- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
I keep seeing the number 38% and 40%. This would mean that of the 95% of scientists who believe in Evolution–they're somewhat confused and not very trustworthy. So almost half of all the scientists in the world who believe in evolution also believe in God.?
Clearly, they are not as trustworthy or beyond question as some would have us believe–not because they believe in God (or even because they believe in evolution) but because they believe in both.
They are clearly easily swayed by popular belief.
david
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.
Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.
The opposite had been expected.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists — people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology — said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
“Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite,” Ecklund said.
Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.
In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.htmldid that just say that 41 % of biologists don't believe in God? That means that 59% do! sorry, I forgot about the roughly 15% agnostics. Still, it seems more scientists believe in God then don't.
60% of leading American scientists (astronomers and otherwise) either do not believe in or doubt the existence of God.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=231Which would mean that 40% do believe in God.
Among each of the two general groups, one discipline stood out: Forty-one percent of the biologists and 27 percent of the political scientists said they don't believe in God.
http://www.physorg.com/news5785.htmlSo, 59% of biologists believe in God.
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan. . . . Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.htmlI almost forgot about the agnostics:
A new study published in the science journal Nature on Wednesday found that only 40 percent of US scientists believe in God.
The US-based researchers reproduced a 1916 study which had produced almost exactly the same result. Edward Larson and Larry Witham set out to test 1916 researcher James Leuba's assertion that disbelief would spread as education improved.
“The result: about 40 percent of scientists still believe in a personal God and an afterlife. In both surveys, roughly 45 percent disbelieved and 15 percent were doubters (agnostic),” the men wrote in their commentary on the results.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=4651So, if about 40% don't believe in God and about 15% are agnostics (unsure) that means that about 45% do believe in God.
Hi David
It is still true that 95% of real scientists (pardon my bigotry but let’s leave out the political and social commentators, uh I mean “scientists” here) reject creationism. They have no time for ID or any other variant of it. Let’s see the research you quote published in a peer-reviewed journal, not just on a website that takes seriously claims of psychic powers, near-death visions of “the other side”, UFOs, ghosts and the Loch Ness monster. Let’s see it taken up in a meta study across different countries. Let’s not forget that these are US scientists some of whom have lied to keep academic tenure in the world’s largest defacto christian theocracy. Let’s not forget that 100% of scientists could become avowed atheists tomorrow and that would not disprove gods and creationsism. The converse also applies.
We know the history of christian belief is one of schism after schism. I wonder reading this forum if actually there are not 2 billion christian churches, a different one inside each believer’s head. Scripture fails to unite people intellectually while science usually comes quickly to a consensus. There has been an astonishing drop in the number of god-believing scientists in the past few hundred years. Before Darwin the argument from design was compelling – a god of the gaps was necessary in lieu of any proper explanation for complexity in nature. If religion has been like a meme, it has been a very powerful infective agent and you would be surprised to see humans reject it so quickly. I do wonder whether the tiny number of working biologists who are also raving creationists have to compartmentalise their brains to resolve the conflict. It would be like a mathematician getting by without his atheistic, nihilistic calculator.
The Archbishop of Canerbury rejects creationism and yet (allegedly) believes in a personal god. Actually, now I’m starting to warm to your comment about untrustworthiness!
Stuart
++”A new study published in the science journal Nature on Wednesday found that only 40 percent of US scientists believe in God.
I re-read and saw that I missed what claims to be research published in a peer-reviewed journal, Nature. I certainly believe the result for US scientists. I still wonder what the belief rate amongst Chinese, Soviet or even British scientists would be.
Stuart
Quote They have no time for ID or any other variant of it. Let’s see the research you quote published in a peer-reviewed journal, not just on a website that takes seriously claims of psychic powers, near-death visions of “the other side”, UFOs, ghosts and the Loch Ness monster. Sorry, I asked if anyone else had the number. A quick search showed several websites citing 38 or about 40% as the number. If you know the number, let me know.
Quote Let’s not forget that these are US scientists some of whom have lied to keep academic tenure in the world’s largest defacto christian theocracy. BINGO!
There it is.
What I've been stating all along. So you're saying….a scientist….might….LIE…in order to keep his “tenure.” hmmm.
He might ….go along with the crowd and succumb to peer pressure…..hmmmm.
QUESTION. What happens if, I don't know, a biologist decides that he sees signs of creationism in what he is studying. Let's say he makes this public. “Bye bye.” No acceptance among his peers. Bye bye any chance of tenure. Bye bye publishing rights. Bye bye career.
So, a scientist could lie, you say. Maybe they all could. Or, perhaps it's not really lying. Maybe it's just easier to go along with the crowd and not question or upset the balance of power.
Quote Let’s not forget that 100% of scientists could become avowed atheists tomorrow and that would not disprove gods and creationsism. The converse also applies.
Again, thankyou. Before, you had stated the 95% of scientists quote as though it actually proved something! Apparently it would not prove or disprove anything.Quote We know the history of christian belief is one of schism after schism.
As Jesus fortold would happen after his leaving. Go on….Quote I wonder reading this forum if actually there are not 2 billion christian churches, a different one inside each believer’s head.
Please tell this to T8 for me. I've basically said the same thing to him. He and the other moderator (who has left for a while) don't even agree on everything. You'd think that true Christianity agreed with itself, that there would be a group who believed the same thing. The fact that there are many who obviously believe falsely does not in any way prove that every group is such.Quote Scripture fails to unite people intellectually while science usually comes quickly to a consensus. There has been an astonishing drop in the number of god-believing scientists in the past few hundred years.
Yes, I noted that on the websites you quickly dismissed.Back to that number. How many scientists believe in God? What is it? Like 45%? Either way, about 1/2 the scientists in the world are very wrong on a very large subject.
Quote I do wonder whether the tiny number of working biologists who are also raving creationists have to compartmentalise their brains to resolve the conflict. I saw this documentary where this mathematician at some prestigeous university in the U.S. was talking about how he was able to go out on record as saying that evolution was wrong. He pointed out many things. Among them, that if a biologist ever did that….well, they couldn't do that. It could never actually happen. First, you have to accept and go along with everything your proff says, or you won't get anywhere. You don't get anywhere, you can't publish papers, you can't go anywhere in your field. And if you did, you'd be viewed as an outcast. They really have no choice. It's the system they're in. It's what they are taught.
Quote ++”A new study published in the science journal Nature on Wednesday found that only 40 percent of US scientists believe in God. I re-read and saw that I missed what claims to be research published in a peer-reviewed journal, Nature. I certainly believe the result for US scientists. I still wonder what the belief rate amongst Chinese, Soviet or even British scientists would be.
Apology accepted!
SO, 40% OF SCIENTISTS (IN THE U.S.) BELIEVE IN GOD. So, apparently, about half of the 95% that you like to quote are ….wrong. Whether you believe in evolution or God creating things, half of that percentage that you like to quote are wrong.
It wasn't a very good argument anyway. “The majority is right” is a fallacious argument.
david
Hi David
++”BINGO! There it is. What I've been stating all along. So you're saying….a scientist….might….LIE…in order to keep his “tenure.” hmmm. He might ….go along with the crowd and succumb to peer pressure…..hmmmm.
QUESTION. What happens if, I don't know, a biologist decides that he sees signs of creationism in what he is studying. Let's say he makes this public. “Bye bye.” No acceptance among his peers. Bye bye any chance of tenure. Bye bye publishing rights. Bye bye career. So, a scientist could lie, you say. Maybe they all could. Or, perhaps it's not really lying. Maybe it's just easier to go along with the crowd and not question or upset the balance of power.Tell that to the editor of Nature. He sends everything out for peer review, and it is a savage process in which every detail is subjected to the finest scrutiny, and the credibility of the reviewer is also on the line. We are talking about reviewing evidence here, not opinion. It’s a shame creationists seem unwilling to even come up with an actual theory that could be subjected to similar treatment.
++”Again, thankyou. Before, you had stated the 95% of scientists quote as though it actually proved something! Apparently it would not prove or disprove anything.
Well I’m sorry if I gave that impression. I thought I was just correcting a factual error posted by someone else.
++”As Jesus fortold would happen after his leaving. Go on….
Quote
I wonder reading this forum if actually there are not 2 billion christian churches, a different one inside each believer’s head.++”Please tell this to T8 for me. I've basically said the same thing to him. He and the other moderator (who has left for a while) don't even agree on everything. You'd think that true Christianity agreed with itself, that there would be a group who believed the same thing. The fact that there are many who obviously believe falsely does not in any way prove that every group is such.
I was not trying to prove anything. I did use the word “wonder”! So now I agree with Jesus on two points. The Golden Rule and the hopeless divisiveness of the doctrines of his followers.
Stuart
Hi again David
++”I saw this documentary where this mathematician at some prestigeous university in the U.S. was talking about how he was able to go out on record as saying that evolution was wrong. He pointed out many things. Among them, that if a biologist ever did that….well, they couldn't do that. It could never actually happen. First, you have to accept and go along with everything your proff says, or you won't get anywhere. You don't get anywhere, you can't publish papers, you can't go anywhere in your field. And if you did, you'd be viewed as an outcast. They really have no choice. It's the system they're in. It's what they are taught.
Sadly this fits into the usual pattern we get from creationists, don’t bother doing any original research, just pick on the outlying data of the work of others and keep spinning the conspiracy theories.
Can you name one single tangible outcome of “creationist research” that has been unquestionably beneficial for all of humankind?
++”It wasn't a very good argument anyway. “The majority is right” is a fallacious argument.
I’ll resist the overwhelming temptation to say “THANK YOU”!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 04 2007,12:06) ++”It wasn't a very good argument anyway. “The majority is right” is a fallacious argument. I’ll resist the overwhelming temptation to say “THANK YOU”!
Stuart
Now that was funny, I don't care who you are.Tim
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 02 2007,22:45) Hi David It is still true that 95% of real scientists (pardon my bigotry but let’s leave out the political and social commentators, uh I mean “scientists” here) reject creationism. They have no time for ID or any other variant of it. Let’s see the research you quote published in a peer-reviewed journal, not just on a website that takes seriously claims of psychic powers, near-death visions of “the other side”, UFOs, ghosts and the Loch Ness monster. Let’s see it taken up in a meta study across different countries. Let’s not forget that these are US scientists some of whom have lied to keep academic tenure in the world’s largest defacto christian theocracy. Let’s not forget that 100% of scientists could become avowed atheists tomorrow and that would not disprove gods and creationsism. The converse also applies.
We know the history of christian belief is one of schism after schism. I wonder reading this forum if actually there are not 2 billion christian churches, a different one inside each believer’s head. Scripture fails to unite people intellectually while science usually comes quickly to a consensus. There has been an astonishing drop in the number of god-believing scientists in the past few hundred years. Before Darwin the argument from design was compelling – a god of the gaps was necessary in lieu of any proper explanation for complexity in nature. If religion has been like a meme, it has been a very powerful infective agent and you would be surprised to see humans reject it so quickly. I do wonder whether the tiny number of working biologists who are also raving creationists have to compartmentalise their brains to resolve the conflict. It would be like a mathematician getting by without his atheistic, nihilistic calculator.
The Archbishop of Canerbury rejects creationism and yet (allegedly) believes in a personal god. Actually, now I’m starting to warm to your comment about untrustworthiness!
Stuart
Stu,Philo Judaeus a 1st century Hellenistic Jew believed the creation story in Genesis was allegorical and not literal. He was quite the philosophical person and many say he was heavily influenced by Plato and Socrates. Yet he still held to most of the Jewish scriptures. He merely separated what he felt was allegory from literal. According to (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm)
=========================================
“It is quite foolish,” Philo wrote, “to think that the world was created in the space of six days or in a space of time at all.” Six, as he saw it, represented to Moses (Philo assumed Moses to be the author of Genesis) not a number of days, but “a perfect number” signifying the perfection of God’s creation. No one, not even Moses, “could ever give expression in an adequate manner to the beauty of [God’s] ideas respecting the creation of the world.”When Moses wrote that the world was created in six days, Philo argued, he did so to show God’s love of order. “The law corresponds to the world,” Philo declared, “and the world to the law.” Philo believed that creation in fact happened all at once, “not in external action but in thought.” God thought, therefore everything is. “The great Moses,” Philo explained, “thinking that a thing which has not been created is as alien as possible from everything which is visible before our eyes…has attributed eternity to that which is invisible and discerned only by our intellect.” From the simple fact “this world is visible,” Philo concluded it “must have been created.” Moses wrote the creation story of Genesis, according to Philo, to give us “a very venerable account of God”—a God who modeled the physical universe to reflect the forms first “conceived” in his own unfathomable mind.
=========================================There are people out there who reject most religions but still believe in a G-d. These people are called deists. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. They basically believe in a G-d who created the universe and then left it to be managed by its inhabitants. So they don't really have any type of personal relationship with G-d. Of course you probably know this.
Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 05 2007,02:57) When Moses wrote that the world was created in six days, Philo argued, he did so to show God’s love of order. “The law corresponds to the world,” Philo declared, “and the world to the law.” Philo believed that creation in fact happened all at once, “not in external action but in thought.” God thought, therefore everything is. “The great Moses,” Philo explained, “thinking that a thing which has not been created is as alien as possible from everything which is visible before our eyes…has attributed eternity to that which is invisible and discerned only by our intellect.” From the simple fact “this world is visible,” Philo concluded it “must have been created.” Moses wrote the creation story of Genesis, according to Philo, to give us “a very venerable account of God”—a God who modeled the physical universe to reflect the forms first “conceived” in his own unfathomable mind.
Hi TowshabOn Philo's point of visibility implying design, he has been conned by the illusion of design. At least he has the same excuse as others who lived before Darwin. He does miss the point that if design is implied by visibility then a rock is designed, and therefore there is no distinctive feature of a designed object. I think the ID crowd have not yet addressed this flaw in their laughable clown of a concept.
It is a bit ironic (and maybe instructive of this forum) that the allegorising Philo was accepted by christians more than by Jews given the tendancy these days for the loudest christians to be the most literal ones. He is a kindof fundamentalist deist and I particularly love his list of rules for telling apart allegory from the literal. That kind of pragmatism would go a long way in the muddle-headed world of the christian fundamentalist, where you have to cherry-pick your verses (otherwise you would be compelled to stone adulterers) but the process is a dishonest or secret one, and must leave the believer stressed at the apparent conflict. (How many reading this are wearing two kinds of cloth?!).
Einstein, not a believer in a personal god and not really even a deist used language similarly. I appreciate that Jewish people in the religious sense cover the wide range from those who don't believe in god at all to the ultra-orthodox end – would you say in your experience that this kind of allegorical interpretation is a mainstream Jewish viewpoint? Is it fair to say that on average the Jewish bible is taken more literally by christians than by Jews?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 05 2007,01:14) Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 05 2007,02:57) When Moses wrote that the world was created in six days, Philo argued, he did so to show God’s love of order. “The law corresponds to the world,” Philo declared, “and the world to the law.” Philo believed that creation in fact happened all at once, “not in external action but in thought.” God thought, therefore everything is. “The great Moses,” Philo explained, “thinking that a thing which has not been created is as alien as possible from everything which is visible before our eyes…has attributed eternity to that which is invisible and discerned only by our intellect.” From the simple fact “this world is visible,” Philo concluded it “must have been created.” Moses wrote the creation story of Genesis, according to Philo, to give us “a very venerable account of God”—a God who modeled the physical universe to reflect the forms first “conceived” in his own unfathomable mind.
Hi TowshabOn Philo's point of visibility implying design, he has been conned by the illusion of design. At least he has the same excuse as others who lived before Darwin. He does miss the point that if design is implied by visibility then a rock is designed, and therefore there is no distinctive feature of a designed object. I think the ID crowd have not yet addressed this flaw in their laughable clown of a concept.
It is a bit ironic (and maybe instructive of this forum) that the allegorising Philo was accepted by christians more than by Jews given the tendancy these days for the loudest christians to be the most literal ones. He is a kindof fundamentalist deist and I particularly love his list of rules for telling apart allegory from the literal. That kind of pragmatism would go a long way in the muddle-headed world of the christian fundamentalist, where you have to cherry-pick your verses (otherwise you would be compelled to stone adulterers) but the process is a dishonest or secret one, and must leave the believer stressed at the apparent conflict. (How many reading this are wearing two kinds of cloth?!).
Einstein, not a believer in a personal god and not really even a deist used language similarly. I appreciate that Jewish people in the religious sense cover the wide range from those who don't believe in god at all to the ultra-orthodox end – would you say in your experience that this kind of allegorical interpretation is a mainstream Jewish viewpoint? Is it fair to say that on average the Jewish bible is taken more literally by christians than by Jews?
Stuart
Well depends on the Christian
. Liberal Christians aren't very literal but evangelicals and fundamentalists wouldn't know allegory to save their skin But you are right most Jewish people I know realize when a passage is symbolic and not to be taken literally. You can see that on here where people believe they will be gods and think Jesus was placed inside Mary.Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 06 2007,23:21) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 05 2007,01:14) Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 05 2007,02:57) When Moses wrote that the world was created in six days, Philo argued, he did so to show God’s love of order. “The law corresponds to the world,” Philo declared, “and the world to the law.” Philo believed that creation in fact happened all at once, “not in external action but in thought.” God thought, therefore everything is. “The great Moses,” Philo explained, “thinking that a thing which has not been created is as alien as possible from everything which is visible before our eyes…has attributed eternity to that which is invisible and discerned only by our intellect.” From the simple fact “this world is visible,” Philo concluded it “must have been created.” Moses wrote the creation story of Genesis, according to Philo, to give us “a very venerable account of God”—a God who modeled the physical universe to reflect the forms first “conceived” in his own unfathomable mind.
Hi TowshabOn Philo's point of visibility implying design, he has been conned by the illusion of design. At least he has the same excuse as others who lived before Darwin. He does miss the point that if design is implied by visibility then a rock is designed, and therefore there is no distinctive feature of a designed object. I think the ID crowd have not yet addressed this flaw in their laughable clown of a concept.
It is a bit ironic (and maybe instructive of this forum) that the allegorising Philo was accepted by christians more than by Jews given the tendancy these days for the loudest christians to be the most literal ones. He is a kindof fundamentalist deist and I particularly love his list of rules for telling apart allegory from the literal. That kind of pragmatism would go a long way in the muddle-headed world of the christian fundamentalist, where you have to cherry-pick your verses (otherwise you would be compelled to stone adulterers) but the process is a dishonest or secret one, and must leave the believer stressed at the apparent conflict. (How many reading this are wearing two kinds of cloth?!).
Einstein, not a believer in a personal god and not really even a deist used language similarly. I appreciate that Jewish people in the religious sense cover the wide range from those who don't believe in god at all to the ultra-orthodox end – would you say in your experience that this kind of allegorical interpretation is a mainstream Jewish viewpoint? Is it fair to say that on average the Jewish bible is taken more literally by christians than by Jews?
Stuart
Well depends on the Christian. Liberal Christians aren't very literal but evangelicals and fundamentalists wouldn't know allegory to save their skin But you are right most Jewish people I know realize when a passage is symbolic and not to be taken literally. You can see that on here where people believe they will be gods and think Jesus was placed inside Mary.
Hey I resemble that remark.I know that meant me.
For the record I don't really believe we will be “gods”. Not in the sense that the word is used today.
Rather, exactly what scriptures say:
Sons of God, with an immortal spiritual body, made like Christ and given authority over nations. The sons of God are called elohim. We will be elohim. Elohim is translated into english as “gods”.
I know you aren't a Christian, but hey that is what the scriptures say.
I can respect if a person through humility doesn't not want to be associated with that train of thought. However, to pretend that is not what the scriptures say is silly.
I can't believe it? We haven't mentioned the space aliens yet!
he phrase most often used by evolutionists is probably “billions and billions of years:” “life evolved over billions and billions of years,” “the solar system developed over billions and billions of years,” “the universe has been expanding for billions and billions of years.” It almost seems as if these accounts of the evolution of our universe are intended to keep people from questioning unverifiable statements. That is, how do you go about disproving what allegedly happened so long ago? It's quite difficult to construct a planet in a laboratory and let it lie around for billions and billions of years to prove that life will not create itself. Unless, of course, you have a long lease.
If your lease expires within the next four and a half billion years, the following may be of interest to you:
* In 1977 two scientists, in search of hot water spewing from the ocean floors, crammed into a small research submarine named ALVIN and descended to the bottom of the ocean near the Galapagos Islands. Finding the first hydrothermal vent, an opening where water heated by earth's molten interior is released into the ocean, was not nearly as fascinating as what they discovered by accident — the vent was surrounded by animals never seen before. Closest to the vent, in the midst of water which sometimes exceeds 450 degrees Fahrenheit, were tube worms, some of which were up to eight feet long.
For any living creature to thrive this deep in the ocean and in such scalding water was mind boggling enough. But there was more. Most animals need sunlight to survive this part of the ocean gets no sunlight whatsoever.
Then, as if to laugh in the face of what's considered “normal” for biological life forms, these tube worms had no eyes, mouth, or intestinal tract. There may not be much to see in the dark, but how did these creatures eat or digest food?
It took scientists years to figure out how tube worms receive their nourishment. Without getting too involved with the details, these tube worms have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria which grow in profuse quantities near the underwater vent. The bacteria find their way into the tube worms, literally between their cells. The tube worms receive nutrition from the bacteria, and the bacteria in turn receive some vital functions from the tube worm.
If you think this sounds too bizarre, I don't blame you. Such creatures really do exist. And you haven't heard the most astonishing aspect of these creatures.
An additional factor in the area around the vent makes it an even more hostile environment than described above (if you can imagine that). The bacteria on which the tube worms depend, thrive on a chemical called hydrogen sulphide, which is found in the water coming from the hot vent. To most higher animals, hydrogen sulphide is as poisonous as cyanide!
We've just described a world which before its discovery was hard to imagine and certainly impossible to predict. The hostile environment in which the tube worms and their life-sustaining bacteria exist is truly “out of this world.” It makes one wonder if biological life forms are limited or restricted in any way whatsoever to any kind of environment.
* Since 1977, several more vents have been discovered on the ocean floors. Besides tube worms, other exotic animals have been found thriving in the immediate vicinity of the vents — pink fish, snails, shrimp, sulphur-yellow mussels, and foot-long clams. Similar animal populations have since been discovered in waters only a few degrees cooler than freezing. Scientists have since found quite a few totally new forms of life and species.
In addition to the adverse conditions under which these creatures live, life apparently can also survive in a wide range of temperatures.
* Cacti are known to survive the most difficult and unusual climates. Their ability to sustain themselves in areas of little rainfall, hot dry winds, low humidity, strong sunlight, and extreme fluctuations in temperature is nothing short of phenomenal. It's almost as if the physical structures of these plants, which help conserve the little water they receive and shed some of the excess sunlight, were designed by someone. Some cacti can survive internal temperatures of near 145 degrees Fahrenheit. Most plants haven't got a chance where some cacti prosper.
* Lichens, a combination of fungus and algae, have been found thriving in an area of Antarctica where temperatures sometimes get colder than 70 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. As far as hostile environments go, this seems to be the extreme opposite of deep, dark, hot waters.
* There are insects in the Antarctic which produce natural “antifreeze” to keep from freezing at lower temperatures. Another insect in the Antarctic produces anti-antifreeze. When temperatures get so low that other insects freeze to death, this natural compound allows this insect to freeze gradually. When temperatures get warmer, the insect thaws and lives on.
* Bacteria have been found growing an amazing 25 feet underground. For life to survive such depths is incredible, to say the least.
* There are animals and insects which carry venom strong enough to cause disease and death in other living organisms, yet these carrying organisms are unaffected by the venom. Mosquitoes spread yellow fever, malaria, dengue, and encephalitis to animals thousands of times their size. But no mosquitoes have been known to die of these diseases. Snakes, too, discharge venom which kill other animals, yet they themselves are unaffected by the poisons they carry.
* Earth now has millions of species of plants and animals. The sheer number of species is overwhelming. The precise number of living organisms is nothing short of mind boggling. And the diversity of these creatures — from such monstrosities as whales right down to microscopic life forms such as the amoeba — is probably beyond the imagination of even Steven Spielberg.
IT IS BELIEVED . . .
In the course of earth's history, about a half billion animal species have been in existence. That's a half billion before you even bring plant life into the picture.
IT IS ALLEGED . . .
The sun, earth, and the other planets in our solar system, according to scientists, were formed about four and a half billion years ago. It is further alleged that the most primitive forms of life already appeared on earth about three billion years ago. Huge creatures such as dinosaurs roamed our planet as far back as 200 million years ago. They ruled for an enormously long period of over 100 million years. Finally, humans appeared about two to three million years ago. That is, something as complex as the human brain has allegedly been around for at least a staggering two million years. An optical instrument as sophisticated as the eye (of the non-human variety) has been around even longer.
VERIFICATION
Now, how does one verify how all these living organisms came into existence? That is, if you can't build your own planet and cultivate it for billions of years, what's the next best thing? Finding a planet in outer space which has been around for as long as earth? No, that's not the next best thing. That's even better.
Why?
Because the science of planetary evolution, if you can call it that, is far from an exact science, to say the least. After many years, scientists still question the generally accepted view of the composition of earth's atmosphere in that alleged period of three and a half billion years ago. For a long time scientists believed that earth's primordial atmosphere contained little or no oxygen. Then, some studies suggested that earth's atmosphere may have contained one million times more oxygen than previously believed, and the ultraviolet rays of the sun may have pounded earth at levels thousands of times higher than today.
Whether the
new interpretations make any more sense than the old assumptions is irrelevant. What is relevant here is that laboratory simulations and scientific deductions of primordial conditions on earth are obviously based on much guess work and unverifiable assumptions. So why resort to such vagrant concoctions when a real “living” planet tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?LIFE ON MARS
Two Viking spacecraft landed on Mars as early as the summer of 1976. Viking 1 landed in the Chryse Planitia region and Viking 2 landed in the Utopia Planitia region. One goal of these missions was to find life or evidence of life on Mars. The spacecraft spent months analyzing the Martian soil and atmosphere, with no luck. More recent spacecraft on Mars produced the same results — no life on Mars. Not a trace of past or present life was found. No dinosaurs. No microorganisms. No carcasses. No bones. No fossils. Absolutely nothing. It's become obvious to scientists that for evidence of life to be found on Mars, they'd have to send KFC up there to pluck their chickens.
Of the planets we've explored to date, Mars seems to resemble earth more closely than any other planet does. If life were to have existed anywhere else in our solar system, Mars would probably have been the place. But no trace of life has been discovered on Mars, or any other planet, for that matter.
FAVORITISM IN NATURE
Now take what is known, what is “believed,” and what is “alleged,” about earth and compare it to what is known about Mars. What do you get? Verification of theories? No. You get inexplicable contradictions! We live on a planet where life proliferates in virtually every nook and cranny. You'd be hard pressed to find a place on earth where there is no life whatsoever. And the environment doesn't seem to matter either. Life on earth thrives under the most adverse conditions.
Yet, when we look at a planet right next to us in space, what do we find? We find a barren world with no trace of life ever having existed. How's that possible?
Are we to believe that this god called evolution, who has given earth such a sophisticated organ as the human brain as far back as two million years ago, has to this date not managed to put forth on Mars so much as a dumb ass? Are we to believe that the same evolution which has given earth living creatures the size of dinosaurs 200 million years ago has in a staggering four and a half billion years not given Mars even simple one-celled organisms? Are we to believe that this glorious evolution which has to this date given earth an astronomical total of literally millions upon millions of plant and animal species has in the same period not given Mars even one species of plant or animal?
Sure the Martian environment is hostile. But then, here on earth, two miles down at the bottom of the ocean near vents which spew hot water mixed with hydrogen sulphide in total darkness is not exactly my idea of a summer vacation spot, either — it's about as hostile as an environment can get! But life thrives there in complete defiance of what are normally considered ecological adversities.
Antarctica is also a hostile environment. So is 25 feet underground. So is the desert. Furthermore, in that alleged period of three and a half billion years ago, the entire earth, according to scientists, was hostile. Life on earth allegedly began in an environment which would be hostile to many of today's life forms. And many of today's life forms live in conditions which would have been intolerable to the organisms which allegedly brought life into existence billions of years ago. But life on earth thrives in spite of it all.
Life on earth goes even a step further. Some organisms do not simply thrive in adverse conditions, they actually become immune to conditions which are designed to kill them. Many bacteria become resistant to antibiotics as a result of being overexposed to the very drugs which have killed them in the past. In some cases, bacteria even transfer this resistance to other bacteria which have not had such exposure to the drugs.
There is a species of South American bee which has become immune to DDT. The bees can carry doses hundreds of times the amount needed to kill other bees without suffering ill effects. Some mosquitoes are also immune to DDT.
So, you see, life on earth is as potent as it is diversified. It pushes forward, overcoming many seemingly insurmountable obstacles, and sometimes in spite of these obstacles. Looking at the diversity of conditions under which life on earth thrives, looking at the life forms which have learned to fight environmental hazards and man-made poisons, it's hard to imagine life on earth ever being completely wiped out by any kind of disaster, natural or manmade. But somehow, life on Mars has either been completely wiped out — and the telltale traces mysteriously hidden — or something prevented life from coming into existence. How do you account for the complete absence of any trace of life on Mars? Does evolution have favorites? It is totally inconceivable that something as powerful and as diversified as life has not left its mark on Mars. Where is all the evidence of an evolutionary process? If not currently living creatures, at least bones and fossils.
Some find it difficult to explain. But is it really difficult to explain? Maybe some people are just looking for the wrong explanations. Maybe they're looking for preconceived explanations and discounting the facts. The fact is there is no sign of life or evolution on Mars.
NEW LIFE FORMS
Let's take this one step further. Who made the life forms on earth the standard for life? That is, why does life have to have anything to do with oxygen, carbon dioxide, or even carbon compounds? As accidentally as life allegedly formed of what was available on earth, life could have formed of what ever happened to be available elsewhere in space. After all, we're still having problems grasping the limits to which biological life can go — as is acutely demonstrated by tube worms and other unusual biological life forms — we're certainly not close to understanding consciousness and intellect on a scientific level. We may know that consciousness and intellect “attach” themselves to certain biological systems, but we haven't the foggiest clue as to how or why no scientist has yet shown any physical relationship between a biological system and the psyche. So why isn't there life on the moon? That's right, the moon's own version of “biological” life. Perhaps intelligent creatures made up of lunar soil which receive their nourishment through cosmic rays?
And what about Venus? Sure it's 900 degrees there. But by astronomical standards, when you talk about stars which burn at temperatures around ten million degrees, Venus could be the “Siberia” of the Milky Way. Why are there no creatures there which live in a 900 degree environment and drink sulfuric acid for nourishment
If some of this sounds a little facetious, it is not meant to be. Remember, we're not talking about a Supreme Intelligence with a plan, design, and purpose, which would imply that life was put precisely where it was meant to be and nowhere else for reasons we may or may not fully understand. We're talking about a mindless force of nature which purportedly creates life at random out of inanimate matter. What made life on earth so “feasible” and life elsewhere so “impossible?”
A PROBLEM IN LOGIC
To say that it is “difficult to explain” why life is in such abundance here on earth yet nonexistent elsewhere in the universe is just another case of sticking one's head in the ground. Explaining why a cigarette lighter will not work underwater is only difficult for someone who for some insane reason remains convinced it will work in spite of all contradictory evidence. Why it will not work is not difficult to explain. The difficulty lies in explaining why one continues to believe it wil
l work. Similarly, why there is no extraterrestrial life is not difficult to explain. Our space explorations have found the irrefutable answer: the process we call evolution simply does not work. The difficulty lies in understanding those who prefer to ignore the facts.According to NASA, microorganisms were inadvertently taken to the moon by an unmanned spacecraft. When the equipment of this spacecraft was brought back to earth more than two and a half years later by our astronauts, it was discovered that an earth microbe had survived the lunar environment, which is harsher than the Martian environment. Obviously, for life to have thrived on extraterrestrial bodies there was no need for nature to even resort to biologically “strange” creatures. In spite of the hostile environments of these spheres, life forms with which we are familiar could have survived. Yet, these worlds show absolutely no signs of ever having been inhabited by any forms of life — normal or strange. So, where does all this leave evolution? Not on very solid ground.
A HOSTILE EARTH
Strangely, even earth today, which is considered a hospitable environment to present life forms, only gives that appearance superficially. It took a twentieth-century epidemic — AIDS — to make us aware of the true hostile nature of the very environment modern man thrives in. AIDS is caused by a virus which attacks the immune system and leaves the body susceptible to a host of deadly diseases which are caused by other viruses and microbes. AIDS accentuates the grim reality that earth today is so contaminated with deadly viruses and bacteria that were it not for a complex and ingenious immune system, the average human being, and probably a host of other living organisms, could not survive beyond infancy. Is outer space really more hostile than this? Hard to imagine. So why hasn't life in outer space evolved and developed an immune system to ensure its survival? Hostile environments apparently do not deter life. Obviously, this process we call evolution is purely the product of imagination — it belongs in a Steven Spielberg movie, not in a science textbook.
by Josh Greenberger
Anyway, I'm wondering what Stu's ideas about the space aliens are? They must be out there, somewhere. Have any of them mastered space travel? Or are they confined by certain laws which make it impossible to any great degree?
And if they have mastered it, are they among us? Of course I don't believe you think they're the one's probing us. I do wonder what you think about this, though.It seems the answer might be out there, in the heavens.
david
Hi David
(An intro for those reading these posts: David has cut and pasted a tract from a creationist website).
Quote It almost seems as if these accounts of the evolution of our universe are intended to keep people from questioning unverifiable statements. They are not unverifiable. Some of them are complex ideas, and require a good understanding of science to grasp. Of course, as soon as you say that you need to learn more science, the conspiracy theories begin think and fast (see above!).
Quote That is, how do you go about disproving what allegedly happened so long ago? It's quite difficult to construct a planet in a laboratory and let it lie around for billions and billions of years to prove that life will not create itself. It is also quite difficult to leave a void lying around and hope that the Fickle One will find some time to have another stab at creation. Maybe he has learned from the bitter experiences described in Genesis, and will not make such an appalling mess next time. Anyway there are lots of voids, and so far we have not found a repeat of “creation”. Why not?
Stuart
David
(SNIPPED description of thermophilic deep-sea sulfur-dependent life)
Quote IT IS ALLEGED . . .The sun, earth, and the other planets in our solar system, according to scientists, were formed about four and a half billion years ago. It is further alleged that the most primitive forms of life already appeared on earth about three billion years ago. Huge creatures such as dinosaurs roamed our planet as far back as 200 million years ago. They ruled for an enormously long period of over 100 million years. Finally, humans appeared about two to three million years ago. That is, something as complex as the human brain has allegedly been around for at least a staggering two million years. An optical instrument as sophisticated as the eye (of the non-human variety) has been around even longer. IT IS ALLEGED that a man was born of a virgin and was resurrected after death. It is known (in the scientific probabilistic way) that the sequence quoted above actually occurred (more or less – for example the bit about the human brain is wrong). The evidence for the latter is virtually undeniable; evidence for the former is not reliable.
Quote VERIFICATION Now, how does one verify how all these living organisms came into existence?
That is, if you can't build your own planet and cultivate it for billions of years, what's the next best thing? Finding a planet in outer space which has been around for as long as earth? No, that's not the next best thing. That's even better. Why? Because the science of planetary evolution, if you can call it that, is far from an exact science, to say the least.What is an exact science?
Quote After many years, scientists still question the generally accepted view of the composition of earth's atmosphere in that alleged period of three and a half billion years ago. For a long time scientists believed that earth's primordial atmosphere contained little or no oxygen. Then, some studies suggested that earth's atmosphere may have contained one million times more oxygen than previously believed, and the ultraviolet rays of the sun may have pounded earth at levels thousands of times higher than today. This is obfuscation, criticism of genuine scientific debate for the purpose of confusing those without a scientific background, playing to the crowd, grandstanding. If you take a very small amount of oxygen and multiply it by “a million times” you can still have a very small amount of oxygen. You would expect there to be more ultraviolet light in the early atmosphere with no oxygen (and hence no ozone), but photosynthetic life evolved initially in the sea, affording protection until there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_atmosphere#Evolution_on_Earth
Stuart
David
Quote So (regarding Mars) why resort to such vagrant concoctions when a real “living” planet tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…Not a trace of past or present life was found… So why would you call it a “living planet” then? For you who criticises so strongly the argument that the lack of eyewitness writing of Jesus is evidence against his existence and/or magical abilities, quoting the same argument in support of this proposition is rich, to say the least. Just because there is no life on Mars does not mean that life did not evolve on earth. In this case it is not even circumstantial evidence – the temperature difference alone means that chemical reaction are much slower on Mars (as opposed to the themophilic case where they are much faster). Large bodies of water have also been key to life on earth. Were there oceans on Mars at any stage? Is this a necessary condition for live everywhere?
Quote Of the planets we've explored to date, Mars seems to resemble earth more closely than any other planet does. If life were to have existed anywhere else in our solar system, Mars would probably have been the place. There they are, those magic words “seems to” and “probably”. From what I have experiences, when a real scientist uses the word probably, he means that he is making an hypothesis based on some pretty firm ideas, but is still far short of an kind of proper theory. When a creationist uses the word he is showing that he has no idea at all what he is talking about, but maybe others will fall for it. Mars is not a good Earth model. It is twice as far away from the sun as we are, for a start.
Stuart
David
Quote FAVORITISM IN NATURE Now take what is known, what is “believed,” and what is “alleged,” about earth and compare it to what is known about Mars. What do you get? Verification of theories? No. You get inexplicable contradictions! We live on a planet where life proliferates in virtually every nook and cranny. You'd be hard pressed to find a place on earth where there is no life whatsoever. And the environment doesn't seem to matter either. Life on earth thrives under the most adverse conditions. Yet, when we look at a planet right next to us in space, what do we find? We find a barren world with no trace of life ever having existed. How's that possible? Well, abiogenesis occurred here but not there, for good physical reasons. The environment doesn’t “seem to” matter. Here we go again! (See previous post).
Quote Are we to believe that this god called evolution, who has given earth such a sophisticated organ as the human brain as far back as two million years ago, has to this date not managed to put forth on Mars so much as a dumb ass? Excepting the “god” part which is disingenuous, evidently, yes.
Quote Are we to believe that the same evolution which has given earth living creatures the size of dinosaurs 200 million years ago has in a staggering four and a half billion years not given Mars even simple one-celled organisms? It would seem so.
Quote Are we to believe that this glorious evolution which has to this date given earth an astronomical total of literally millions upon millions of plant and animal species has in the same period not given Mars even one species of plant or animal? And again, verily I say unto you, yep!
Quote Sure the Martian environment is hostile. But then, here on earth, two miles down at the bottom of the ocean near vents which spew hot water mixed with hydrogen sulphide in total darkness is not exactly my idea of a summer vacation spot, either — it's about as hostile as an environment can get! But life thrives there in complete defiance of what are normally considered ecological adversities. So change the definition of “normal” then! I know this is a difficult idea for fundamentalists.
Quote Antarctica is also a hostile environment. So is 25 feet underground. So is the desert. Furthermore, in that alleged period of three and a half billion years ago, the entire earth, according to scientists, was hostile. Life on earth allegedly began in an environment which would be hostile to many of today's life forms. And many of today's life forms live in conditions which would have been intolerable to the organisms which allegedly brought life into existence billions of years ago. But life on earth thrives in spite of it all. Well duh! What do you think drives evolution?! (Sorry to resort to playground language, but that’s the level of argument here!)
Quote Life on earth goes even a step further. Some organisms do not simply thrive in adverse conditions, they actually become immune to conditions which are designed to kill them. Many bacteria become resistant to antibiotics as a result of being overexposed to the very drugs which have killed them in the past. In some cases, bacteria even transfer this resistance to other bacteria which have not had such exposure to the drugs. Yes, evolution is happening all around us.
(SNIPPED wild and unsubstantiated ravings about why there is no life on Mars).
Stuart
David
Quote NEW LIFE FORMS Let's take this one step further. Who made the life forms on earth the standard for life? That is, why does life have to have anything to do with oxygen, carbon dioxide, or even carbon compounds? Because carbon atoms can catenate (form extended chains) and from stable bonds to other non-metals. We could imagine a life form based on silicon (eg in Dr. Who), but while the silicon-oxygen bond is strong, the silicon-hydrogen is weak, as are other silicon to non-metal bonds. The same applies across the periodic table. Carbon is unique in its ability to form compounds capable of self-replication.
Quote As accidentally as life allegedly formed of what was available on earth, life could have formed of what ever happened to be available elsewhere in space. After all, we're still having problems grasping the limits to which biological life can go — as is acutely demonstrated by tube worms and other unusual biological life forms — we're certainly not close to understanding consciousness and intellect on a scientific level. We may know that consciousness and intellect “attach” themselves to certain biological systems, but we haven't the foggiest clue as to how or why no scientist has yet shown any physical relationship between a biological system and the psyche. This is new-age babble. The bits that aren’t are a celebration of ignorance. Consciousness and the “psyche” are actually very quickly coming under scientific description by the sciences of genetics and neuroscience.
Quote So why isn't there life on the moon? That's right, the moon's own version of “biological” life. Perhaps intelligent creatures made up of lunar soil which receive their nourishment through cosmic rays? More new age babble. “Perhaps they couldn’t” is just as strong an argument.
Quote And what about Venus? Sure it's 900 degrees there. But by astronomical standards, when you talk about stars which burn at temperatures around ten million degrees, Venus could be the “Siberia” of the Milky Way. Why are there no creatures there which live in a 900 degree environment and drink sulfuric acid for nourishment 460 degrees.
Quote If some of this sounds a little facetious, it is not meant to be. I wouldn’t even grace it with the word facetious.
Quote Remember, we're not talking about a Supreme Intelligence with a plan, design, and purpose, which would imply that life was put precisely where it was meant to be and nowhere else for reasons we may or may not fully understand. We're talking about a mindless force of nature which purportedly creates life at random out of inanimate matter. Correct, but obvious.
Quote the process we call evolution simply does not work. The difficulty lies in understanding those who prefer to ignore the facts. And what facts would those be?
Quote According to NASA, microorganisms were inadvertently taken to the moon by an unmanned spacecraft. When the equipment of this spacecraft was brought back to earth more than two and a half years later by our astronauts, it was discovered that an earth microbe had survived the lunar environment, which is harsher than the Martian environment. Obviously, for life to have thrived on extraterrestrial bodies there was no need for nature to even resort to biologically “strange” creatures. In spite of the hostile environments of these spheres, life forms with which we are familiar could have survived. Yet, these worlds show absolutely no signs of ever having been inhabited by any forms of life — normal or strange. So, where does all this leave evolution? Not on very solid ground. Please say exactly where the theory of evolution by natural selection predicts life on other planets.
Quote A HOSTILE EARTH Strangely, even earth today, which is considered a hospitable environment to present life forms, only gives that appearance superficially. It took a twentieth-century epidemic — AIDS — to make us aware of the true hostile nature of the very environment modern man thrives in. AIDS is caused by a virus which attacks the immune system and leaves the body susceptible to a host of deadly diseases which are caused by other viruses and microbes. AIDS accentuates the grim reality that earth today is so contaminated with deadly viruses and bacteria that were it not for a complex and ingenious immune system, the average human being, and probably a host of other living organisms, could not survive beyond infancy. We knew a lot about the mammilian immune system before 1980. This is the explanation for why abiogenesis has never been repeated. A new replicating molecule or cell would be devoured pretty quickly with no defences against microorganisms.
Quote Is outer space really more hostile than this? Hard to imagine. The argument from incredulity.
Quote So why hasn't life in outer space evolved and developed an immune system to ensure its survival? Hostile environments apparently do not deter life. Obviously, this process we call evolution is purely the product of imagination — it belongs in a Steven Spielberg movie, not in a science textbook. How would a defense against biological enemies protect a living thing against physical threats? Do we expect Americans to evolve an immune response to the physical thread of a gunshot wound?
What an idiot this guy is. And a creationist. That’s a truism.
I'd rather read your original writing David. You show more enterprise and thought in one paragraph than this guy has mustered in a whole page of his tedious lies. Why did you post it?
Stuart
David
Re: Josh Greenberger
Here are some more gems from this liar’s website:
One obvious flaw in this technique (radiocarbon dating) is that we don't really know the level of radiocarbon concentration acquired by an organism which lived before such recorded history.
Gas clouds in space have condensed and turned into stars and planets.
Simply extrapolating this known range of inaccuracy over billions of years will show radiocarbon reading to be far less reliable than what scientists would like to believe.
if you discovered a thin string buried together with some old chicken bones, for example, you could, if you tried hard enough, interpret it to mean that prehistoric chickens had teeth because they obviously used dental floss. The fact that no teeth were found would only mean that a “minor” missing link still remained to be found in this otherwise solid theory.
Do I need to explain in each case why he is wrong?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
