 years old?
: "''Selection refers to the observation that the frequency of genetic traits that lead to a better adaptation of the phenotype to the environment will increase in the gene pool over time.''": Yes, but why is this the way it happens? Was this selection process designed or did it occur by chance? Your argument is based on the assumption that this process came into being by chance. No, I'm not proposing theistic evolution. I'm proposing theistic ''creation'' (not that there can really be any other kind).
: I don't have a very limited view of science, but I don't credit it with being able to perform miracles (e.g. test something that is not available to test).
: I ''do'' want people to use all the same tools to get to reasonably certain conclusions. But those tools include using reliable historical documents such as the Bible, instead of ''a priori'' excluding them for philosophical reasons, then claiming that as 'science'.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:36, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry if I'm interrupting something, but I'm going to clarify Order's earlier statement about non-Euclidean geometries. In non-Euclidean geometries, the dropped assumption is Euclid's fifth postulate. See [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.html Mathworld] for more information. [[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 13:17, 29 December 2007 (EST)
If the moon would be only 6000 years old? It would depend on how the moon got there, but it would be interesting. Depending on how hit got there, I would have to change my world views, but I'd figure that there would be little reason to argue with a fact once it is established as a fact.
It doesn't really matter why selection happens. In nature we have that the environment determines which phenotypes have the best reproductive chances, and the phenotype is determined to a significant extend by the genotype. The principle of evolution then predicts that in the next generation the share of those genotypes increases, that lead to fitter phenotypes. And it is not random at all, and it doesn't matter if the selective pressure is natural or man made.
Suppose someone has a golden staph infection. Assume further that about 1% of the golden staph bacteria has the genetic trait to be resistant to methicillin. If the infected person gets treated with methicillin, the number of golden staph bacteria will first decrease sharply, and then increase again. If selection were random, then after the treatment with meticillin 1% of the bacteria should be resistant to it, and 99% shouldn't. That is your claim. The common theory of evolution however predicts that significantly more than 1% of bacteria after a meticilin treatment will carry the genotype for meticillin resistance. This is a simple test to determine if your statement that selection is random is true or the statement that it is not. And without doing this test, I belive that it will be more than 1%.
But I am curious what you mean when you say that selection didn't occur naturally? What is the role of your deity in this? Can you give a bit more details?
If you want the bible to be considered a reliable source for science, you should start by giving us a test to distinguish between the gospels of Luke, Thomas, and Joseph Smith. You should have testable evidence that the creation account is an eyewitness account. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)
===Motivations===
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)
== Perfect Artistic Symmetry ==
'''''The Moon appears from the Earth to be the same size as the sun, in perfect artistic symmetry, unlike any known other planet-moon system in the entire universe.'''''
*Why is this sentence '''bold''' and in ''italics''? Is it a quoted headline?
*The apparent size of the [[Sun]] is 31.6′ – 32.7′, the apparent size of the [[Moon]] 29.3′ – 34.1′ . What's ''perfect'' about this?
*And what's artistic?
*As no moon is known yet outside the solar system, the claim ''unlike any known other planet-moon system in the entire universe'' is just hyperbole.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
: The symmetry is as perfect to the observer as other great works of art are. Does the perfect art in the Mona Lisa suggest a superb painter or a random cause? The former. Ditto for the sun-moon symmetry. Saying that artistic result occurred by chance simply isn't plausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:49, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
::This discussion reminds me of Giotto. When the Pope Nicholas IV asked him to demonstrate he was as great an artist as he was supposed to be, Giotto drew a perfect circle. ''Perfect.'' [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]<sub>[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]</sub> 01:29, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
== Rate of Recession ==
Aschlafly, you repeat your claims from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|here]], i.e., that an age of 4.6 billion years ''is contradicted by an extrapolation backwards in time using its observed rate of recession''. Again, you fail to back up your claim with a source, a calculation/estimation or a simulation.
If you find one, could you answer my [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Questionable Probabilities|questions]]?
Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:09, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
:I commented the section out, as the ''extrapolation backwards'' isn't shown: two weeks should have been enough to come up with some calculation/estimation. As I have shown [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Receding_Moon|here]], the ''extrapolation backwards'' doesn't lead to a contradiction.
:[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
:: There is less discussion of this in universities than there should be, because quickly it leads to the conclusion of a young earth-moon model. Tides are not the only problem with extrapolating backwards. The moon's orbit itself is unstable, and it wouldn't take much extrapolation backwards before it becomes impossible to fast-forward to what the moon is doing now. For example, extrapolate back far enough and the moon would be drifting towards the earth, not away as currently observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
==Number of moons of different planets in the Solar System==
This article could benefit from a table presenting how many moons different planets in the Solar System have. I am aware that some planets have no moons. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 15:41, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
