Antlerman Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Thank you for the links on Pollack. I saw the Ed Harris movie on his life when it came out several years ago and I really enjoyed the movie, though I'm not a fan of abstract art. It was a bad example I used and I did not intentionally mean to connect Pollack to the joke that is creation "science." I'm sorry for doing that and I did not mean it. What I should have said was a toddler's spiral crayon drawing may actually at one point resemble something other than an image we make through matrixing, if the toddler was given infinite time, infinite crayons and paper, and was never allowed to grow up... but then again, maybe not. No problem. I haven't seen that movie yet, but a friend who knows I like Pollack recommended it. I should see it soon. I like the subject of Matrixing. I think this is at the very heart of any Creation Scientists' argument of "evidence" for God. It's an emotional response to a perceived pattern that we see as "purposeful". I tried explaining this at another time, that purpose in nature is adaptive, not intended. We look at something in hindsight as being "perfect" for the task, when in a careful analysis it really isn't. If man were "designed" from a top down creator, we would not look like this. Creationism is based on the Watchmaker's logic fallacy. Here's a funny example of Matrixing I think you'll enjoy, or if you are a Creationist you will see as proof of God's intelligent design his making the Earth: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-16.337013,...p;t=k&hl=en (This is an actual satellite image) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 [slam] If "Gawd" did it, you lose. PRATTS, PRATTs, PRATTs. And either too dumb or too arrogant to at least quote correctly. I refuse to have a battle of brains with an unarmed person any longer. Welcome to my ignore list. *PLONK* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted November 29, 2006 Author Share Posted November 29, 2006 Neverclear, have you heard anything about an idea called expansion theory? I just finished reading a book by Mark McCltcheon called "The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy". ISBN # 1-58112-601-8. The basic premise is that everything in the universe, including atoms, are expanding. If every atom was expanding at the same rate, we would not notice the expansion at all. I will admit the book was a little too much for me to completely understand, I'm not good at math at all, but he claims that thinking this way would explain alot of the mysteries we can't explain today, such as what gravity really is, and how a magnet can stay up without an enegry source. I haven't had a chance to look for any other books or websites that talk about it, if you could shed any light on it I'd love to hear you thoughts. I'm currently reading through a review now and there seem to be some big problems right from the start. He's made some odd statements which are, simply, not true. I'm not sure if this "all matter is expanding" thing was being suggested as a way for the world to have cooled faster but, the laws of thermal transfer we're worked out in the present state of affairs, which would still be expanding. The rates we have worked out, would be taking this into account already and the only way for the creation scientist to use this would be to make another ridiculous assumption that this rate had changed, without any corroberating evidense, in much the same way as they say about nuclear decay rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I almost forgot about the drawings. Here's a funny example of Matrixing I think you'll enjoy, or if you are a Creationist you will see as proof of God's intelligent design his making the Earth: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-16.337013,...p;t=k&hl=en (This is an actual satellite image)OMG, it's the face of Gad Al-mighty! It actually kind of reminds me of Ares from God of War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 Slam has only read creationist propaganda. To give slam no excuse, here is an article about transitional fossils using Tikaalik as an example. And here is an article about another transitional fossil, the gognasus andrewsae. We haven't seen Slam in a little while. I think you may have scared him off with this Scitso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 I came back to this thread completely expecting another round of asinine arguments from Slam. SHOCK!!! Its yet another Christian who can't put his money where his mouth is! Funny how they scatter like rats when forced to actually back up any of their nonsense or answer questions without saying "goddidit". Thanks to Scitsofreaky for providing some links regarding the Tiktaalik and other things I mentioned in my first post, I am terrible about giving links. One question I have is why do Christians feel the need to come to this website and annoy people with their ignorance? I don't go to Christian forums or chat rooms, so why do they come here? If they honestly believe they will bring any of us "back to the flock" they are even more deluded than I have previously assumed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 One question I have is why do Christians feel the need to come to this website and annoy people with their ignorance? I can only speculate. My guess is that Slam is smug in his belief that he his right. He has come here to demonstrate to us how foolish we are to swallow the myth of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 Slam has only read creationist propaganda. To give slam no excuse, here is an article about transitional fossils using Tikaalik as an example. And here is an article about another transitional fossil, the gognasus andrewsae. We haven't seen Slam in a little while. I think you may have scared him off with this Scitso. I can only hope. He has served his purpose for me, I don't really need to vent much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 I'm currently reading through a review now and there seem to be some big problems right from the start. He's made some odd statements which are, simply, not true. I'm not sure if this "all matter is expanding" thing was being suggested as a way for the world to have cooled faster but, the laws of thermal transfer we're worked out in the present state of affairs, which would still be expanding. The rates we have worked out, would be taking this into account already and the only way for the creation scientist to use this would be to make another ridiculous assumption that this rate had changed, without any corroberating evidense, in much the same way as they say about nuclear decay rates. Hmm, when I read his book I didn't get the feeling he was trying to gel his theory with any creationist argument. It seemed to me he was trying to unify realitivity and quantum mechanics by turning the way we look at the world upside down. Like "Imagine if we've been thinking about this all wrong...what if everything was expanding just like the universe?" He claims it better describes gravity and planetary orbits, why light can slow down in water but return to normal speed after exiting it, and where a magnet derives its "enegry" from. I bought the book because, honestly, I had never thought about some of the arguments he makes. Such as how gravity can work without an apparent enegry source too. But alas, I had alot of trouble trying to visualize his discriptions, and I have no choice but to skip any chapter with math in it. I finished the book more confused than before I saw it on the shelf. But I don't think it was a creationist book. If it was, it was cleverly disguised, it made absoultly no reference to any god or miracles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted November 30, 2006 Author Share Posted November 30, 2006 Hmm, when I read his book I didn't get the feeling he was trying to gel his theory with any creationist argument. It seemed to me he was trying to unify realitivity and quantum mechanics by turning the way we look at the world upside down. Like "Imagine if we've been thinking about this all wrong...what if everything was expanding just like the universe?" He claims it better describes gravity and planetary orbits, why light can slow down in water but return to normal speed after exiting it, and where a magnet derives its "enegry" from. I bought the book because, honestly, I had never thought about some of the arguments he makes. Such as how gravity can work without an apparent enegry source too. But alas, I had alot of trouble trying to visualize his discriptions, and I have no choice but to skip any chapter with math in it. I finished the book more confused than before I saw it on the shelf. But I don't think it was a creationist book. If it was, it was cleverly disguised, it made absoultly no reference to any god or miracles. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was creationist stuff, I've just seen a lot of arguments attempting to use this sort of idea as such and wanted to knock it on the head right away. I haven't been able to read the whole thing, but the general concensus amungst the physics comunity seems to be that its an interesting idea, and always good, to look at it all from a different viewpoint, but that it doesn't really make any real breakthrough's and won't be changing the face of science in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted December 13, 2006 Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 Okay, this is getting silly. Is there not a single "creation scientist" here????? not one??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Okay, this is getting silly. Is there not a single "creation scientist" here????? not one??????? Maybe they can't respond because "creation scientist" is a contradiction of terms? Maybe they go by some other name? It looks like Slam has left the building too, and that seems to have been the best we were able to get. Hmm... It is suprising to not hear from any when you consider how "many" there are supposed to be. I just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted December 13, 2006 Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 Hmm... It is suprising to not hear from any when you consider how "many" there are supposed to be. That was half the point of starting the thread. I wanted to know if there was even one on here anywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Blake Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 The problem for creationism is that they have no evidence so apart from trying to make some up, it's down to trying to prove science is wrong. This is not hard for them because most creationists seem to have little if any education and will believe whatever utter nonsense they are told. A nut on a site I was on earlier insists on a different earlier universe with a speed of light enormously faster (for old light) than it is today, but it doesn't work out. Such a thing could result in the Earth freezing every night as it almost instantly irradiated away it's heat in the form of infra-red radiation into space. Even stars could go out, by losing too much heat by radiation. Most things would become transparent because of the very high energy of such photons, which our eyes would not stop anyway. And most radioactives materials would have decayed so quickly and violently that they reached critical mass and went bang! Typical of creationists, he has offered no proof and just keeps repeating the same old, same old, with insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts