stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/12/86)
Actually, I don't assume evolution is not part of God's plan. I don't
pretend to have been around when God created the world. I am convinced
that it happened just the way the Bible describes it. I get ticked
off at both creationists and evolutionists because of the irrational
basis of both theories.
Evolutionist: The only alternative to evolution is special creation.
Since God doesn't exist, this is clearly impossible. Therefore
evolution is true. (Despite the evidence.)
Creationist: Evolution was conceived by heathen, therefore it could
not possibly be Biblical (i.e. true). (No science required.)
The waters are further muddied by the 'apparent age' problem which
makes any scientific consideration of creation impossible. (Science
is only concerned with what we can observe.)
My conclusion: both creationism and evolution are totally unscientific
and should not be taught in science classes. (I mean general evolution.
Specific evolution is well proven.) Perhaps 'cosmology' would be an
appropriate name for the subject.
I think a subject more approachable from the scientific view is the
Noahic flood. Let's have some discussion on the net about the Flood.
Here are some facts from the Bible
Duration: 40 days of rain. The earth covered by water for more
than a year.
Onset: Sudden. Only the seven in the Ark had (100 years worth
of supernatural) warning.
Water source: the 'floodgates of heaven' and the 'fountains of the deep'.
(The objection that there is not enough water in the atmosphere
and polar caps is not sufficient.)
Consequences: the flood caused profound changes in the earth's ecology.
Before: It never rained until the flood. The earth was
watered by a mist from the ground.
Average human lifespan was 900+ years.
There were no seasons.
After: Rain was a regular event; rainbows were seen.
Typical human lifespan dropped quickly to 120+ years.
Between Moses and David lifspan dropped further to
70 years.
Seasons took hold.
Eating meat was condoned by God.
Thoughts:
Did the flood split the super continent in a year? (As opposed
to millions of years.)
When did the flood take place?
Changes in lifespan and weather indicate to me that radiation
based dating would be totally off base for events
prior to the flood. (I.e. carbon 14).
Evidently, some species were able to survive the flood without
being in the Ark. (E.g. insect eggs, fish eggs, plants, etc.)
The Bible says that everything that breathed died (Gen 7:22).
Only breathing creatures were in the Ark (Gen 7:15).
Was the flood the demise of dinosaurs? (They were too big
to fit in the Ark?)
What kind of sediment layers (mixed with creatures) would the
flood produce?
--
Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>zonker@ihlpf.UUCP (Tom Harris) (09/12/86)
> Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> writes: > Here are some facts from the Bible Biblical fact is an oxymoron. < Insert all sorts of Biblical fiction here. One current sceintific thought is that the "flood" was in fact the tidal after affect of the explosion of Thera (this probably caused the destruction of the Minoan civilization). At the maximum it was an event local to the Mediterrainian. There is no sedimentary evidence for global flood. At any rate the Biblical account of the flood is a rather thinly veil copy of the same story from the Tales of Gilgamesh (the first best seller). A book Moses, as someone in the Eqyptian court, would have had access to and since the copywrite wasn't invented (well it makes a good story so why not). > Thoughts: > > Did the flood split the super continent in a year? (As opposed > to millions of years.) No. The supercontenent split millions of years before. > > When did the flood take place? Thera exploded about 1500 B.C. > > Changes in lifespan and weather indicate to me that radiation > based dating would be totally off base for events > prior to the flood. (I.e. carbon 14). > The Carbon 14 dating method is valid as it stands (or least a better source of fact than the Bible). The external justification that Carbon 14 is accurate scheme overwhealming (souces are biology, anthropology, geology, zoology, physics and history). The carbon 14 method of dating was created by taking the output of the carbon samples and verifing them with other evidence. No published carbon 14 date is ever used unless there is external justifcation it is correct. It is too easy to ruin the date by contaminating the sample. As an Archeologist we used the C14 only to justify dates we already had figured out from cultural context, if there was a difference we figured out why. In fact one of my professors was caught with his pants down when he announced that he had found the oldest pot in the new world (based on alluvial river deposits), but the carbon date came back 2000 years later than his date. Seems the river deposited four times the muck in the past it does today. < Insert more Biblical fiction here. > Was the flood the demise of dinosaurs? (They were too big > to fit in the Ark?) They were gone several million years before there were people. Size of the ark would have had little to do with it, if Noah could build a ship big enought to house two of every breathing species and food to feed them for a year what's a couple of dinosuars more or less. Also the flood doesn't explain the demise of the sea going dinosaurs. > > What kind of sediment layers (mixed with creatures) would the > flood produce? If there had been a flood of proportions to cover mountains over the whole earth for a year, the effect would have been unmistakeable and easily identified geologically. Think about all the topsoil that would have been washed free, mixed into the ocean and the settled to the bottom, it would stand out from a mile away. This layer doesn't exist, hence there was no flood. Non Cuniculus Est, Tom H.
za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) (09/13/86)
In article <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >Actually, I don't assume evolution is not part of God's plan. I don't >pretend to have been around when God created the world. I am convinced >that it happened just the way the Bible describes it. I get ticked >off at both creationists and evolutionists because of the irrational >basis of both theories. > >Evolutionist: The only alternative to evolution is special creation. > Since God doesn't exist, this is clearly impossible. Therefore > evolution is true. (Despite the evidence.) > WHOA! HOLD ON HERE! We have 2 choices, as you said...Evolution (or something similar) or special creation...WE DO NOT ASSUME EVOLUTION IS TRUE BECAUSE WE ASSUME GOD IS NOT! We assume evolution because it is SIMPLER than assuming 2 extras (1) that God exists, and (2) that God would bother creating an appearance of age...Evolution is far more likely because Creation requires the above 2 premises, wher evolution, even should a God exist, requires neither, and should (1) be true, violates neither...God could have created the universe by evolution...but the universe couldn't have come about by Creation without (1) and (2) above...and the EVIDENCE you mention happens to be rather strongly weighted (read that as NO evidence for Xian Creationism) towards Evolution! Where did you get the idea that the evidence points otherwise? >Creationist: Evolution was conceived by heathen, therefore it could > not possibly be Biblical (i.e. true). (No science required.) > >The waters are further muddied by the 'apparent age' problem which >makes any scientific consideration of creation impossible. (Science >is only concerned with what we can observe.) > >My conclusion: both creationism and evolution are totally unscientific >and should not be taught in science classes. (I mean general evolution. >Specific evolution is well proven.) Perhaps 'cosmology' would be an >appropriate name for the subject. > What is this "general evolution" and "specific evolution" you are speaking about here...creationism is totally unscientific...we agree on that, at least...but EVOLUTION UNSCIENTIFIC? Check your brain cells man...I think they're burned out! Cosmology has little to do with evolution, and thus is a rather inappropriate name...in any case, evolution happens to be scientific, at least the version I got fed in high school seems to be up to date...mind presenting your arguments about why evolution is unscientific...Id like to see them... >I think a subject more approachable from the scientific view is the >Noahic flood. Let's have some discussion on the net about the Flood. > Yeah sure...the Noahic flood was something rumored about in a work of fiction...end of scientific analysis...but seriously...WHY should we scientifically analyze something that hasn't been proven to happen, and in fact is rather unlikely to have happened? None of the ancient history we have indicates any catastrophic event of such magnitude occurred anytime near the time this was supposed to have occured (c. 2500-3000 BC)...for crying out loud...the Egyptians already had a civilization at that time...don't youd think theyd have made notes about it on their walls...and what about the Chinese..they have a written history going back almost to 4000 BC (the time of Biblical Creation, I believe)...how can God have drowned everybody except Noah and Co, and still have left 2 thriving civilizations? This strikes me as enough evidence to forget about Noah right away...end of analysis! >Here are some facts from the Bible > >Duration: 40 days of rain. The earth covered by water for more > than a year. > Musta been one hellofa downpour...DONT YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE SURFACE AREA OF THE EARTH!?! Even assuming an inch/hour downpour across the face of the Earth, it would take a thousand years for the seas to rise up enough to cover just the highlands, and tens of millenia before covering the mountains...40 days just does not cut it! >Onset: Sudden. Only the seven in the Ark had (100 years worth > of supernatural) warning. Again, see above...Even assuming a torrential downpour that we may assume swept all the lowlanders into the sea, the highlanders would have had years to prepare for the rising waters... > >Water source: the 'floodgates of heaven' and the 'fountains of the deep'. > (The objection that there is not enough water in the atmosphere > and polar caps is not sufficient.) > Yep..and the only way to get that much water onto the earth in that short a period of time would require not less than the equivalent of pouring the ENTIRE PACIFIC OCEAN (what, about 40 trillion gallons, or something of that kind...in any case, a staggering amount) over the Earth ONCE A DAY! This kind of downpour, of course, would kill anything under it with the force of megatons of water cascading down every minute, as well as (obviously) breaking the Ark up... > > Changes in lifespan and weather indicate to me that radiation > based dating would be totally off base for events > prior to the flood. (I.e. carbon 14). > Of course C-14 dating would still be accurate...radiation doesn't change its half-life for some mere quadrillions of tons of water... weather has absolutely no effect on radiation, and neither does our lifespans! > Evidently, some species were able to survive the flood without > being in the Ark. (E.g. insect eggs, fish eggs, plants, etc.) > The Bible says that everything that breathed died (Gen 7:22). > Only breathing creatures were in the Ark (Gen 7:15). > As noted above, the sheer weight of the amount of water falling in a single day required to make the flood would kill anything! period. > Was the flood the demise of dinosaurs? (They were too big > to fit in the Ark?) > No, since dinosaurs died out some 60 million years before the Flood, and never coexisted with man or even any of man's cousins. >-- >Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> /-----------------------------------------------------------\ | Brian McNeill ARPA : za56@sdcc3.ucsd.edu | | HASA "A" Division UUCP : ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 | |-----------------------------------------------------------| | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim all knowledge of opinions, | | expressed or implied, including this disclaimer. | | Flames ---> /dev/null | \-----------------------------------------------------------/
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (wagener) (09/15/86)
In article <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >Actually, I don't assume evolution is not part of God's plan. I don't >pretend to have been around when God created the world. I am convinced >that it happened just the way the Bible describes it. I get ticked >off at both creationists and evolutionists because of the irrational >basis of both theories. > >Evolutionist: The only alternative to evolution is special creation. > Since God doesn't exist, this is clearly impossible. Therefore > evolution is true. (Despite the evidence.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What evidence are you refering to? > >Creationist: Evolution was conceived by heathen, therefore it could > not possibly be Biblical (i.e. true). (No science required.) > >The waters are further muddied by the 'apparent age' problem which >makes any scientific consideration of creation impossible. (Science >is only concerned with what we can observe.) > How else is there to prove anything? Arm-wave and hypothesise maybe, but prove anything? Sure you could speculate that all was cleverly brought to being complete as is, with evidence included that things have changed over a LONG period of time -- but what is the use? All that is is speculation -- nothing more. Without evidence to observe it goes no where. >My conclusion: both creationism and evolution are totally unscientific ^^^^^^^^^ I object to the assertion that evolution is not scientific, for it is. It's just that like anything in science that is a theory, the "truth" is dynamic not static as popular belief and creationist would have it to be. More evidence,more clarification. It's the same throughout science. Most non-scientists have no concept of the shift of scientific theories and models through time. The shifts are not haphazard, but they do occur when the time is right and the facts are in. There is a history to the flow of science, DON"T IGNORE IT! Also, the world is a highly integrated unit, this is never so clearly seen as in geology. One can't focus just on one aspect of any problem without taking into account a large variety of other aspects and fields. This is the main area that Ted H.'s arm-waving falls apart, as well as lots of the creationist doctrines. Current evolutionary theory may not be perfect in all its aspects but it does seem the closest to the right track. Only Time will tell. A track. Time will tell. >and should not be taught in science classes. (I mean general evolution. >Specific evolution is well proven.) Perhaps 'cosmology' would be an >appropriate name for the subject. > >I think a subject more approachable from the scientific view is the >Noahic flood. Let's have some discussion on the net about the Flood. > >Here are some facts from the Bible > >Duration: 40 days of rain. The earth covered by water for more > than a year. > >Onset: Sudden. Only the seven in the Ark had (100 years worth > of supernatural) warning. > >Water source: the 'floodgates of heaven' and the 'fountains of the deep'. > (The objection that there is not enough water in the atmosphere > and polar caps is not sufficient.) There's more than just not enough water, there's also the fact that where did the water go if it was an outpouring of juvenile water? (juvenile water -- water that is derived from the interior of the earth and has not previously existed as atmospheric or surface water. Dictionary of Geological terms, American Geological Institute, Anchor Books,1976.) Once you get water onto the surface of the earth, it becomes part of a closed system cycle. Very little goes back into the earth. So even if there was an outpouring of juvenile waters that allowed the earth to be covered with water, where did the extra go? >Consequences: the flood caused profound changes in the earth's ecology. > > Before: It never rained until the flood. The earth was > watered by a mist from the ground. > Average human lifespan was 900+ years. > There were no seasons. > > After: Rain was a regular event; rainbows were seen. > Typical human lifespan dropped quickly to 120+ years. > Between Moses and David lifspan dropped further to > 70 years. > Seasons took hold. > Eating meat was condoned by God. > >Thoughts: > > Did the flood split the super continent in a year? (As opposed > to millions of years.) Continents DO NOT split because of water! THERE IS LOTS OF EVIDENCE for the tensional aspect of continents being pulled apart by movements of mobile layers under the crust. The rock signatures are there, as are the signatures in the continents for the gradual buildup of continents over a LONG period of time. I really suggest that it would be wise to delve into geology - specifically plate tectonics, radiometric dating (beyond C-14 theres are atleast 5 or 6 methods that all correlate) paleontology and especially stratigraphy. If there are some good verifiable model that will reconcil the great portion of already recognizable evidence, I'll listen with eager ears. So far neither the above, nor Teds diatribes fit any known evidence. > > When did the flood take place? There IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A WORLDWIDE FLOOD! None.Zip. Nada. (And believe me floods leave lots of evidence that canbe found all over -- there is no evidence of a flood over all the world. Lots of little ones here and there, but all at different times,places,and circumstances.) PLEASE READ some geology and look at its evidence before condeming it. > > Changes in lifespan and weather indicate to me that radiation > based dating would be totally off base for events > prior to the flood. (I.e. carbon 14). There have already been SIGNIFICANT changes in the atmosphere types of fauna and flora and weather which show no changes in the radiometric dating methods. (C-14 is accurate to only a couple of 100,000 years,beyond that the accuracy deteriorates to total unreliablity at about 1 million years. There are other methods for much older dating. C-14 is used only for relatively recent events.) > > Evidently, some species were able to survive the flood without > being in the Ark. (E.g. insect eggs, fish eggs, plants, etc.) > The Bible says that everything that breathed died (Gen 7:22). > Only breathing creatures were in the Ark (Gen 7:15). > > Was the flood the demise of dinosaurs? (They were too big > to fit in the Ark?) The dinosaurs did not die in one fell swoop. Nor did all the life at the end of the Mesozoic die off. There were a lot of air-breathing life left in the form of mammals,bird and even reptiles (of whom the dinosaurs were only a fraction). The demise was somewhat gradual over a short period of time. > > What kind of sediment layers (mixed with creatures) would the > flood produce? I suggest that some study into stratigraphy and paleontology would be useful. This issue was settled about 100 years ago, and the evidence keeps mounting against it.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/15/86)
In article <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: > Actually, I don't assume evolution is not part of God's plan. I don't > pretend to have been around when God created the world. I am convinced > that it happened just the way the Bible describes it. I get ticked > off at both creationists and evolutionists because of the irrational > basis of both theories. Perhaps I can show you a reason to get ticked off at yourself for the irrationality of your own note. > Evolutionist: The only alternative to evolution is special creation. > Since God doesn't exist, this is clearly impossible. Therefore > evolution is true. (Despite the evidence.) Patent misrepresentation. There are innumerable other alternatives, such as spontaneous generation, other mythological scenarios, etc. Nor do scientists make the error of saying "because A isn't so, B is so." We simply say that evolution is the best supported hypothesis. (If you want to debate the evidence, go ahead.) > Creationist: Evolution was conceived by heathen, therefore it could > not possibly be Biblical (i.e. true). (No science required.) > > The waters are further muddied by the 'apparent age' problem which > makes any scientific consideration of creation impossible. (Science > is only concerned with what we can observe.) > > My conclusion: both creationism and evolution are totally unscientific > and should not be taught in science classes. (I mean general evolution. -- "... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make themselves artificially stupid." Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
flash@sas.UUCP (Gordon Keener) (09/16/86)
In article <203@BMS-AT.UUCP>, stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: > > Thoughts: > ... > Changes in lifespan and weather indicate to me that radiation > based dating would be totally off base for events > prior to the flood. (I.e. carbon 14). You assume that the lifespan difference is due to some sort of radiation (or lack thereof) before the flood. I do not believe that any sort of change in radiation level over the period of a year could have that sort of effect; i.e. so that the data is not only _wrong_, but _consistent_ with a 4-billion year existance. > Evidently, some species were able to survive the flood without > being in the Ark. (E.g. insect eggs, fish eggs, plants, etc.) > The Bible says that everything that breathed died (Gen 7:22). > Only breathing creatures were in the Ark (Gen 7:15). Plants breathe, but in the opposite manner that animals do. Also, I cannot conceive of any plants, after living on the surface, surviving for more than a few days underneath miles of water (where it is also rather dark). Of course, mountaintops would have been closer to the surface, but plants do not usually find them habitable otherwise. Then again, it is possible that Genesis referred to _air_ breathers only, as it is unlikely that Moses would have been aware of the distinction. > Was the flood the demise of dinosaurs? (They were too big > to fit in the Ark?) Many dinosaurs, unlike T. Rexx and friends, were quite small. I think, but am not quite sure, that even the small reptilian dinos became extinct (except crocs and a few others), while most of the mammals survived. This would not indicate an upper size limit across all species. Granted, all of the mammals then (and now) are rather small. > What kind of sediment layers (mixed with creatures) would the > flood produce? I would expect the flood to be rather violent, and that the turbulence would cause at least a few feet of existing ground cover to become scrambled. Perishing creatures (human and otherwise) could end up being buried almost anywhere in the resulting layer. I do not know of any evidence for such layers. > -- > Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> Carbon-14 is not the only method of dating, either. One can consider the amount of time it would take for n feet of sediment to accumulate; it could not accumulate quickly, or the fossils found in different layers would not be so radically (and _consistently_) different.
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (09/17/86)
Sorry, I don't see how the explosion of Thera could have caused the 'Biblical' flood. The flood story we have in Genesis is almost certainly copied from the same source as the one in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Now Thera blew her top around 1450 BC. And, although the version you usually find is the Akkadian translation (ca 800 BC) the original story was almost certainly Sumerian, and probably dates to before 2000BC. So the story came first. Incidentally, I believe the current date for the end of the Minoan II period is well after 1450BC, so thera wasn't responsible for the destruction of Knossos either.
mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (09/17/86)
[Preface: I am a Christian, and have extensive background in the sciences and the philosophies thereof. I see no contradiction between them, only partial ignorance. Naive beliefs like some in the original posting below bother me, because I am concerned that someone would become disturbed to find out that large (though non-scriptural) parts of their faith were clearly not true, and then begin to doubt the rest of their faith.] > Actually, I don't assume evolution is not part of God's plan. I don't > pretend to have been around when God created the world. I am convinced > that it happened just the way the Bible describes it. I get ticked > off at both creationists and evolutionists because of the irrational > basis of both theories. > > Evolutionist: The only alternative to evolution is special creation. > Since God doesn't exist, this is clearly impossible. Therefore > evolution is true. (Despite the evidence.) Despite *what* evidence? All the available, non-corrupted evidence supports some variety of the theory of evolution. Also, your reasoning is faulty. People researching natural selection and/or evolution do not begin with the belief that God does not exist (Darwin was a religious person), only that we cannot let our matters of faith modify what we see around us. The book of Genesis *is not* a textbook of how things happened, step by step, and should not be treated as such. It is a figurative account (if only in that God did not describe each action bit by bit) of how the earth was created. Viewed this way, it does not contradict science at all. > Creationist: Evolution was conceived by heathen, therefore it could > not possibly be Biblical (i.e. true). (No science required.) > > The waters are further muddied by the 'apparent age' problem which > makes any scientific consideration of creation impossible. (Science > is only concerned with what we can observe.) I'm not sure what you mean by 'apparent age', nor can I see how this makes scientific consideration of creation impossible. Science begins with what we can observe now, and attempts to make theories about what we will be able to observe in the future, or to make theories that join seemingly disparate current observations. > My conclusion: both creationism and evolution are totally unscientific > and should not be taught in science classes. (I mean general evolution. > Specific evolution is well proven.) Perhaps 'cosmology' would be an > appropriate name for the subject. This conclusion was obviously attained after much considered thought, but after very little, it would seem, in the way of outside contact. Just because an idea may be wrong, or may violate what *you* think to be right, does not make it unscientific. The theory of evolution is scientifically based (this, I am sure, has been explained enough times on the net already), while the Genesis story of creation, right or wrong (i.e. holy writ or myth), IS NOT science and SHOULD NOT be taught under that guise. It can and should be taught in comparitive religion classes and in Bible study classes, though with different emphases, neither of which is scientific. Your statement about general versus specific evolution only shows how little you know about the subject. Very little in the way of "specific evolution" is known; the cases of the anchovie and the British peppered moth are examples of natural selection, not evolution. "General evolution" on the other hand is much better understood. It is clear from a number of different types of evidence that species have evolved in response to environmental pressures and by the processes of natural selection and random mutation; anything much more specific than this is still open to debate. Unfortunately cosmology is already taken as a name, as it means something different (the study of the universe from either an astronomical or meta- physical point of view). Changing the name of something wouldn't change what it is, anyway. > I think a subject more approachable from the scientific view is the > Noahic flood. Let's have some discussion on the net about the Flood. > > Here are some facts from the Bible Better, "Here are some Biblical assertations of fact", for the non-faithful among us. > Duration: 40 days of rain. The earth covered by water for more > than a year. > > Onset: Sudden. Only the seven in the Ark had (100 years worth > of supernatural) warning. A nit: I thought it was more like 40 years of warning. I could be wrong. > Water source: the 'floodgates of heaven' and the 'fountains of the deep'. > (The objection that there is not enough water in the atmosphere > and polar caps is not sufficient.) Actually, I would think from a skeptic's point of view this would be a pretty good objection. I would counter that neither of us can say if there is or could be enough water (the question is not central to the issue), but to say the objection is not sufficient without explanation is itself not sufficient. > Consequences: the flood caused profound changes in the earth's ecology. > > Before: It never rained until the flood. The earth was > watered by a mist from the ground. > Average human lifespan was 900+ years. > There were no seasons. I think some of these things are open to debate. Does the Bible say or imply that there were no seasons and that the average person (not selected persons mentioned) lived 900+ years, or are these your conclusions? > After: Rain was a regular event; rainbows were seen. > Typical human lifespan dropped quickly to 120+ years. > Between Moses and David lifspan dropped further to > 70 years. > Seasons took hold. > Eating meat was condoned by God. I'm not sure that the Flood had a direct part in some of these things... again, the lifespan issue bothers me (though perhaps you have some Biblical evidence?), as does your assertation about the seasons. > Thoughts: > > Did the flood split the super continent in a year? (As opposed > to millions of years.) No. If you believe the theories of plate tectonics, esp. regarding the existence of Gaia and Pangaea (which I do), then you must accept the evidence that the split took a very long time, and happened long ago. While there is geologic and fossil evidence about similar conditions existing, for example, on the east coast of South America and the west of Africa, there is no evidence for (and much to the contrary) that the event was either recent or rapid. We would expect to see animal and plant populations either dieing out in mass numbers or living nearly identically either currently or in the recent past. Instead, we see a time when there appeared to be commonality between the two continents, whereas now there is only the most distant of relationships. I'm not sure what this has to do with the flood anyway. > When did the flood take place? This is a good one. Who knows? It kind of depends if the flood really did cover the whole earth or if it covered only a small area. (Pet theory: note that the fertile crescent area is mostly low elevation situated between the Mediterranean, Black, Caspian, and Red Seas. How much would it take to flood this area? And what would it matter if early human setlements in northern Europe and Eastern Asia were not affected? They were not members of the races God was communicating with, at least so far as we know, so they may have been exempt.) > Changes in lifespan and weather indicate to me that radiation > based dating would be totally off base for events > prior to the flood. (I.e. carbon 14). And this statement shows how off base your thinking about carbon dating is. Radio-carbon dating is accomplished by measuring how much of the radioactive carbon has decayed since the thing *died*. This rate is constant reagrdless of previous lifespan, since the carbon is not being replaced at all. And how you make the connection between weather and radioisotope systems of dating is beyond me. > Evidently, some species were able to survive the flood without > being in the Ark. (E.g. insect eggs, fish eggs, plants, etc.) > The Bible says that everything that breathed died (Gen 7:22). > Only breathing creatures were in the Ark (Gen 7:15). > > Was the flood the demise of dinosaurs? (They were too big > to fit in the Ark?) Why would God single out the dinosaurs? And why does the Bible not record elsewhere anything about these great creatures who lived on the earth for (by scientific estimates) over 350 million years, while humans have been around for less than 2 million (and in societies for less than a quarter of that)? If such great beasts had been around with Noah, surely the society would have made use of them or at least mentioned them. This is ignoring the vast amounts of evidence that shows that humans missed the age of the dinosaur by 50 million years or so... > What kind of sediment layers (mixed with creatures) would the > flood produce? I think that during Darwin's time Catastrophism was a prevalent belief. This was basically the view that the history of the earth was mostly placid, with rare but devastating catastrophies that served to change things. This was used to explain the changes in species and, for example, the Noahic flood. Darwin, among others, successfully refuted this view based on geological observations. I can't give a full defense of his findings here (though Darwin does eloquently himself), but there is basically no evidence for a world-wide flood in the geological strata. I'm not saying that the tale is fiction or an exaggeration; who am I to say what could or could not happen by God's will? There is, however, little or no clear geological or biologcal evidence in favor of such a catastrophe. > Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0
dpw@rayssd.UUCP (Darryl P. Wagoner) (09/17/86)
> > One current sceintific thought is that the "flood" was in fact the > tidal after affect of the explosion of Thera (this probably > caused the destruction of the Minoan civilization). At the maximum it Where was Thera and who was the Minoan civilizatio? -- Darryl Wagoner Raytheon Co.; Portsmouth RI; (401)-847-8000 x4089 best path {allegra|gatech|mirror|raybed2} ---------\ next best {linus|ihnp4|pyrbos} ---------------------->!rayssd!dpw if all else fails {brunix|cci632} -------------------------/
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/19/86)
Someone writes: >Sorry, I don't see how the explosion of Thera >could have caused the 'Biblical' flood. The >flood story we have in Genesis is almost certainly >copied from the same source as the one in the >Epic of Gilgamesh. Now Thera blew her top around >1450 BC. Ignoring all the inferences about the various Sumerian flood sources, it should be noted that the Thera eruption is right within the same time scale as the Exodus. Various theories have been posited in which the parted Yam Suph ("Sea of Reeds") was actually on the Mediterranean coast, and having a tidal wave cause both the dry land and the subsequent destruction of the persuing egyptians. THis fits well with a view of the Exodical account as an exaggeration. Of course, it would have been *awfully* convenient for fleeing Israelites :-) C. Wingate
timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) (09/19/86)
Hi, Thera, or Santorin, is an island in the Mediterranean Sea, just off the coast of Greece. The island has a long volcanic history, and about 4 thousand years age (+/- alot), violently erupted creating a tidal wave estimated to exceed 500 feet, subsiding to a mere 100 feet when the shock wave hit the island of Crete. Crete is where the archeologists have been finding much in the way of Minoan remains. The Minoans were a sea fareing culture, with a high degree of technology (air conditioned homes with running water and flushable toilets). Other theories surrounding Thera include the Exodus, where Moses was lead to the 'Red' Sea (also translates to 'Reed' Sea). The Sea of Reeds on the north coast of Egypt is a tidal swamp, that would be drained easily in the event of a tidal shock wave. The theory goes like this: Moses followed a column of light northward (the column that of the volcano spew while erupting), when Moses got to the sea, he had nowhere else to go, as he had lead the people out onto a narrow isthmus leading into the Sea of Reeds. Moses held the people together for a few days - meanwhile, Pharoah decided to bring the people back into Egypt and slavery, sneding the armies after them - as fortune would have it, just as Moses saw the armies of Pharoah approaching, Thera exploded, spewing forth great amounts of white hot lava bombs, and the volcanic crater collapsed under the weight of the sea water. The collapse of the crater, with the explosion, created a tidal wave estimated to be 2 to 5 times larger than the one created by Krakatoa in the 1800's (which was felt as far away as San Francisco, some 8000 miles away, and had an initial crest of only 100 feet). The water drained from the swampy Sea of Reeds to form the wave crest, allowing Moses to lead the people westward across the once sea bottom. The Egyptians came to the sea a few hours later, and began following Moses' tracks. It was then that the tidal wave hit the Egyptian coastline (it would take about 1.5 to 2 hours for the wave to propagate from Thera to Egypt at 400 to 500 mph, the average speed of tidal waves). So the Egyptians were inundated with a tidal wave, killing most of them in a blink of an eye, so to speak, while Moses looked on from the high ground that is to the east of the Sea of Reeds. The whole tidal event would take about 3 to 4 hours to happen, which concurs with the biblical account. As far as Thera creating the Flood, I really have not heard of this one, and I seriously doubt there is any evidence to support it, although if anyone knows of any, I would be happy to look it over. Thanks, and good cheers.....
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (09/19/86)
In article <349@aw.sei.cmu.edu> firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >Sorry, I don't see how the explosion of Thera >could have caused the 'Biblical' flood. The >flood story we have in Genesis is almost certainly >copied from the same source as the one in the >Epic of Gilgamesh. Now Thera blew her top around >1450 BC. And, although the version you usually >find is the Akkadian translation (ca 800 BC) the >original story was almost certainly Sumerian, >and probably dates to before 2000BC. So the >story came first. Actually, the way I heard it originally was that Thera can be used for explaining the "parting of the Red Sea". According to what I remember: - The word for "Red" is the same as "Reed" in Hebrew (I think, it could have been some other language). - There is (was?) a small body of water in the area called the "Reed Sea" which has (had?) a partially submerged ridge across it. - The tidal surge from Thera could have uncovered the ridge long enough for people to cross it. (Kinda like the movies taken of a harbor during the Alaskan earthquake). Wouldn't have had much time tho... Read this a long time ago, though. May be a complete crock. Might even have been Velikovsky... (sigh...) >Incidentally, I believe the current date for the >end of the Minoan II period is well after 1450BC, >so thera wasn't responsible for the destruction >of Knossos either. It certainly was responsible for destroying whatever civilization lived on the island (it's called Santorini now isn't it? Are Santorini and Knossos the same place?) - it blew pretty well the whole island out of the water. It was an order of magnitude or two so more powerful than the St. Helen's explosion, and more powerful than Krakatoa. The tsunami would have completely anihilated everything and everybody within a 10's of mile (or more) radius. Question: one of the theories being bandied about is the possibility that the Mediteranean may have been dry at one point (straits of Gibralter being closed), and an earthquake or other landslip at one point would have punctured the "wall" at Gibralter and the Atlantic filled the Mediteranean in. Anybody know what the conjectured date for this is? Could this have been "remembered" somehow and become the basis for a lot of similar of legends? (Mu, Atlantis, the Flood, Gilgamesh etc.)? -- Chris Lewis UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/21/86)
This is in reponse to several flames. I have included only the one quote. In article <1148@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > Evolutionist: The only alternative to evolution is special creation. > > Since God doesn't exist, this is clearly impossible. Therefore > > evolution is true. (Despite the evidence.) This is a very close quote by a respected proponent of evolution encountered during my reading in college. It is very unscholarly of me to forget the name, but I am working on it and wanted to get a reply out. (And it has been years since my scholarly days.) > Patent misrepresentation. There are innumerable other alternatives, such > as spontaneous generation, other mythological scenarios, etc. Nor do > scientists make the error of saying "because A isn't so, B is so." > We simply say that evolution is the best supported hypothesis. > (If you want to debate the evidence, go ahead.) You are correct, this error is not made in a scientific capacity. Many scientists, being human, have nevertheless made the mistake and called it science. What is science? Let's see; this was years ago; I believe it went something like this: "Science" is a system for accumulating knowledge about the Universe we live in. Facts are established by *repeatable* and *observable* experiments. A hypothesis attempts to explain the facts. A hypothesis confirmed by additional *independent* experiments is known as a theory. A theory so well established that little or no disagreement remains within the community scientists is known as a law. In formulating and applying these laws, we *assume* that they are universally applicable. (This is not neccessarily true. Newton's laws of physics only apply within certain limits of relative velocity. Einstein's laws may not always apply either. There may {horrors} be still more that we don't know.) For those who didn't know what "special evolution" was: "Special relativity" refers to the well established laws of relative motion published by Einstein. General relativity refers to the later extention of these laws to a theory encompassing gravitation as well. "Special evolution" refers to the well established laws of environmental adaptation (survival of the fittest) published by Darwin. General evolution refers to the later extension of these laws as a possible explanation of the origin of life itself. General evolution is a best a hypothesis. The facts are established by experiments that took place long ago and are not repeatable. The only possibility for confirmation (at present) is to predict that a certain fossil (that has not already been found) should be found. Are there any instances of a successful prediction? The journals are full of "amazing finds". If general evolution were such a well established theory, a new fossil find should come as no more surprise than the lastest atomic clock experiment confirming the validity of Einsteins predictions. I AM NOT SAYING THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG. I am just saying that it by its very nature, like creation, is not scientifically verifiable. Note, special evolution is scientific. I can put white moths with recessed genes for black in a black enviroment with visually guided predators, and every time the moth population will become predominantly black. With advances in genetic research, it may become possible to scientifically prove (or disprove) the *possibility* of general evolution. When we can observe artificially accelerated general evolution in the laboratory, we will have established that life could indeed arise from lifeless matter. Perhaps we could even perform the experiment on a planetary scale! This still doesn't prove anything about what actually happened to us. History is not a strictly scientific endeavor. We can only prove that a particular reenactment is *consistent* with the scientific laws *that we know*. If a 19'th century person heard of someone travelling to a distant planet and returning home 800 years later having aged only a few years, the story would be dismissed as "unscientific". By definition, creation is inconsistent with the scientific laws we know. Creation is not scientific (but might be true) and should be treated as religion or cosmology in our schools. General evolution is consistent with *many* of the facts and known laws. this is what is meant by evolution being the "best available hypothesis". The hypothesis is still being altered yearly to fit the latest facts. If and when it finally becomes a theory (it could happen) or even a law (it has to happen given certain conditions), it will be time to begin teaching it as fact in our schools. Until then, it should be treated as science fiction. Even then, the origin of our earth should be regarded as history (a consistent sequence of events) rather than scientific fact. What do we really know about Napoleon? Incidently, creation (apart from the initial miracle) is also consistent with most of the facts. Did you notice that the experimental fact on which science is based is also history? When we read in celtic mythology that Merlin caused the blocks of stone to float through the air onto the waiting ship, we assume that this is not really what happened. Why do we trust the story about the bomb that blew up a city? Come on now, do you really believe that one bomb could blow up an entire city? :-) -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) (09/21/86)
Re: Carbon -14 dating. Carbon 14 dating is only useful in a range of about 20,000 years or so. Past this point, other radiation based methods are employed. Since the range of time for evolution is vast, C-14 is of more use to archaeologists than to evolutionary biologists. Alternative radiological dating techniques (such as Potassium-Argon dating) are not subject to the contamination problem specific to C-14, but have their own little inconvient quirks.
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/21/86)
In article <7643@tekecs.UUCP>, mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) writes: > Better, "Here are some Biblical assertations of fact", for the non-faithful > among us. Agreed. > > Onset: Sudden. Only the seven in the Ark had (100 years worth > > of supernatural) warning. > A nit: I thought it was more like 40 years of warning. I could be wrong. This is not conclusive. But compare: GEN 5:32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth. GEN 7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. (I would post the whole story, since no one seems to have actually looked at it, but there are understandable objections to my doing so.) > > Water source: the 'floodgates of heaven' and the 'fountains of the deep'. > > (The objection that there is not enough water in the atmosphere > > and polar caps is not sufficient.) > Actually, I would think from a skeptic's point of view this would be a pretty > good objection. I would counter that neither of us can say if there is or > could be enough water (the question is not central to the issue), but to > say the objection is not sufficient without explanation is itself not > sufficient. The "fountains of the deep" does not refer to polar caps and clouds. > I think some of these things are open to debate. Does the Bible say or imply > that there were no seasons and that the average person (not selected persons > mentioned) lived 900+ years, or are these your conclusions? This is not conclusive, but consider: GEN 2:5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth + Or land; also in verse 6 + and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth + Or land; also in verse 6 + and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams + Or mist + came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-- GEN 8:22 "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." Have you know *one* person who lived to be 900? 120? > Radio-carbon dating is accomplished by measuring how much of the radioactive > carbon has decayed since the thing *died*. This rate is constant reagrdless > of previous lifespan, since the carbon is not being replaced at all. And How much radioactive carbon did the the have *before* it died? How long was the candle before it started burning? > Why would God single out the dinosaurs? And why does the Bible not record > elsewhere anything about these great creatures who lived on the earth for Check out Job 40:15 - 41:34. (I have already quoted this on the net!) P.S. So called "fossil evidence" has always puzzled me. It's not so much the "missing links" but the absence of *any* continous change between species! -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/21/86)
In article <172@sas.UUCP>, flash@sas.UUCP (Gordon Keener) writes: > I would expect the flood to be rather violent, and that the > turbulence would cause at least a few feet of existing ground cover to You should have read an earlier article with an estimate of the amount of water required to flood the entire earth. The point was that coming from above in a period of 40 days, this would have destroyed the ark! Coming from below (remember the fountains of the deep?) it would certainly disturb more than a few feet of ground cover! I am claiming that much of the sediment you see actually came from the flood. I can't be dogmatic about this, I just find the whole business of calibrating the various dating methods with each other highly circular. -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
speter@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Peter Osgood) (09/22/86)
Let's get to the point really quick. Excluding strict fundamentalists most theologean, I believe, would agree that the Bible, in its entirety, is not a reliable document for historical accuracy. What about creation, was there a flood, how old were the early characters in the Bible, did Jonah live in a whale; this all reminds me of the tree falling in a forest argument. So why have a Bible? Simple. Moses, who was responsible for at least five books, and his decendants, knew that his followers and decendants needed a guide for living daily life. They needed something to refer to give them some insight into how they should act. In the New Testament Jesus made it quite clear that he was talking in parables or stories. His concern was that his followers be concerned with the moral of the story and not as to wheather the characters in the story actually ever existed. Was there really a "Good Samaritan" as Jesus told it? Maybe, but does it make a difference? I think that creation shows us who gave us life, not when; the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah show us who has the power; that Job and Jesus show us perseverence and charity work. So would not a better arguement for "the flood" be why rather than wheather?? Just a thought. ---peter osgood---
msb@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (09/23/86)
Chris Lewis (whose Reply-To reads "clewis@.UUCP"!) writes: > Question: one of the theories being bandied about is the possibility > that the Mediteranean may have been dry at one point (straits of > Gibraltar being closed), and an earthquake or other landslip at one > point would have punctured the "wall" at Gibralter and the Atlantic > filled the Mediteranean in. > > Anybody know what the conjectured date for this is? Could this have been > "remembered" somehow and become the basis for a lot of similar of > legends? (Mu, Atlantis, the Flood, Gilgamesh etc.)? See two articles by Kenneth J. Hsu in Scientific American, in the December 1972 and May 1978 issues. The evidence that the Mediterranean was in fact dry is very convincing*. However, the date of the drying-out is estimated at 6 million years ago, while the refilling is given as 5.5 million years ago in the earlier article, 5.2 million in the later one. Since nobody believes there were humans that long ago, it would not appear that this could be the origin of any flood legends. *For instance, under the sediments of the Mediterranean floor there are vast deposits of salt; also, at the mouths of great rivers such as the Nile, there are underwater canyons, now likewise buried, exactly such as the rivers would have carved if the sea level was thousands of feet lower. The fossils detected from immediately after the refilling carry implications about the salinity level, from which the rate of refilling can be deduced. It turns out that the flow past Gibraltar must have had about 1,000 times the volume of Niagara Falls -- and it still took 100 years to fill the basin! Mark Brader, utzoo!dciem!msb Until 3,000 million years ago we can say not a lot happened although further study would not come amiss. Then signs of life appeared, including some large reptiles and, very recently, bipeds. It is too soon to say whether these bipeds will play an important part in the world's story. -- Colin Morris in "History Today"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/23/86)
In article <210@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP writes: > For those who didn't know what "special evolution" was: > > "Special evolution" refers to the well established laws of environmental > adaptation (survival of the fittest) published by Darwin. General > evolution refers to the later extension of these laws as a possible > explanation of the origin of life itself. I'd be curious to know whose classification that is. Terms in use by most scientists don't include those, but do include: abiogenesis origin of life from the inorganic microevolution gene frequency changes within populations or species speciation the evolution of new species macroevolution the evolution of larger taxa than species with particular attention to the innovation of radically different structures. > General evolution is a best a hypothesis. The facts are established > by experiments that took place long ago and are not repeatable. Abiogenesis is a theory. The historical event that resulted in life on earth took place long ago and cannot be observed. The only rival naturalistic theory that comes to mind is panspermia. Macroevolution is also a theory. The origin of the taxa also took place long ago. There is no serious scientific rival to this theory, though creationists like to pretend they are the alternative. > The only possibility for confirmation (at present) is to predict that a > certain fossil (that has not already been found) should be found. Are > there any instances of a successful prediction? The journals are full > of "amazing finds". If general evolution were such a well established > theory, a new fossil find should come as no more surprise than the > lastest atomic clock experiment confirming the validity of Einsteins > predictions. The most successful predictions have been in the macroevolution of the vertebrates: the demonstration that birds arose from the dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx and the other recently discovered fossil primitive bird make a convincing link between the features of reptiles and birds. "Amazing" finds in the fossil record no more disprove evolution than the amazing finds of live animals like the platypus disproved creationism. Just as creationists said "God created more than we knew about", so scientists can observe that more taxa have evolved than we have yet discovered. > I AM NOT SAYING THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG. I am just saying > that it by its very nature, like creation, is not scientifically verifiable. No theory is "scientifically verifiable". At best, a theory may be refutable in the Popperian sense. These criteria do exist for evolution: for example, if a mosaic pattern (rather than the hierarchical patter we observe) of characters of species is discovered, then evolution would be falsified. There have been many opportunities for this to happen, with every discovery of a new fossil, with every investigation into comparative anatomy, genetics, or biochemistry. > With advances in genetic research, it may become possible to > scientifically prove (or disprove) the *possibility* of general > evolution. When we can observe artificially accelerated general > evolution in the laboratory, we will have established that life could > indeed arise from lifeless matter. Perhaps we could even perform > the experiment on a planetary scale! This testability is what makes evolutionary theory scientific. But it's not just future tests that evolution has to pass: it has already passed innumerable other tests since 1857 as our biological and biochemical knowledge has increased. > This still doesn't prove anything about what actually happened to us. Correct. Science doesn't prove ANYTHING. For example, the movement of the planets might not be due to universal gravitation, but due to being pushed by invisible angels. Science does provide the best theories. Best by the criteria of ease of use, application of Occam's Razor, conformity to observation, etc. -- "... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make themselves artificially stupid." Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (09/24/86)
In article <1188@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> speter@athena.mit.edu (Peter Osgood) writes: > >So why have a Bible? Simple. Moses, who was responsible for at least >five books, and his decendants, knew that his followers and decendants >needed a guide for living daily life. They needed something to refer >to give them some insight into how they should act. > >So would not a better arguement for "the flood" be why rather than >whether?? > Yes, of course. The United Church of Canada describes the Bible as "the only infallible rule of faith and life" -- I believe other Protestant, especially Presbyterian, churches use similar phrases. Nothing at all in there about being an infallible textbook of science or history!
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/24/86)
In article <214@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >P.S. So called "fossil evidence" has always puzzled me. It's not so >much the "missing links" but the absence of *any* continous change between >species! As I recall, certain lines do in fact show continuous change (certain brachiopods, maybe?). The lack of continuous change has puzzled other people, too. Some people today argue that evolution is in fact punctuational: that once speciation occurs, little change usually occurs in a species. That's why modern Homo Sapiens are mostly indistinguishable from fossil Homo Sapiens. Evolution takes place (the theory goes) in small populations undergoing intense selective pressure. Not all evolutionary theorists buy the punctuationalist arguments, however. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (09/26/86)
In article <1159@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >No theory is "scientifically verifiable". At best, a theory may be refutable >in the Popperian sense. These criteria do exist for evolution: for example, >if a mosaic pattern (rather than the hierarchical pattern we observe) of >characters of species is discovered, then evolution would be falsified. This seems like a place to start a fruitful discussion. Would you go into more detail regarding what would constitute a 'mosaic' pattern, as opposed to a 'hierarchical' pattern? Would finding what were considered modern features in what was thought to be a primitive creature an example of a 'mosaic' pattern? Would finding features which were common to what were thought to be distant relatives, but not common to what were thought to be close relatives, an example of a 'mosaic' pattern? (I'm just trying to find out if I have a good feel for what a 'mosaic pattern' is.) It occurs to me to wonder how much of the hierarchical pattern is 'really' there, and how much is imposed on the observations because that is what people expected or wanted to find. It further occurs to me that some patterns ought to be considered mosaic, but are forced into the hierarchical model as examples of parallel evolution, or some such phrase meaning that, yes, it's an exception, but we aren't going to let it bother us. (That probably doesn't sound the way I want it to; take it as a suggestion for introspection. The ones who never question their objectivity are the ones I think are least objective.) It also occurs to me to ask whether creationism predicts a mosaic or a hierarchical pattern (I know that many say that creationism doesn't predict anything; please refrain from flooding the net with statements to that effect. I want to know what (if anything) creationism does predict.) Hoping for answers, not flames. Gary Samuelson
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/26/86)
In article <1199@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) asks some excellent questions: > In article <1159@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > >No theory is "scientifically verifiable". At best, a theory may be refutable > >in the Popperian sense. These criteria do exist for evolution: for example, > >if a mosaic pattern (rather than the hierarchical pattern we observe) of > >characters of species is discovered, then evolution would be falsified. > > This seems like a place to start a fruitful discussion. Would you go into > more detail regarding what would constitute a 'mosaic' pattern, as opposed > to a 'hierarchical' pattern? Would finding what were considered modern > features in what was thought to be a primitive creature an example of > a 'mosaic' pattern? Would finding features which were common to what > were thought to be distant relatives, but not common to what were thought > to be close relatives, an example of a 'mosaic' pattern? (I'm just trying > to find out if I have a good feel for what a 'mosaic pattern' is.) Yes: if there is enough of this sort of odd data, it becomes impossible to postulate a phylogeny (based on the data-- you can always just make one up. :-) > It occurs to me to wonder how much of the hierarchical pattern is 'really' > there, and how much is imposed on the observations because that is what > people expected or wanted to find. It further occurs to me that some > patterns ought to be considered mosaic, but are forced into the hierarchical > model as examples of parallel evolution, or some such phrase meaning > that, yes, it's an exception, but we aren't going to let it bother us. > (That probably doesn't sound the way I want it to; take it as a suggestion > for introspection. The ones who never question their objectivity are > the ones I think are least objective.) Actually, this is a problem that I have asked my frieds who are professional cladists about. They answer that yes, they do find mosaic data in their studies, but that it is usually greatly outweighed by overall hierarchical patterns. It's a good question how the mosaic data can be accounted for: there are a fair number of possibilities. First, the data consists of phenotypic character states, such as whether or not it has a bill like a duck. The duck-billed platypus is an example of a seeming exception contributing towards mosaic data. But if you look more closely at the platypus bill, it has a completely different structure than a ducks. So one reason for mosaic-appearing data is insufficiently exact observation. Most "parallel evolution" won't pass as truly the same character under close enough examination. But let's say that the character is something less complex, like a knob on the leg of a beetle. Say no amount of exacting observation can tell the difference between two knobs. Still, the knob is a phenotypic character: it is what develops from the particular assortment of genes. Many different assortments of genes can create the same phenotypic character. So another reason for mosaic-appearing data is the phenotype/genotype distinction. Finally, a third common source of mosaic-appearing data is hybridization. This is much more common between plants than animals. When hybridization is guessed, frequently a seemingly mosaic pattern can be made sense of. > It also occurs to me to ask whether creationism predicts a mosaic or > a hierarchical pattern (I know that many say that creationism doesn't > predict anything; please refrain from flooding the net with statements > to that effect. I want to know what (if anything) creationism does > predict.) To the best of my knowledge, creationism doesn't predict any particular pattern: hierarchical or mosaic patterns work just as well with creationist ideas (such as they are :-). It is interesting to me that with all the blather creationists make about Biblical "kinds", there is NO published enumeration or classification of "kinds" by any creationist. Keep up the good questions, Gary. -- "There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance. I have erased that line!" -- Professor Science -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
sundar@cwruecmp.UUCP (Sundar R. Iyengar) (09/29/86)
In article <136@spectrix.UUCP> clewis@.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > >Question: one of the theories being bandied about is the possibility >that the Mediteranean may have been dry at one point (straits of >Gibralter being closed), and an earthquake or other landslip at one >point would have punctured the "wall" at Gibralter and the Atlantic >filled the Mediteranean in. > Going by the theory of Plate Tectonics, the African plate separated from the Antartican plate and joined Europian plate. If this is true, water would have gotten trapped in the Mediterranean region irrespective of whether Gibralter was closed or not. sundar r. iyengar arpa: sundar.case@csnet-relay 531, crawford hall csnet: sundar@case case western reserve university uucp: decvax!cwruecmp!sundar cleveland, oh 44106
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) (10/01/86)
>"There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance. >I have erased that line!" -- Professor Science >-- >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Very good quote. Good lesson, let's not *just* ERASE the 'line' as well.... (hint the arrogant person *erases* the line the ignorant person can't tell that a 'fast one' was pulled on him....) -This is not what the quote intended to say to be sure... (-: # My comment here *does not* reflect on the content of this current # topic. Just underpins an *idea* given voice here before..... # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (10/02/86)
In article <2604@watdcsu.UUCP> magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes: Replying to myself: > ="There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance. > =I have erased that line!" -- Professor Science > =-- > =Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > > Very good quote. Good lesson, let's not *just* ERASE the 'line' >as well.... > (hint the arrogant person *erases* the line the ignorant >person can't tell that a 'fast one' was pulled on him....) > -This is not what the quote intended to say to be sure... (-: I have made an error... There is *no line* between ignorance and arrogance... - ignorance is a state of mind - arrogance is a state of heart... Hence no line connects them... So science can't help much here -read as attitude-... Anger is a state of heart also... In a recent posting I expressed a little too much of the wrong type of anger to Mike Huybensz and perhaps clouded the good points I had to say... I am sorry for that type of anger and would like to say so here -since I made 'it' public-.... # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.