t f p g+ YouTube icon

Multiple Lines of Evidence for an Old Universe

Bookmark and Share

April 26, 2013 Tags: Earth, Universe & Time

Today's entry was written by Deborah Haarsma and Loren Haarsma. You can read more about what we believe here.

Multiple Lines of Evidence for an Old Universe

Note: In this excerpt from chapter seven of the book Origins, the Haarsmas review some of the scientific evidence for the age of the universe.

The dynamic changes and developments in the universe have been going on for a long time. In chapter 5 we described how geologists, over the past three centuries, have accumulated many kinds of evidence from rocks that the earth is billions of years old. In a similar fashion, over the past century astronomers have studied planets, stars, and galaxies and have found many strands of evidence that the universe is billions of years old. This consensus of astronomers is based on many independent measurements and has stood the test of time, a good indication that these results are reliable. In this section we’ll describe some of this evidence for the great age of the universe.

Evidence from the Size of the Universe

We’ve already discussed the vastness of the universe earlier in this chapter. We noted that the most distant galaxies are over 10 billion light years away, indicating that the light left these galaxies over 10 billion years ago in order to reach us today. The straightforward interpretation of these data is that the universe must be at least 10 billion years old.

While some people have argued that perhaps these galaxies aren’t really that far away, all of the methods used to measure distance agree that galaxies are billions, not thousands, of light years away. Others have argued that perhaps the light moved much faster when it first left these galaxies, so that it could reach us in much less time than 10 billion years. But this idea conflicts with other data that we have. As described in Chapter 3, ample evidence supports the idea that physical processes such as quantum mechanics and electromagnetism function the same way in distant galaxies as they do on earth. Those physical processes depend on the speed of light and would look very different if the speed of light had changed. Instead, they look the same in distant galaxies as they do on earth, indicating that the speed of light has been constant over the history of the universe.

Evidence from the Moon and Planets

Studies of the Moon and planets also give evidence for great age. Geologists can use some of the same methods to measure the age of rocks on the Moon, Venus, and Mars as they use on Earth. That’s because the asteroid collisions, volcanoes, and erosion they observe on Earth also occur on the Moon and planets. Photos taken by spacecraft while orbiting Mars show channels and gullies on the planet’s surface. Similar channels on Earth are usually made by flowing water. Yet there is no liquid water on the surface of Mars right now.

What does this have to do with age? It is evidence that Mars was much different in the past than it is today. The atmosphere used to be much thicker and warmer, similar to Earth’s, but now it is much colder and thinner. This dramatic change in planet-wide climate took millions or billions of years. Thus the rocks testify that the planet Mars must be at least this old.

Evidence from the Orbits of Asteroids

The orbits of asteroids also show evidence of a long history. When an asteroid is discovered, its path through the sky shows its orbit around the Sun. Once astronomers know the orbit of an asteroid they can calculate its orbit in the past and into the future to see whether it will hit the earth. By calculating the orbits backward, astronomers have found several asteroids that converged at the same location several million years ago. Apparently two larger asteroids collided at this spot and shattered into the smaller asteroids we see today. If God had created asteroids just a few thousand years ago, why would he have put them in orbits that suggest a collision several million years ago? The evidence clearly points to a long history for asteroids.

Evidence from Meteorites

Radiometric dating is used to study rocks on Earth as well as rocks from elsewhere in the solar system. Studies have been done on the rocks that astronauts brought back from the Moon and on asteroids that have fallen to Earth. As with Earth rocks, scientists use multiple radioactive isotopes to cross-check age measurements. At least three different isotopes have been used to measure the age of Moon rocks, and at least five different radioactive isotopes have been used to measure the age of meteorites. The results all agree: the oldest Moon rocks and asteroids are 4.6 billion years old. This is our best measure of the age of the solar system as a whole. The universe itself must be at least this old.

Evidence from Star Clusters

Another important measure of age in the universe comes from star clusters. Because all stars in a star cluster form in the same nebula at about the same time, they all have about the same “birthday.” But they don’t all have the same lifespan. High-mass stars burn bright and fast like a “flash in the pan,” while low-mass stars burn slowly and steadily. Consider how this will look in a star cluster. A cluster starts with many stars with the same birthday but of all different masses. Over time the high-mass stars die off first, leaving behind the low-mass stars. This means that if many high-mass stars are present, the cluster must be young because they haven’t burned out yet. If most of the stars are low-mass, the cluster must be old. Careful studies of star clusters show that some clusters are younger and some are older, with the oldest ones having an age of about 12 billion years.

Multiple Lines of Evidence

The most distant galaxies, the planets and asteroids of our own solar system, and the oldest star clusters all are several billion years old. Astronomers have many different methods for measuring the age of various objects, and they all support ages of billions of years, not thousands. Even if the assumptions of one or two methods were faulty, it is highly unlikely that all of the methods would be affected. Like the geologists in the 1700s, astronomers today have found multiple lines of evidence against a young earth and young universe.

It may seem as though we are once again describing a conflict between science and theology. Scientific results that indicate great age do conflict with the Young-Earth Interpretation of Genesis 1 discussed in chapter 5. But remember that in chapters 5 and 6 we presented many other interpretations of Genesis 1; several of these are not in conflict with the great age found in the book of nature. In chapter 6 we also explained why we believe that the best biblical scholarship, quite independent of modern science, indicates that Genesis 1 was never meant to convey scientific information to the original audience. Its intent for the first listeners, and for us, is to teach the who and why of creation, not the how and when. Taken in this context, there is no conflict between Genesis 1 and the astronomical evidence for great age.

For background on related topics (like the reliability of historical science and interpretations of Genesis), see previous excerpts from this series.

Excerpt from Chapter 7 of Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources), 2011. Reprinted with permission. To purchase a copy of the book or e-book, call 1-800-333-8300 or visit www.faithaliveresources.org.

Want a free copy of Origins?  For a limited time, donations of $50 or more will receive a  copy of the book! Plus, from now through April, your gift will be doubled thanks to a matching grant from a generous donor. You can learn more here.

 


Deborah Haarsma serves as President of The BioLogos Foundation, a position she has held since January 2013. Previously, she served as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Gifted in interpreting complex scientific topics for lay audiences, Dr. Haarsma often speaks to churches, colleges, and schools about the relationships between science and Christian faith. She is author (along with her husband Loren Haarsma) of Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (2011, 2007), a book presenting the agreements and disagreements of Christians regarding the history of life and the universe. Haarsma is an experienced research scientist, with several publications in the Astrophysical Journal and the Astronomical Journal on extragalactic astronomy and cosmology.
Loren Haarsma earned a Ph.D. in physics from Harvard University and did five years of postdoctoral research in neuroscience in Boston and in Philadelphia. He began teaching physics at Calvin College in 1999. His current scientific research is studying the activity of ion channels in nerve cells and other cell types, and computer modeling of self-organized complexity in biology and in economics. He studies and writes on topics at the intersection of science and faith, and co-authored Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design with his wife, Deborah.

< Previous post in series Next post in series >


View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 1 of 1   1
lancelot10 - #79133

April 26th 2013

Deborah - there are multiple lines of evidence for a young universe.    Radio metric dating is not accurate in the slightest - we can easily see on the internet massive inconsistencies - such as 200 year old lava being dated at 1.2 billion years.

Polonium rings show that granite was never molten which is the big deflation of the big bang.  Even untrained people wonder at the compression of the whole universe into a tiny dot which supposedly spun until it exploded - notwithstanding the theory of angular momentum which states that if this happened all bodies should spin in the same direction - they dont.

Riemannian time calculates a maximum 15 years for light to reach the earth assuming that it never travelled faster in the past.  But over the last 300 years time has been slowing down - plotting a curved graph 

Russian cosmologist, V. S. Troitskii, at the Radiophysical Research Institute in Gorky, also questioned some old beliefs. He concluded, independently of Setterfield, that most red shifts of distant starlight are the result of the slowing speed of light, and at the beginning the speed of light was 10 billion times faster at time zero!

The evidence of the asteroids is conjecture - anyway their should be no ice comets circling the sun if the universe was billions of years old.

The age of the universe can be found closer to home - eg the cosmic dust on the moon is too thin as are the ocean sediments for billions of years.   Since carbon dating of the sediments is showing a young earth this does not fit with an old universe.  Why would diamonds and fossils show only a few thousand years of C14.    

Mt St Helens lava dating at 1 million years ????   There is not enough salt in the sea for a million years let alone 4.5 billion years at current rates starting with freshwater.

The age of the universe is linked to the age of the sediments so if the sediments are young - showing “fossils” of fresh organic matter and sinews, ligaments , bone protein then = young earth and this = young universe.

He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent Psalm 104:2

By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place. Proverbs 3:19
 

All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scrollall the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree. Isaiah 34:4

How will Isaiah prophecy come true ???



Lou Jost - #79215

April 28th 2013

All of these old creationist points are rebutted countless times on the internet and in the scientific literature, and even in the Christian literature. See www.talkorigins.org to get started, and especially read a book about geological dating. It is not magic and has to be used carefully, like any advanced technique, but different decay sequences generally give coincident dates for a given specimen, and the dates generally are consistent with stratigraphy. Moon rocks were dated by many different techniques and all came out with the same age.


marklynn.buchanan - #79217

April 28th 2013

lancelot10,

It is unusual to find someone still using the ‘lack of moon dust’ argument. 20 years ago the argument was abandoned by many young earth creationists. Two prominent YEC organizations have (almost) identical articles posted on their web sites here and here for CMI & AIG respectively. [The articles are identical except for the claim of the renamed Australian organization in the second paragraph. This seem to be a result of the breakup of the two organizations in 2005.]

Some of the arguments you mention I haven’t seen before - like the one about Riemannian time. Is there a reference for this one?

Mark


Seenoevo - #79223

April 28th 2013

Many years ago, while moving out of an apartment, some friends who were helping me clean out found what looked like “dated” stuff in my refrigerator, including some old eggs. They happened to crack the eggs open and found they were completely dried out inside.

We all had a good laugh at the expense of the domestically-challenged bachelor (me).

I recalled that episode when reading about another egg recently. And I sent out these observations in an email titled

 “Time in a bottle.” Infinity in an egg?

Scientists thought they understood fairly well the process of fossilization and the time frame in which it could occur. In fact, they still do, to some extent. Here are three fairly recent bits about fossilization time that I found:

1) “The fossilization process takes at least 10,000 years …”

http://chemistry.about.com/od/howthingsworkfaqs/f/Why-Are-Shark-Teeth-Black.htm

2) “the research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological molecules could survive.”

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

3) “The chemical changes generally occur very slowly over a span of several hundred years and involve the inorganic part of the bone, the mineral hydroxyapatite … We don’t know how long it took for fossilization of the Stegosaurus skeleton to occur. Experimental work I have conducted has shown that the process does not necessarily take very long … Under ideal situations, a dinosaur could be fossilized in only a few years.” [from article in The Journal of Paleontological Sciences titled “How to Make a Fossil: Part 1– Fossilizing Bone”, by Kenneth Carpenter, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Denver Museum of Nature &Science]

 

And yet, out in the wild, without benefit of modern cryonics or hermetic-sealing, they find soft, un-fossilized, organic remains in a dinosaur egg said to be 190 million years old!

http://crev.info/2013/04/protein-found-in-dinosaur-eggs/

What a surprise!! ? How wrong those scientists were! So wrong about… about… fossilization!

Question: Why does the science establishment (and the mass media) automatically presume that their prior knowledge (with scientific consensus, no less) was woefully and wildly inaccurate regarding fossilization timing?

Follow-up question:  Could they be wrong about something else instead? In other words, why doesn’t anyone in the science establishment (or in the mass media) even consider asking the question:

“Maybe this dino egg isn’t really 190 million years old?

 

P.S.

Also see old news about “younger” fossils: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html


Seenoevo - #79268

April 29th 2013

Lou Jest and PNG,

Can you explain for me, and perhaps for other interested readers, the lack of fossilization inside the allegedly 190 million year-old dinosaur egg and the allegedly 70 million year-old dinosaur bones (see above), in your own words.

You may credit scientific/academic sources in your response, but again, please distill the research down to your own words.

Thanks in advance.

Also, in my reading, I haven’t seen where the scientists performed Carbon-14 testing of these inards. If they haven’t, why not?

On second thought, maybe they figure what’s the point? Any Carbon-14 detected would just be attributed to “contamination”. The way diamonds, and just about any really old stuff (i.e. greater than 50K years), gets “contaminated” by C-14.

I think C-14 might get my vote for the most powerful, most invasive thing in the entire universe (animate and inanimate)!


Lou Jost - #79273

April 29th 2013

You show only sarcasm, no real interest. I can’t waste time on that.


melanogaster - #79281

April 29th 2013

“Can you explain for me, and perhaps for other interested readers, the lack of fossilization inside the allegedly 190 million year-old dinosaur egg and the allegedly 70 million year-old dinosaur bones (see above), in your own words.”

That would be stupid, because they are still fossilized. You’d know that if you had the courage to go to primary sources.

Why are you continuing your cowardly parlor trick of demanding that evidence be reduced to rhetoric? Why is your faith so fragile that you fear the evidence? Dr. Schweitzer has a faith that is far more robust than yours and Eddie’s:

“Schweitzer’s first forays into paleontology were “a total hook,” she says. Not only was she fascinated by the science, but to her, digging into ancient strata seemed like reading the history of God’s handiwork. Schweitzer worships at two churches—an evangelical church in Montana and a nondenominational one when she is back home in North Carolina—and when she talks about her faith, her bristly demeanor falls away. “God is so multidimensional,” she says. “I see a sense of humor. I see His compassion in the world around me. It makes me curious, because the creator is revealed in the creation.” Unlike many creationists, she finds the notion of a world evolving over billions of years theologically exhilarating: “That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop.””

I agree with her. Why is your God so tiny? Why do you prefer to learn about God’s handiwork from people instead of from His evidence in nature? What are you afraid of?

“You may credit scientific/academic sources in your response, but again, please distill the research down to your own words.”

Why? Because you’re afraid to see the scientific evidence for yourself? Your fear and lack of faith are obvious because you limit yourself to tertiary sources when the primary sources are easy to find.


Lou Jost - #79274

April 29th 2013

Did a very large segment of today’s comments just get deleted between lancelot and PNG and I? I spent a lot of time on them, as did PNG and lancelot. What happened?


Lou Jost - #79275

April 29th 2013

That large block of comments from today is still gone. That is very disturbing. I can’t imagine it was deliberate. Was it?


Seenoevo - #79282

April 29th 2013

I’m pleased that this article/blog is about time, and not specifically about evolution per se.

I’m pleased because time is the last leg standing for the topsy-turvy table of evolution.

The other table legs of biology, genetics, and paleontology have gotten increasingly wobbly as the cases they try to make have become no stronger and real science advancements actually make evolution look ever more improbable. They just look… well, unscientific, to be kind.

But time, deep time, who can argue with that?  So, the “argument” appears to become: “Given enough time, well, who knows? Virtually anything is possible, if given enough time.”

Now, I don’t surprise easily, after years of reading about the many problems/issues/questions in astronomy and cosmology – all that time and space kind of stuff.

But I have to admit I was taken aback recently when I read that most of the spacey science establishment (or at least most physicists) questions the very existence of time itself! This is a controversy which was news to me.

“Is time real, or the ultimate illusion? Most physicists would say the latter, but Lee Smolin challenges this orthodoxy in his new book, “Time Reborn” … [Smolin] argued for the controversial idea that time is real.”

http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html

 

Perhaps given enough time, time will become real.


Seenoevo - #79283

April 29th 2013

Lou Jest,

You responded that you won’t answer my questions by saying “You [Seenoevo] show only sarcasm, no real interest. I can’t waste time on that.”

I can assure you, as a man of honor, that I indeed have real interest in these matters. Perhaps you think I’m crazy. I would have to be crazy to spend as much time and effort as I do here and not be interested. But I’m not crazy.

And I have a feeling you knew I was really interested. I suspect the “sarcasm” remark, though. Apparently, in your view, either

1) “Sarcasm” wins. Any question or argument, no matter how valid or invalid, shall not be confronted, if it’s perceived to be posed with “sarcasm”. “Sarcasm” gets the last word, or the last laugh. Or

2) Screaming “sarcasm!” is like shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater: The shouter gets everyone to head for the exits. Show over, ‘cause shouter says so. “Sarcasm!” serves as an out, as an “honorable” avoidance. Or a stately smokescreen.

But I haven’t headed for the exits. You had no fire, and I like to see movies to the end.

Too bad I’m the only one left in the theater.

 

P.S.

It’s a good mystery movie, too, even if the title’s a bit long:

“Why the lack of fossilization inside the allegedly 190 million year-old dinosaur egg and inside the allegedly 70 million year-old dinosaur bones?”


beaglelady - #79286

April 30th 2013

It’s best to not feed the trolls. Attention is what they crave.   If BioLogos wants to become a troll site, that is their option.


Seenoevo - #79355

May 1st 2013

Some might say the “science” for an old universe (and for evolution) is all about the “evidence”. These same folks usually seem to assume that sound conclusions naturally and immediately follow from the “evidence”. They seem to place little if any emphasis on examining and validating the quality of the logic, of the arguments, which in reality are needed to take one from the “evidence” to the conclusion.

Evidently, they even say things like “Why are you continuing your cowardly parlor trick of demanding that evidence be reduced to rhetoric? Why is your faith so fragile that you fear the evidence?”

Personally, I have no fear of any evidence. However, I do have concerns over how “evidence” is used or interpreted. Similarly, I have no fear, in fact, no one has any fear, of firearms. What concerns people really is how those firearms are used. [I don’t fear my Beretta PX4 Storm. In fact, I like it!]

Even use of the term “evidence” is at least partly prejudicial (hence my use of ” ” above). It presumes a position. “Evidence” means ‘something in support of a certain position or conclusion.’ I think instead of the incessant use of the term “evidence”, scientists should more often use “data”, “observations”, “results”.

Oh, but ‘Look at the evidence! Look at the evidence!’

How about we look at the quality of the arguments which magically convert data into “evidence”?

How about we look at this article. An interesting piece on the place of “evidence” and “argument” in science:

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-science-argument-professor.html

P.S.

I think there’s no shortage of data produced by telescopes and microscopes and                trowels.

I think there’s a shortage of quality control over what’s produced by our brains.

P.P.S.

The last three articles on BioLogos don’t allow comments. Perhaps the site format is being changed to more of a one-way presentation.


melanogaster - #79411

May 2nd 2013

“Some might say the “science” for an old universe (and for evolution) is all about the “evidence”.”

Yes. Others, like you, don’t seem to (or don’t want to out of fear) understand what basic terms mean.

“These same folks usually seem to assume that sound conclusions naturally and immediately follow from the “evidence”.”

Dude, buy yourself a clue. Sound conclusions (hypotheses) accurately predict new evidence before we have the evidence. It’s the prediction part that scares you to death.

“They seem to place little if any emphasis on examining and validating the quality of the logic, of the arguments, which in reality are needed to take one from the “evidence” to the conclusion.”

This is laughable. The way we validate is by using the arguments (hypotheses) to predict new evidence. The idea that it’s not recursive is just insane, but it’s fear of predicting that’s driving you to make such an insane claim.

“Evidently, they even say things like “Why are you continuing your cowardly parlor trick of demanding that evidence be reduced to rhetoric? Why is your faith so fragile that you fear the evidence?””

And you can’t answer. Odd, that.

“Personally, I have no fear of any evidence.”

Yet you ran away from Figure 1 of the coelacanth paper with your tail between your legs, falsely claiming that it was an artist’s interpretation.

“However, I do have concerns over how “evidence” is used or interpreted.”

Me too. That’s why arguments (hypotheses) are used by real scientists to predict evidence we don’t have yet. It keeps us honest. Your position that there’s only a simple derivation of a conclusion from evidence is utterly dishonest from my perspective. It demonstrates a complete lack of faith.

“Similarly, I have no fear, in fact, no one has any fear, of firearms. What concerns people really is how those firearms are used. [I don’t fear my Beretta PX4 Storm. In fact, I like it!]”

I’m sure you do.

“Even use of the term “evidence” is at least partly prejudicial (hence my use of ” ” above). It presumes a position. “Evidence” means ‘something in support of a certain position or conclusion.’”

No, not in science. In the real world, we’re actively looking for evidence that does not support a certain position. It’s called hypothesis testing. You’re afraid of all of the evidence. You have no faith.

“I think instead of the incessant use of the term “evidence”, scientists should more often use “data”, “observations”, “results”.”

Those are completely interchangeable terms. Let’s look at the data graphed in Figure 1 of the coelacanth paper, then.

“How about we look at the quality of the arguments which magically convert data into “evidence”?”

No arguments convert data into evidence, magically or otherwise. The terms are equivalent.

“How about we look at this article. An interesting piece on the place of “evidence” and “argument” in science”

Maybe you should look at it! Maybe you could parse these bits into creationist:
“Science education should follow suit, says Stanford education Professor Jonathan Osborne. Teachers should help students learn to ARGUE A POSITION FROM AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, he says, helping them learn why we know what we know…A key practice, the report reads, is “engaging in ARGUMENT FROM EVIDENCE.”

Why do you endorse that article, but reject arguing from evidence, Seeno? What they are saying is that you should be able to argue your position from data, but we both know you can’t. That’s why you reject data in favor of rhetoric. If you disagree, make a creationist argument from the evidence in Figure 1 of the coelacanth paper. Explain the lengths of the horizontal lines in the graph.

“I think there’s no shortage of data produced by telescopes and microscopes and trowels.”

And DNA sequencers, but you’re afraid of those data.

“I think there’s a shortage of quality control over what’s produced by our brains.”

Which explains why you want data converted to rhetoric…


Seenoevo - #79436

May 3rd 2013

“Others, like you, don’t seem to (or don’t want to out of fear) understand what basic terms mean.”

Basic terms like “hypotheses”?

I’ve read  

1) “Sound conclusions (hypotheses)”, but also

2) “the arguments (hypotheses)”

I always thought conclusions were different from arguments, and that both were different from hypotheses. And I thought if a hypothesis, or the thorough and successful testing of a hypothesis, ever led to sound conclusions, then the hypothesis would be promoted to a theory.

Now I’m not sure what the difference is between basic terms like conclusion, argument, hypothesis, theory. Maybe they’re synonymous? I fear I really am confused.

 

“Why do you endorse that article, but reject arguing from evidence, Seeno?”

Why do you reject arguing from evidence, melanogaster? Every time I ask you to make your case, you just say “Go look at the evidence!” That’s not an argument. That’s a cop-out. That’s not what a good teacher would do. The infidels (non-evolutionists) are in dire need of evolutionary instruction. But so far, your syllabus just reads “Go look it up yourself. The data is all there and that data will lead you to a sound conclusion, to proof beyond any reasonable doubt as to why that data exists. Enjoy. Remember, learning should be fun. Have a nice day.”

 

“You have no faith.”

I disagree. I think everyone has faith of some sort. Even the atheist. He has faith that there is no God.

However, I will grant you this much: Your faith is much greater than mine.

Or, stated differently, you’ve taken a much greater leap of faith than me.


melanogaster - #79440

May 3rd 2013

“Basic terms like “hypotheses”?”

And “evidence.” It’s synonymous with “data.”

“And I thought if a hypothesis, or the thorough and successful testing of a hypothesis, ever led to sound conclusions, then the hypothesis would be promoted to a theory.”

No, you don’t think very well. A long track record of successful predictions (making empirical predictions relating to evolution scares you to death) is what promotes a hypothesis to theory. The conclusions are wrapped up in the hypothesis.

If you’d like to learn about something not relating (much) to evolution, try the prion hypothesis, introduced by Stan Prusiner in 1982. Of course, contrary to your picture, he did so along with the new evidence that prompted it. Did Stan sit back and argue about existing evidence (your phony picture), or did he and many other people produce mountains of new evidence (reality)?

“I fear I really am confused.”

You always were, as well as afraid.

Start with the evidence. Formulate a hypothesis. Test the empirical predictions of your hypothesis. Change or abandon the hypothesis if the predictions aren’t correct. Repeat, even if your data are consistent with your hypothesis.

“Why do you reject arguing from evidence, melanogaster? Every time I ask you to make your case, you just say “Go look at the evidence!””

That’s a blatant lie, Seeno. Here’s what I wrote in reality:

1) “Then read the Figure 1 legend and ask me intelligent questions that show your ability and willingness to learn, reason, and engage in dialog.”

2) “Then ask questions instead of demanding an essay.”

3) “The evidence has already been distilled to a graphical form. The opposite of distillation is required on your part, which in turn requires engaging with the evidence.”

4) “You can even do one [a trial] of your own! Are you ready or afraid?”

Not a single one of those is remotely close to the words you put inside quotation marks and dishonestly attributed to me. I proposed that we discuss the evidence. You falsely claimed that the evidence was just interpretation. What is wrong with you?

“That’s not an argument. That’s a cop-out.”

It would be, but I didn’t say that. Why are you lying?

“That’s not what a good teacher would do.”

I agree. But we both know that I didn’t do that. A good teacher walks students through the evidence. But you’re falsely claiming that a graph of the data is an artist’s rendition.

“The infidels (non-evolutionists) are in dire need of evolutionary instruction. But so far, your syllabus just reads “Go look it up yourself. The data is all there and that data will lead you to a sound conclusion, to proof beyond any reasonable doubt as to why that data exists. Enjoy. Remember, learning should be fun. Have a nice day.””

Repeating your lie in different forms doesn’t make it true. Nor does putting something I didn’t say in quotation marks. Nor does putting your lie in bold type. It only makes it clear that you intend to deceive.

What kind of Christian fabricates quotes? What kind of tiny God would need you to lie for Him?


beaglelady - #79451

May 3rd 2013

Reminds me of the Avengers movie where the Hulk calls Loki a “puny god”! 


Page 1 of 1   1