I am sending this to the Creation Science Museum

[Cypress]

Darwin didn't create the Theory of Evolution. The ancient Greeks did. Darwin created the Theory of Natural Selection. Neither is a theory of science. The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection fails the internal consistency check. It is not a valid theory of any kind, scientific or otherwise. It creates a paradox.

Not Darwin's theory. Finding chimpanzee fossils in Cambrian rock strata proves nothing. It does not falsify or prove the Theory of Evolution. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Remember, it is YOU that is making these arbitrary assignments.

Nope. Again, arbitrary assignments. Not a proof either way.

Nope. It is not possible to prove any theory True. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

Proves nothing either way.

Proves nothing either way.

Proves nothing either way.

Proves nothing either way.

Remember, all we can observe is our little corner of the Universe. What is going on elsewhere is completely unknown. All we know, for example, is that for the cosmic bodies we can observe, they do appear to moving away from us. Elsewhere in the Universe they could be very well moving closer. It is YOU that is assuming that what we observe is consistent across the entire Universe, and even assumes that the Universe has a boundary.

It is not possible to measure the total hydrogen, helium, or lithium in the Universe.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). The Church of the Big Bang is a religion. The Church of Evolution is a religion. The Church of Creation is a religion. The Church of the Continuum is a religion. The Church of Abiogenesis is a religion.

Science is not a religion. All religions are based on some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. Nothing less. Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. There is no way to test the null hypothesis of such a theory.

Testing never proves a theory True. Theories of science will remain a theory until it is falsified. Nonscientific theories will remain theories forever.

You make it a habit of responding to what to what you wish I wrote, rather than what I actually wrote.

No where did I say Darwin invented the concept of evolution.

I explicitly referenced "Darwinian evolution" to discriminate his theory of natural selection from earlier Lamarkian and Greek thinking on evolution.

As to the rest of your blather, I will just leave this demonstration below that when it comes to science and math, you are wrong literally all the time:

"Into the Night": Wrong literally all the bloody time>>

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...stians-are-anti-science&p=3901887#post3901887

 

[Into the Night]

You make it a habit of responding to what to what you wish I wrote, rather than what I actually wrote.

No, I am responding to what you wrote.

No where did I say Darwin invented the concept of evolution.

So you want to deny what you said again?

I explicitly referenced "Darwinian evolution" to discriminate his theory of natural selection from earlier Lamarkian and Greek thinking on evolution.

No. You explicitly referenced Darwin as the Theory of Evolution, liar.

As to the rest of your blather, I will just leave this demonstration below that when it comes to science and math, you are wrong literally all the time:
...deleted spam...

Bulverism fallacy.

 

[AProudLefty]

"Darwinism" is a Fundamentalist Christian invention, I believe

The evolutionary theory isn't original.

 

[AProudLefty]

"Darwinism" is nature selecting.
"Lamarckism" is life selecting natural environments.

Example: Giraffes grow their necks so they can feed off trees.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The trip from amino acids to self-replicating cells is a long and mysterious one, but evidently progress is being made.

I am not sure how this new scientific knowlege will supplement the excellent work being done at the prestigious Creation Science Museum.

Take-away for me: cellular genetics is about as mind blowing as quantum physics, to me anyway.

They can put it next to the Fermi Paradox.

https://www.space.com/25325-fermi-paradox.html
The Fermi Paradox seeks to answer the question of where the aliens are. Given that our star and Earth are part of a young planetary system compared to the rest of the universe — and that interstellar travel might be fairly easy to achieve — the theory says that Earth should have been visited by aliens already.

As the story goes, Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, most famous for creating the first nuclear reactor, came up with the theory with a casual lunchtime remark in 1950. The implications, however, have had extraterrestrial researchers scratching their heads in the decades since.

"Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire galaxy," the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute in Mountain View, California, said on its website. "Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise."

Fermi reportedly made the initial remark, but he died in 1954. Publication fell to other people, such as Michael Hart, who wrote an article titled "An Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrials on Earth" in the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) Quarterly Journal in 1975. (Some say this is the first such paper to explore the Fermi paradox, although this claim is a bit hard to prove.)

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Rightwing Christian grifters have no remorse profiteering off their scriptures and prophets.

Whatever I think of Islam, I will say they at least treat their prophets and sacred texts with reverence and dignity. I seriously doubt there are any Muhammad-land Theme Parks.


Jesus Land Theme Park, Orlando Florida

It's interesting that a good lot of non-Catholic Christians, esp. among the evangelicals and/or fundies, believe that Catholics practice idolatry due to the Stations of the Cross, depictions of Mary Mother of Jesus, and various saints in their churches. Yet there's nothing wrong with that. ^ ^

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

They got one detail wrong. The Romans didn't drive nails through the victim's hand; they drove them through his wrists.

Actually they usually tied the crucified to the cross, to prolong death. It generally took them days to die that way.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's interesting that a good lot of non-Catholic Christians, esp. among the evangelicals and/or fundies, believe that Catholics practice idolatry due to the Stations of the Cross, depictions of Mary Mother of Jesus, and various saints in their churches. Yet there's nothing wrong with that. ^ ^

It's a play. No one is worshipping the actor.

There's a Passion play spot near Branson, MO my wife wants to see.

https://www.tripster.com/detail/great-passion-play-branson-mo
Just 48 miles South of Branson, The Great Passion Play in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, is an inspirational performance for the whole family. Guests of the reenactment can see what the last week of Jesus Christ’s life was like almost 2,000 years ago. The show is featured in a 4,000-seat outdoor amphitheater, with extravagant lighting and sound effects, live animals, 170 costumed actors and more.

I might wear my Roman t-shirt as part of the festivities.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

It's a play. No one is worshipping the actor.

No one is worshiping the saints or Mary in a Catholic church, either.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No one is worshiping the saints or Mary in a Catholic church, either.

They're praying to an idol of mary or a saint. At least that's my understanding of the "logic".

I DGAS either way. How people find peace is up to them. It's when they start dictating how others will do it that bothers me.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

They're praying to an idol of mary or a saint. At least that's my understanding of the "logic".

I DGAS either way. How people find peace is up to them. It's when they start dictating how others will do it that bothers me.

Obviously you are not a Catholic, or you wouldn't believe that Catholics are praying to idols. There is a difference between asking for a saint to pray for you, and praying to the saint to grant you something as though they were a god. From the Hail Mary:

"Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death."

It's no different than asking your family or fellow church members to pray for you.

Agree 100% with others trying to shove their beliefs on other ppl.

 

[Cypress]

It's interesting that a good lot of non-Catholic Christians, esp. among the evangelicals and/or fundies, believe that Catholics practice idolatry due to the Stations of the Cross, depictions of Mary Mother of Jesus, and various saints in their churches. Yet there's nothing wrong with that. ^ ^

I cannot speak for Roman Catholics, but in the Eastern Orthodox tradition no one is worshipping Icons of saints. Veneration is a different word than worship and means a different thing: moreover icons of saints are artistic renderings of real, actual human beings, not of divinities.

The noteworthy thing to me is that rightwing Christian grifters are willing to charge money and profiteer off of Jesus Land and Noah's Ark theme parks.

Other world religions treat their prophets and sacred texts with a little more reverence and respect. I am not aware of a Buddha Land theme park, and am not aware that the Vatican has a Saint Paul water slide.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I cannot speak for Roman Catholics, but in the Eastern Orthodox tradition no one is worshipping Icons of saints. Veneration is a different word than worship and means a different thing: moreover icons of saints are artistic renderings of real, actual human beings, not of divinities.

The noteworthy thing to me is that rightwing Christian grifters are willing to charge money and profiteer off of Jesus Land and Noah's Ark theme parks.

Other world religions treat their prophets and sacred texts with a little more reverence and respect. I am not aware of a Buddha Land theme park, and am not aware that the Vatican has a Saint Paul water slide.

Oooh! Wouldn't a John The Baptist water slide be cool? Go in hot, come out baptized and ready for heaven. lol

I imagine that most mainstream Xtian believers would avoid these theme parks due to the not-very-faint reek of blasphemy... as well as the nonsense of creationism.

 

[Cypress]

They can put it next to the Fermi Paradox.

https://www.space.com/25325-fermi-paradox.html
The Fermi Paradox seeks to answer the question of where the aliens are. Given that our star and Earth are part of a young planetary system compared to the rest of the universe — and that interstellar travel might be fairly easy to achieve — the theory says that Earth should have been visited by aliens already.

As the story goes, Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, most famous for creating the first nuclear reactor, came up with the theory with a casual lunchtime remark in 1950. The implications, however, have had extraterrestrial researchers scratching their heads in the decades since.

"Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire galaxy," the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute in Mountain View, California, said on its website. "Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise."

Fermi reportedly made the initial remark, but he died in 1954. Publication fell to other people, such as Michael Hart, who wrote an article titled "An Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrials on Earth" in the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) Quarterly Journal in 1975. (Some say this is the first such paper to explore the Fermi paradox, although this claim is a bit hard to prove.)

In my opinion the Drake Equation vastly over estimated the probability of widespread intelligent life in the Galaxy. For those of us who grew up on Star Trek, there was a basic assumption that advanced civilizations would be ubiquituous in the galaxy.

This was probably wishful thinking.

It took Earth 4.5 billion years to evolve us - smart chimpanzees - and we might only exist for a blink of an eye in terms of cosmic time - we could go extinct in a few centuries.

Moreover, we continue to learn that life only evolved on earth to to an remarkable series of cosmic, geologic, and astrophysical coincidences which I do not believe the proponents of the Drake equation really thought about in the 1960s.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

In my opinion the Drake Equation vastly over estimated the probability of widespread intelligent life in the Galaxy. For those of us who grew up on Star Trek, there was a basic assumption that advanced civilizations would be ubiquituous in the galaxy.

This was probably wishful thinking.

It took Earth 4.5 billion years to evolve us - smart chimpanzees - and we might only exist for a blink of an eye in terms of cosmic time - we could go extinct in a few centuries.

Moreover, we continue to learn that life only evolved on earth to to an remarkable series of cosmic, geologic, and astrophysical coincidences which I do not believe the proponents of the Drake equation really thought about in the 1960s.

What variables in the Drake Equation** do you think were overestimated?

Provided Earthlings survive for another 500,000 years, where do you think we'd be? On the other side of the galaxy with a million colonized planets in between? Since the oldest known stars in our galaxy are "roughly 12.8 billion years old" against our Sun's 4.6B, that's a lot of time for the first intelligent species to develop and spread. So where are they?

https://www.livescience.com/65059-milky-way-bulge-hides-old-stars.html
In a study to be published in the April 2019 issue of the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, researchers analyzed a cluster of old, dim stars called HP1, located about 21,500 light-years away from Earth in the gut of our galaxy's central bulge. Using observations from Chile's Gemini South telescope and archival Hubble Space Telescope data, the researchers calculated the age of the stars to be roughly 12.8 billion years old — making them some of the oldest stars ever detected in either the Milky Way or the universe at large.

"These are also some of the oldest stars we've seen anywhere," study co-author Stefano Souza, a doctoral candidate at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, said in a statement. [15 Unforgettable Images of Stars]

The Milky Way's bulge — a bulbous, 10,000 light-year-wide region of stars and dust popping out of the galaxy's spiral disc — is thought to contain some of the oldest stars in the galaxy.




** Drake Equation
N=R_* \cdot f_P \cdot n_e \cdot f_l \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L
N = number of civilizations with which humans could communicate
R_* = mean rate of star formation
f_P = fraction of stars that have planets
n_e = mean number of planets that could support life per star with planets
f_l = fraction of life-supporting planets that develop life
f_i = fraction of planets with life where life develops intelligence
f_c = fraction of intelligent civilizations that develop communication
L = mean length of time that civilizations can communicate

 

[Cypress]

You make it a habit of responding to what to what you wish I wrote, rather than what I actually wrote.

No where did I say Darwin invented the concept of evolution.

So you want to deny what you said again?

No. You explicitly referenced Darwin as the Theory of Evolution, liar!

Lying about what I said diminishes your credibility.

I specifically referenced Darwinian evolution to distinguish his theory of natural selection from earlier thinking on evolution by the Frenchman Lamarck and the ancient Greek Anaximander.

Even Karl Popper, the originator of the demarcation problem, ultimately came to believe that Darwinian evolution is falsifiable.

The minute we find chimpanzee fossils in Cambrian rock strata, Darwin's theory would be blown out of the water. Modern genetic techniques could easily demonstrate the null hypothesis if Darwinian evolution was incorrect.

<snip>
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Creation-Science-Museum&p=4141947#post4141947

Now, below I posted back in September, about Lamarck's thinking on evolution -- unequivocally proving that I knew there were evolutionary hypotheses before Darwin.

Elements of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection have already been falsified. As I recall, by Gregor Medel's work in genetics.

The Lamarkian theory of evolution has been falsified for more than a century.

<snip>
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...stians-are-anti-science&p=3890117#post3890117

Now, you seem like the type of person incapable of admitting you were wrong or to apologize for lying about someone, am I right??

 

[Cypress]

What variables in the Drake Equation** do you think were overestimated?

Provided Earthlings survive for another 500,000 years, where do you think we'd be? On the other side of the galaxy with a million colonized planets in between? Since the oldest known stars in our galaxy are "roughly 12.8 billion years old" against our Sun's 4.6B, that's a lot of time for the first intelligent species to develop and spread. So where are they?

https://www.livescience.com/65059-milky-way-bulge-hides-old-stars.html
In a study to be published in the April 2019 issue of the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, researchers analyzed a cluster of old, dim stars called HP1, located about 21,500 light-years away from Earth in the gut of our galaxy's central bulge. Using observations from Chile's Gemini South telescope and archival Hubble Space Telescope data, the researchers calculated the age of the stars to be roughly 12.8 billion years old — making them some of the oldest stars ever detected in either the Milky Way or the universe at large.

"These are also some of the oldest stars we've seen anywhere," study co-author Stefano Souza, a doctoral candidate at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, said in a statement. [15 Unforgettable Images of Stars]

The Milky Way's bulge — a bulbous, 10,000 light-year-wide region of stars and dust popping out of the galaxy's spiral disc — is thought to contain some of the oldest stars in the galaxy.




** Drake Equation
N=R_* \cdot f_P \cdot n_e \cdot f_l \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L
N = number of civilizations with which humans could communicate
R_* = mean rate of star formation
f_P = fraction of stars that have planets
n_e = mean number of planets that could support life per star with planets
f_l = fraction of life-supporting planets that develop life
f_i = fraction of planets with life where life develops intelligence
f_c = fraction of intelligent civilizations that develop communication
L = mean length of time that civilizations can communicate

Most of the probabilities in the Drake equation they just pulled out of their ass.

As we learn more about the galaxy, it seems large parts of the galaxy may be inhospitable for life as we know it. The habitable zone of the galaxy may only comprise a smallish disc well away from the dense galactic center.

The type of star matters.
The gravimetric planetary balance matters.
Atmospheric conditions matter.
Even if advanced civilizations developed in the galaxy, there is little guarantee there existence would overlap with ours in time. Species have a finite existence, on earth, the average species only generally exists for a million years or so. The universe is 13 billion years old.

There are so many factors that went into creating the conditions for life on earth, that I do not think the proponents of the Drake equation really thought about, let alone rigorously modeled them. The Drake equation was a rudimentary thought experiment

I think the Drake equation was published in the 1960s, and we have learned a lot more about the universe in the 50 years since.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Most of the probabilities in the Drake equation they just pulled out of their ass.

As we learn more about the galaxy, it seems large parts of the galaxy may be inhospitable for life as we know it. The habitable zone of the galaxy may only comprise a smallish disc well away from the dense galactic center.

The type of star matters.
The gravimetric planetary balance matters.
Atmospheric conditions matter.
Even if advanced civilizations developed in the galaxy, there is little guarantee there existence would overlap with ours in time. Species have a finite existence, on earth, the average species only generally exists for a million years or so. The universe is 13 billion years old.

There are so many factors that went into creating the conditions for life on earth, that I do not think the proponents of the Drake equation really thought about, let alone rigorously modeled them. The Drake equation was a rudimentary thought experiment

I think the Drake equation was published in the 1960s, and we have learned a lot more about the universe in the 50 years since.

No worries; NASA updated it for ya! https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1350/are-we-alone-in-the-universe-revisiting-the-drake-equation/

The key question remains; "Where are they?"

 

[Cypress]

No worries; NASA updated it for ya! https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1350/are-we-alone-in-the-universe-revisiting-the-drake-equation/

The key question remains; "Where are they?"

If I were to speculate, technological species may be out there, but they existed and flourished at a completely different time in cosmic history than the period we are living in.

13 billion years is a lot of time for thousands of technological species to arise and go extinct -- and given the nature of deep time, there is no reason to assume they had to co-exist at the same time in galatic history.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

If I were to speculate, technological species may be out there, but they existed and flourished at a completely different time in cosmic history than the period we are living in.

13 billion years is a lot of time for thousands of technological species to arise and go extinct -- and given the nature of deep time, there is no reason to assume they had to co-exist at the same time in galatic history.

Sorry, dude, but that doesn't answer it. Cvilizations rise and fall as our own history proves but not even a few major impact events stopped life on Earth. It only slowed it down.

Where are the space aliens? There's absolutely zero evidence they exist. Why?