Bob,

"She'd like something more powerful now I think though,.."

It's called aperture envy. Really.

Or "aper2re fever".

Venus envy?

I hate saying this, but I don't personally like Meade products very much. I used 2 work there (MANY years ago). Their business practices still leave a lot 2 be desired, IMHO.

There are a few other manufac2rers that make quite fine products, but like with everything else, you pay what you get for.

For example, you can buy a 12" Meade for a few thousand dollars, and it'll be pretty good. Or, you can buy a 12" Takahashi for over $20K, and it will also be pretty good. Well, no it won't. It'll be AMAZING. But most people don't need that level of amazing. (I don't own one, by the way, though I do own a 2ple Tak mounts that I put my homebuilts on).

-ol' 2long

-ol' 2long

that life evolved on this planet is not a question. It's a known. A given.

So it is categorically proven that life began and evolved from single cell organisms to the current panoply of life by evolution , or just that "survival of the fittest" takes weakening mutations out the loop while promoting profitable ones veeeryyyy slooowwwwlyyyy ?

With barely any transitional fossils ?

With laughable (IMO) conjecture as to how the most complex attributes of stuff like sub-cellular transports and gymnospermia came to be ?

Ah well. We have to disagree there.

And from where I sit, Cremo isn't the only "agenda driven nutjob" working in science advocacy today. They all are. Every dayum one of 'em scientists, creationists...all of 'em. Its just that some admit their agenda and some don't IMO.

You got to admit, wrong I may have been but the thought of a feathered brontosaurus is a funny one ! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Epistemologically its intersting that you won't read "Forbidden archaeology". You might be interested to read the followup book abut the furore it caused. Thats got stuff in it by folks you cite as "your"side <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Squids thrilled with her meade, and I sure aisn;t selling my sportscar to fund a funkier one !

I'll ask my W about it. She's an archaeologist. I'm not.

-ol' 2long

2long, did you ever see the movie "What the Bleep do we know?"

Just another reminder. It is really, truly, possible to have these discussions respectfully.

It seems to me that there is great value in debates like this one. I only wish that we had a greater ability to examine the evidence on all sides with the full range of expertise at our beck and call. Healthy and strong skepticism is a key component of the development of good science and clearly there is plenty of it here. Science is far from a static field -- crazy 100 years ago may be sane now... or it may be a distant memory relegated to the history of science.

Tell him to trust you on this for the time being. Chicken skin WILL WORK - very well, I promise. And there's PLENTY of chickens down there. He might have to go ask in the kitchen for some. "Desert Island"? What have you been telling him about this place? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> His eyes are gonna pop.

WAT

Aphelion - Why? There are plenty of already living things that do not have a soul and are not created in the image of God? I suppose the “nightmare” might be that such an AI might be created “in the image of Man.” Sort of like in the movie “I, Robot.”




I would say that we are already “there.” Forget an AI scenario for a minute. We ARE having to face this sort of thing right now with respect to potential Cloning of humans.

Dolly the sheep proves that cloning is “possible.” So it’s not really a case of “all is relative.”

When God created Man, He breathed into what He created the “breath of life” and Man became a “living soul.” There is much more to “life” than just the mere existence of a self-replicating organism. What God gave Man was an eternal soul, unlike a mere mortal body. That an immortal body was within the grasp of Fallen Man is WHY Adam and Eve were banned from Eden, aside from the entrance of sin into our makeup through their disobedience.

Perhaps the “creation” of a self-aware, knowing “Right from Wrong,” artificial intelligence may one day be possible, and that “I, Robot” might even be able to “live forever by replacing worn out parts, perhaps even duplicating their entire store of memory and knowledge into subsequent millions of duplicate copies, a sort of “machine cloning.”

But the Soul isn’t there. If programming is “overrideable” by such a being, the “Laws of Robotics” that Asimov stated would be a meaningless “check” and they could easily choose a set of behaviors that predicated their “survival” at all costs, including the “cost” of NOT “giving their life so that another might live.” That’s not so “far fetched” as we have humans today who act “without a conscience.”

The “ability” to do something is NOT the same thing as the “rightness” or “advisability” of actually doing it. We HAVE, for example, the ability to eliminate Iran, North Korea, or anything else we might feel “justified” in eliminating with our arsenal of Nuclear Weapons. But we may not want to exercise that “ability.” The terrorists, on the other hand, would seem to have NO respect for any life other than those in submission to their way of thinking, and even that is questionable as they keep on killing fellow Muslims who do “think exactly as they do.”

It almost seems like a "modern day" Tower of Babel sort of thing. Man wanting to BE God.

But then, "Man knows best," right? Now THAT's "scary" to me.

God bless.

I suppose that might be along the lines of "those who forget the past are likely to repeat the past," don't you think.



I would agree. But at the same time, "failures," that is "negative results" are also a part of the process.

Regardless, there is no such thing as an "unbiased scientist." The FACTS are unbiased, but the scientist, or person, brings to the evaluation of those FACTS their own biases and preconceived notions and assumptions.




Huh? That's not even close to evolution, as you use the word, and you know it. That's selective breeding to bring out traits already PRESENT in the genetic code. "Crossing the boundaries" results in things like a Mule, a "dead end" mixing of genetic information.




No it isn't a fact. It is your OPINION, formed from the bias you bring to table. The alternative, which you CHOOSE to reject, is that God created life, it did NOT "spontaneously generate" from non-life. You have tried to "limit" the term evolution to only changes in living things AFTER the first living thing came into existence, yet here you are trying to claim that "evolution" proves that Life "evolved" from non-life rather than having been created by God. THAT is a bias as much as my bias for believing the Word of God. That is an assumption, just as I assume God IS the creator of life.

Evolution is NOT a "theory" as much as it is a "model" that tries to form a framework whereby the FACTS can be evaluated to see how well, or how poorly, they "fit what the model predicts you SHOULD be able to see." But I'll not overly quibble with you if you find it easier to call various theories and proposals "evolutionary theory." Theories, by their nature, are unproven and merely form a direction for investigation of FACTS and IDEAS.

The Models that exist are either Creation or Evolution as the "explanation" of how things got here, as well as the subsets of organic evolution and variation.

That Dolly the Sheep exists is a given. But it in no way proves that Dolly "got here" through evolution or spontaneous generation from the available constituent chemical "soup" without the willful and purposeful direction of an already living and thinking being, using techinques (the HOW that JL referred to) that are as "unknowable to Dolly herself" than is the HOW God created the universe, the earth, and all life.

That's true, WAT. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

They are evidence of transition from living to dead, of that specific organism. They show nothing about "transforming" into something other than what they were when they died.

No, I don't think it's along those lines. I remember the past, but I don't dwell on it. Like this verse from King Crimson's "In the Wake of Poseidon":


That is NOT an "attack" on Christianity, either. More a comment on how many dwell on minutiae and miss the whole point, all the while humanity's whole fu2re is uncertain (the song was written in the early 70's, at the height of the Cold War). Similarly, there are more immediate things for me 2 focus on in my profession. I hate saying this, but sometimes it's very frustrating explaining what I am working on if I have 2 start from the basic principles every time with some people (my dad's second wife was one of those, and it was all the more frustrating because she could never remember the previous such discussions we had). Often, by the time I'd covered the preliminaries, my time was up and those members of the audience who already knew the background were robbed of the chance 2 really discuss the hypotheses I was working on.



Yes. I agree completely. And I don't forget, though I may not have the details of all the frauds and mistakes in mind (which makes sense since I'm working on landscape evolution, not, say, physical anthropology).


True, but some scientists are better at keeping their preconcieved notions out of their work than others. In the end, though, being "married" 2 a particular hypothesis due 2 one's biases can pretty quickly bite one on the beautox. I've been bitten enough times that I like 2 think I know better now.


Perhaps it is true that breeding traits in domesticated animals has never produced a new species. I don't really know. But I do know that the traits in the genetic code you refer 2 can certainly be present in prior and transitional forms as species evolve. Horses and Zebras can't interbreed, for example, though it's obvious that they're related, and so they have a common ancestor.


No, FH, it is a fact that was established long before I came on the scene. Exactly like mathematical theorems, it can be unders2d if one takes the time and studies the evidence. I had 2 do that as a geology s2dent, just as mathematics s2dents have 2 learn math - and proofs.


Stated from a position of obvious bias, because I don't agree that accepting that evolution is occuring requires one 2 reject the notion that God directs it (though I don't personally think it's necessary).


Well, I don't see where you made this inference.


Which is why I agree with Sagan and others who have stated that Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact. There are theories regarding evolution. There are also hypotheses regarding evolutionary theory.


Here is where I must bow out of these convos, because we've been over this before and it gets us nowhere. JL was right, this is pointless.

-ol' 2long

You may be right, 2long. It may be "pointless" because it ultimately comes down to a choice as to who is right, Man or God.

That, again, is why I have said many times that either one is a matter of faith, not "proven fact" that is reproduceable and verifiable by scientific inquiry.

No, it's pointless because the choice of whether Man or God is "right" isn't the point.

-ol' 2long

Gosh, FH.

The question here is not man or God. That has been stated so many times, but you never acknowledge it.

OK, maybe that is it to you.

But, as 2 says, that is not the question for many of the rest of us.

God certainly rules the universe, and he can make it operate any way he wants.

So he did.

And now some of us see reflections of his glory in figuring it out.


I see the question, FH, as one of literal interpretation of scripture or not. All these other differences stem from that one fundamental belief of yours.

I pray you see the light someday. God’s universe is so much more interesting and wonderful than you know.

With prayers,

OK, has ANYBODY seen "What the Bleep do we know" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ??
I'm curious because it's one of those rare movies that looks into metaphysics & science & also has a story line that makes it a sort of documentary/story (I hope this makes any sense in English).
As there are several scientists around here (and I'm not) I was just wondering what they thought of it...

Weaver,
If you're still reading here my dear..
It's hardly impressive that I studied the Mahabaratha.
Just takes long hours and a teacher who knows his stuff, as it's a pretty epic story <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

Not I.

But I saw "The Gods Must Be Crazy" once.

I loved that movie !
Totally different subject though, even if the title might suggest otherwise <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

I know. Bad segue. Sorry.

I'll try to find What the Bleep when I get a chance, though.

It may be "pointless" because it ultimately comes down to a choice as to who is right, Man or God.

FH, I've never seen you discuss the possibility that if evolution is incorrect, perhaps the Creation Myth that's part of Hinduism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or Jainism, or any of the myriad religions of our world might be possible alternatives.

Nor have you mentioned the possible alternatives that other forms of Christianity and Judaism (since both have the same Creation myth, so for these purposes, their alternatives each have possible validity) use.

Instead you limit your options to two possibilities: Evolutionary theory as presented in mainstream science, or your own interpretation of Christian Scriptures.

Similarly for the evolution side, it appears that evolution is being argued as a monolith represented by the scientific mainstream. Though I do not know the field, any scientific field has many variations and competing models, ones that arise from new work in teh field and old ones that no longer fully fit the physical evidence available with which to test its theories and hypotheses.

I would suggest that an argument that narrows itself down to an "either/or and no others" black and white set of alternatives is a priori likely to be incorrect. It is more likely that a broad consideration of the infinite wealth of potential alternatives will produce an answer that is accurate and best represents all of the data and information currently available.

(obligatory reminder: respect is possible!)

I believe in Evolution.

Once just after we got married, she said I was a rat. Now she says I am "a real man."

It's nice to know I've evolved so far in a few short years.

SS