Education Intelligent Design science education theistic evolution

BioLogos is marketing theistic evolution and “consensus science” to Christian schools

Spread the love

A reader writes to mention this program:

BioLogos INTEGRATE is a resource for exploring biology from a Christian worldview. It presents consensus science in conversation with biblical faith. Designed for classroom teachers and home educators, INTEGRATE can be used alongside any biology curriculum, or even on its own. The content emphasizes virtues such as wonder, humility, and wisdom. It also addresses common questions and concerns related to bioethics, creation care, origins, and other topics. INTEGRATE helps Christian young people grow in their faith in Christ, as they develop a deeper love and stronger understanding of the world God has made. Integrate

Consensus science? In an age of Sokal hoaxes and scandals and wars on math, and science, where the “consensus” is slowly morphing toward destruction?

But yup. And with a straight face too.

In the real world, this is not the time to be buying into “consensus” but to be advocating reform.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

See also: “Avalanche” of retractions of research papers on spider personalities. It will be interesting to see what impact the retractions have on claims about the evolution of animal behavior.

65 Replies to “BioLogos is marketing theistic evolution and “consensus science” to Christian schools

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Like every other characteristic of organizations, this was described sharply and completely by Parkinson.

    The law of convergence: When an organization reaches a certain size, it converges to the current fashion and loses the UNIQUE purpose that drove its founders to start an organization.

  2. 2
    Ed George says:

    Consensus science? In an age of Sokal hoaxes and scandals and wars on math, and science, where the “consensus” is slowly morphing toward destruction?

    Yet it has given us nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, insulin, heart transplants, chemistry, agricultural practices, safe air transit, … I think I will stick with the current scientific process until something better comes along.

  3. 3

    .
    How many of those things required the socio-political assumption that matter is all there is, Ed?

    None of them.

  4. 4
    Truthfreedom says:

    @Upright Biped

    None of them.

    True. None. But materialism is a cult. Critical thinking is not welcome.

    “Naturalism cannot escape its own epistemological nightmare—a nightmare directly caused, not by natural science itself, but by illicitly attempting to identify natural science with the false philosophy of materialism.
    Dr. Dennis Bonnette

    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

  5. 5
    Ed George says:

    UB

    How many of those things required the socio-political assumption that matter is all there is, Ed?

    Neither does evolution, so I fail to see your point.

  6. 6
  7. 7
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    @Ed George #2

    And vaccines. Don’t forget vaccines.
    They work way better than prayer.

  8. 8

    .
    Edward Jenner was a theist, by the way.

  9. 9
    Truthfreedom says:

    And vaccines. Don’t forget vaccines.
    They work way better than prayer.

    Non-overlapping magisteria.
    Vaccines –> to stimulate the immune system.
    Prayer –> to stimulate spiritual life.

  10. 10
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    @Truthfreedom #9
    “Non-overlapping magisteria”

    Aren’t YOU the overlap?

  11. 11
    ET says:

    “Ed George”

    Yet it has given us nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, insulin, heart transplants, chemistry, agricultural practices, safe air transit, … I think I will stick with the current scientific process until something better comes along.

    The “current scientific process” has nothing to do with evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. It has nothing to do with materialism, naturalism nor physicalism.

  12. 12
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    @ET #11

    That a process is “blind and mindless” has nothing to do with whether it can create something new.

    Sunlight and water vapor are blind and mindless, but together they can create a rainbow.

    CHECKMATE, ET !!!!!

  13. 13
    Truthfreedom says:

    @13 Pater Kimbridge

    Sunlight and water vapor are blind and mindless, but together they can create a rainbow.

    What does exist in ‘Nature’ that it is not “blind and mindless”? (So you can make this comparison?)

    Regarding the non-overlapping magisteria, was that a serious question?

  14. 14
    AaronS1978 says:

    Edward Jenner wasn’t just a theist, he was a Christian who worried people wouldn’t recognize that god had work through him to provide the vaccine

    Alex Fleming was a Catholic and all he provided was antibiotics

    And Louie Pasteur was a Christian type that did so sciency stuff too

    Turns outs science provided their contributions and certainly not them or their world view

  15. 15
    Ed George says:

    Aaron1978

    Edward Jenner wasn’t just a theist, he was a Christian who worried people wouldn’t recognize that god had work through him to provide the vaccine

    But wouldn’t a better question be why god felt it necessary to design viruses that have killed millions of people in the first place?

  16. 16
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Sunlight and water vapor are blind and mindless, but together they can create a rainbow.

    Snowflakes and wind get together and then they create snow drifts.

  17. 17
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    But wouldn’t a better question be why god felt it necessary to design viruses that have killed millions of people in the first place?

    It’s always a good idea to learn about God’s design and the divine order.

  18. 18
    AaronS1978 says:

    Well there’s a lot of different reasons why God would create something like that, viruses are not random and there is no such thing as blind random processes everything follows rules

    Viruses have been known for quite some time to be essential to creating bio diversity between species

    Furthermore, just because something doesn’t make sense to us at this point, doesn’t mean it won’t make sense to us later on down the line

    So what might seem as something horrific now actually might’ve been useful later down the line

    Point in case the black plague produced people that are immune to HIV

    There also seems to be some other things that shaped our history right afterwards those events that got us to where we are today

    But thats the way I look at it, just because I don’t understand its function at this point doesn’t mean I won’t later, nor does it mean that it didn’t have a purpose or reason for existence in the first place

    Human beings living endlessly and without limitation is just as bad, if not worse, than a virus that kills a large group of people, endless life with no death comes with its own brand suffering.

    Ps. One virus might kill a million people Edward Jenner’s vaccine has saved close to 3 millions of people,
    And we have been able to progress further and faster because of that discovery. And we are better for it

  19. 19
    BobRyan says:

    Ed George and those like him tend to ignore process for consensus. The scientific method requires something to be observed and replicated. Macro-evolution has never been observed. Not one person can point to a single experiment to show successful replication. Pointing at fossils and micro-evolution has nothing to do with macro-evolution. No matter how many ways it’s phrased, or how animated they get, there is still no actual evidence to support their theory.

    Biologist Richard Lenski spent 30 years studying e. Coli, which started in 1988. They were looking for evidence of macro-evolution and watched over 60,000 generations, which is the equivalent of 1,000,000 years to humans. The reason he shut it down was the lack of a single generation that was genetically something different from e. Coli. He was searching for evidence to support his belief and failed.

    https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-a-30-year-experiment-has-fundamentally-changed-our-view-of-how

  20. 20
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Pater Kimbridge: Sunlight and water vapor are blind and mindless, but together they can create a rainbow.

    Truthfreedom: What does exist in ‘Nature’ that it is not “blind and mindless”? (So you can make this comparison?)

    The key point is that science cannot indicate that sunlight and water vapor operate from mindless processes, or even that they are blind and mindless entities themselves.
    That’s why it is not possible to know that evolution is blind and mindless (assuming that it even occurs as described).

  21. 21
    ET says:

    Pater K:

    Sunlight and water vapor are blind and mindless, but together they can create a rainbow.

    Sunlight and water vapor exist because they were intelligently designed. Blind and mindless processes did not create either.

  22. 22
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie, strawman maker:

    But wouldn’t a better question be why god felt it necessary to design viruses that have killed millions of people in the first place?

    Who says that is what happened? Why can’t it be that random changes in the viruses did that- caused them to be lethal?

  23. 23
    ET says:

    The “current scientific process” has nothing to do with evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. It has nothing to do with materialism, naturalism nor physicalism.

    That is just a fact. And I understand why it upsets some people who post here.

  24. 24
    Ed George says:

    BR

    Macro-evolution has never been observed.

    We have never observed plate tectonics creating a mountain either. We have never observed an electron. Why do some find it necessary to apply a burden of proof to evolution that they don’t apply to other fields of science?

  25. 25
    asauber says:

    “Why do some find it necessary to apply a burden of proof to evolution that they don’t apply to other fields of science?”

    Ed,

    Which burden of proof do you always require?

    Andrew

  26. 26
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    We have never observed plate tectonics creating a mountain either.

    And at the rate they are moving it may not have.

    Why do some find it necessary to apply a burden of proof to evolution that they don’t apply to other fields of science?

    Science mandates that the claims be testable. The existence of electrons can be tested. It is NOT our fault that the claims of unguided evolution cannot be tested.

    But then again you do not seem to understand science.

  27. 27
    awstar says:

    Pater Kimbridge @ 12

    Sunlight and water vapor are blind and mindless, but together they can create a rainbow.

    That can only be discerned by a soul with a mind in a body with eyes?

  28. 28
    Truthfreedom says:

    @20 Silver Asiatic

    That’s why it is not possible to know that evolution is blind and mindless (assuming that it even occurs as described).

    Then, why do they (evolutionists) insist? Are they ignorant? Or just evil?
    Probably both?
    It seems to me that *fuzzy* terminology (“natural selection”, “randomness”, “deep time”) is being used as a gaslightning technique?
    “Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic in which a person, to gain power and control, plants seeds of uncertainty in the victim. The self-doubt and constant skepticism slowly and meticulously cause the individual to question their reality.

    *”‘Evolution or you are mentally insane!”*

  29. 29
    AaronS1978 says:

    Well all I have to say is that when a theory Requires you to abandon your perception as an illusion, that there might be some wrong with that theory

    Richard Dawkins had to set the narrative that the appearance of design in nature is an illusion, and it bothered me a lot that he had to set that narrative in the first place

  30. 30
    Ed George says:

    AaronS1978

    Well all I have to say is that when a theory Requires you to abandon your perception as an illusion, that there might be some wrong with that theory

    But if we didn’t abandon our perception as an illusion we would still believe that the earth was the centre of the universe.

  31. 31
    AaronS1978 says:

    I don’t believe we abandon our perceptions when we discovered that the world Was not the center of the universe and that our solar system was heliocentric

    I would say that’s more in line with just being mistaken or having misinterpreted the Bible

    In fact it was a Catholic Cleric Copernicus that brought it up followed by telescopic evidence from Galileo

    Now on the flipside the theory of evolution challenges the very perception which we perceive our entire world

    We have to abandon the very thing that we used to interpret the world, it is the very thing that enables us to do science

    So if our perceptions were user illusions based for fitness survival, then we honestly wouldn’t have discovered that our solar system was Heliocentric and we couldn’t do science, science couldn’t rescue us from that, science is only as good as the user doing it.

  32. 32
    AaronS1978 says:

    By the way Jerry Coyne knows that science is only as good as the user, It’s why he absolutely despises religious people doing science

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Apparently both Ed George and AaronS1978 think that it is proven beyond all doubt that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe.

    I have two questions for them, Number one, just what is your empirical proof that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe? And number two, if the earth is NOT he centre of the universe then just where is the centre of the universe?

    November 2019 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855

  34. 34
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    I have two questions for them, Number one, just what is your empirical proof that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe?

    Any Astrodynamics 101 text book will explain why.

    And number two, if the earth is NOT he centre of the universe then just where is the centre of the universe?

    Don’t know

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    “Any Astrodynamics 101 text book will explain why.”

    That is not an answer, That is a dodge.

    Contrary to what you believe, there is no empirical proof that you can appeal to to prove that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe,

    Contrary to popular opinion, Copernicus never did prove that the geocentric model was wrong:

    The Tyranny of Simple Explanations – Philip Ball – AUG 11, 2016
    Excerpt: Take the debate between the ancient geocentric view of the universe—in which the sun and planets move around a central Earth—and Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center and the Earth and other planets moving around it.,,,
    It is often claimed that, by the 16th century, this Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor tells us to prefer it.
    This is wrong for many reasons. First, Copernicus didn’t do away with epicycles.,,,
    In an introductory tract called the Commentariolus, published around 1514, he said he could explain the motions of the heavens with “just” 34 epicycles. Many later commentators took this to mean that the geocentric model must have needed many more than 34, but there’s no actual evidence for that. And the historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich has dismissed the common assumption that the Ptolemaic model was so epicycle-heavy that it was close to collapse. He argues that a relatively simple design was probably still in use in Copernicus’s time.,,,
    http://www.theatlantic.com/sci.....or/495332/

    As Stephen Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’

    “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.
    Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.”
    Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – pages 39 – 2010

    And as George Ellis stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”

    “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
    – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

    And as Fred Hoyle stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

    “The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
    Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

    And even as Einstein himself stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”

    “Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
    Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);

    There simply is no empirical reason to prefer a sun centered universe over a earth centered universe:

    As Einstein himself noted,,,

    “One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.”
    –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

    “If one rotates the shell *relative to the fixed stars* about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*”
    –Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

    “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,,
    If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second”
    Historian Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)

    Here are a few more notes to that effect,

    “…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’… One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right.”
    Born, Max. “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”, Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

    “In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth. In relational mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force such that the equation of motion takes the form of equation (8.47). Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface in the form –2mgvme ´ ?Ue, where vme is the velocity of the test body relative to the earth and ?Ue is the angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth. The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars.”
    (Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191).

    Could 80-year-old ether experiments have detected a cosmological temperature gradient? – February 8, 2016
    Excerpt: the 20 or so experiments performed since 1887 seem to have steadily improved the precision in support of the view that there is no ether and no preferred reference frame.
    https://phys.org/news/2016-02-year-old-ether-cosmological-temperature-gradient.html

    In fact, anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), (anomalies that were recently discovered by the WMAP and Planck telescopes), ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system,

    What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? – February 17, 2015
    The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations.
    When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking.
    Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea.
    (Youtube clip on site)
    In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles.
    The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle.
    http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/

    At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system

    “Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832

    Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR that line up with the earth and solar system in an easy to understand manner.

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Thus, there is actually a principled reason, based on empirical observation, to once again consider the earth and solar system as being ‘central’ in the universe.

  36. 36
    BobRyan says:

    We do not have enough information to know for certain which galaxy lies at the center of the universe, which means our either is or it is not. What we do have is enough information to determine the severe flaws in evolution. Scientific theories require something observable and testable. The e. Coli experiment that lasted 30 years was meant to accomplish both. Over 60,000 generations of e. Coli were observed, which is the equivalent of 1,000,000 years to humans, and at the end they still had e. Coli. Not once did they see any mutations they anyone can point to as evidence.

  37. 37
    AaronS1978 says:

    BA77 why is heliocentric wrong and why does it matter to the idea of God or a creator? Wasn’t based off of the interpretation that earth was God’s Throne? Thrones are not often at the center but at the end so that the king may observe all who enter.

    Second of all Ed George wasn’t dodging anything, there are wealths of info on the topic. I wouldn’t know where to begin on that

    Again I’m not arguing with you but why?

  38. 38
    AaronS1978 says:

    BA77 God’s throne is wherever God wants it to be and we as a species being privileged is not depended on where we are placed in the universe

    Earth can be where ever, it doesn’t subtract from our unique privilege and spot in the universe. We are were we need to be

  39. 39
    Truthfreedom says:

    @ AaronS1978:

    …dawkins had to set the narrative that the appearance of design in nature is an illusion, and it bothered me a lot that he had to set that narrative in the first place.

    The problem with this narrative is that evolutionists deprecate the same tool on which they rely to navigate the world: the human brain/ intelligence.
    It is like having an unfaithful partner telling you: “love, you can not trust me, but you ‘ll have to trust me!”
    Nothing good can come out of it.
    It is a relationship doomed to fail from the very beginning.

    – If we are told our perceptions are illusions, then we are entering self-defeating territory: the tool that “cheats on me” (my brain) is the tool that has to rescue me from itself!
    – If we can not trust our brains, why is it that we have achieved so much progress?

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, sorry but I live with a volcano that is a product of plate tectonics, observable as shifts and quake patterns etc. That has put up about three mountains here in the past several centuries. Two or so within the past 25 years. 3000 fit is by definition a mountain. KF

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, you are raising issues that are key and need to be attended to but predictably will not be taken as seriously as they should. Take heart. KF

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    AaronS1978, in regards to providing actual empirical proof for your claim that the earth is not central in the universe, you state,

    Ed George wasn’t dodging anything, there are wealths of info on the topic. I wouldn’t know where to begin on that.

    Not to be rude, but you agreeing with Ed George should be a VERY huge clue for you that you just may be wrong in your claim! 🙂

    You guys are imagining evidence that you simply do not have. You DO NOT have ‘wealths of evidence’. You have ZERO evidence. Period!

    The quotes I provided in 35 by Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, Fred Hoyle, Albert Einstein and Max Born should have at least given you pause to reconsider your claim. Especially the quote from Albert Einstein since he himself is the author of General Relativity.

    In so far as General Relativity itself is concerned, it is left completely open for whomever is ‘subjectively’ making a model of the universe to arbitrarily decide for themselves what is to be considered central in their model of the universe:

    As far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,

    Where is the centre of the universe?:
    Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/.....entre.html

    ,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,

    How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015
    Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,,
    In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place.
    http://www.scientificamerican......locality//

    How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and With Them, General Relativity – March 2018
    Excerpt: Einstein’s field equations — the equations of general relativity — describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system — like lines of latitude and longitude — that tells you which points are where.
    The most important thing to recognize about coordinate systems is that they’re human contrivances. Maybe in one coordinate system we label a point (0, 0, 0), and in another we label that same point (1, 1, 1). The physical properties haven’t changed — we’ve just tagged the point differently. “Those labels are something about us, not something about the world,” said James Weatherall, a philosopher of science at the University of California, Irvine.,,,
    The Einstein field equations we have today are generally covariant. They express the same physical truths about the universe — how space-time curves in the presence of energy and matter — regardless of what coordinates you use to label things.,,,
    as Einstein discovered,,, the universe doesn’t admit any one privileged choice of coordinates.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-einstein-lost-his-bearings-and-with-them-general-relativity-20180314/

    And again, here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains the recently found ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR that ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system.

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Thus, there is actually a principled reason, based on empirical observation, to once again consider the solar system in general, and earth in particular, as being ‘central’ in the universe.

    Thus again, both you and Ed George, contrary to what you both may believe, simply have ZERO evidence for your belief that the earth is not central in the universe. Much less do you have ‘wealths of evidence.’

    Whereas, on the other hand, I can appeal to the anomalies in the CMBR, as well as the large scale structure of the universe itself, to support my position.

    More detailed notes that overturn the Copernican principle, are here:

    November 2019 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855

  43. 43
    Truthfreedom says:

    @42 Kairosfocus:

    TF, you are raising issues that are key and need to be attended to but predictably will not be taken as seriously as they should. Take heart. KF

    I know it, but I will persevere 🙂

    What is this me that has a brain he/she “can not trust”?
    – If I “can not trust”my brain: what “should I trust” instead?

  44. 44
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    Any Astrodynamics 101 text book will explain why [the earth is not the center of the universe].

    No, it will not. The people who wrote the books can’t even scientifically explain how the earth came to be the way it is.

  45. 45
    AaronS1978 says:

    This is just the first start from a quick Google search these are articles supporting and showing that the heliocentric model is what is correct, This is not to also include visible outlet evidence using telescopes satellites and actually orbiting our planet

    Suppose you can argue in the opposite opinion saying it’s a matter of how are you look at it

    http://solar-center.stanford.e.....uiz6c.html

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2014/04/how-do-we-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/amp

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/earth-orbits-the-sun-physics/amp

    https://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00689

  46. 46
    ET says:

    AaronS1978- There is a huge difference between the solar system and the universe. Heliocentric refers to the solar system.

  47. 47
    AaronS1978 says:

    No no I know

  48. 48
    AaronS1978 says:

    No maybe I misunderstanding ba 77 What is the referring to a universal heliocentric model because I am referring only to the solar system

  49. 49
    AaronS1978 says:

    Now maybe Im misunderstanding ba 77 What is the referring to a universal heliocentric model because I am referring only to the solar system

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    AaronS1978, none of your purported evidence proves that it is the Earth that is in motion in the universe and not the rest of the universe that is in motion around the earth,

    Again, as far as General Relativity itself is concerned, I can arbitrarily choose ANY position in the universe to be the ‘still center’ of the universe that is at rest, and construct my model of the universe around that arbitrarily chosen point of rest.

    How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015
    Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,,
    In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place.
    http://www.scientificamerican......locality//

    How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and With Them, General Relativity – March 2018
    Excerpt: Einstein’s field equations — the equations of general relativity — describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system — like lines of latitude and longitude — that tells you which points are where.
    The most important thing to recognize about coordinate systems is that they’re human contrivances. Maybe in one coordinate system we label a point (0, 0, 0), and in another we label that same point (1, 1, 1). The physical properties haven’t changed — we’ve just tagged the point differently. “Those labels are something about us, not something about the world,” said James Weatherall, a philosopher of science at the University of California, Irvine.,,,
    The Einstein field equations we have today are generally covariant. They express the same physical truths about the universe — how space-time curves in the presence of energy and matter — regardless of what coordinates you use to label things.,,,
    as Einstein discovered,,, the universe doesn’t admit any one privileged choice of coordinates.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-einstein-lost-his-bearings-and-with-them-general-relativity-20180314/

    As George Ellis pointed out, you cannot exclude the earth as the still center of the universe by observation, but ‘can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…’

    “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
    – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

    Shoot, even individual people, as the following article makes clear, can be considered to be central in the universe according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity,,,

    You Technically Are the Center of the Universe – May 2016
    Excerpt: no matter where you stand, it will appear that everything in the universe is expanding around you. So the center of the universe is technically — everywhere.
    The moment you pick a frame of reference, that point becomes the center of the universe.
    Here’s another way to think about it: The sphere of space we can see around us is the visible universe. We’re looking at the light from stars that’s traveled millions or billions of years to reach us. When we reach the 13.8 billion-light-year point, we’re seeing the universe just moments after the Big Bang happened.
    But someone standing on another planet, a few light-years to the right, would see a different sphere of the universe. It’s sort of like lighting a match in the middle of a dark room: Your observable universe is the sphere of the room that the light illuminates.
    But someone standing in a different spot in the room will be able to see a different sphere. So technically, we are all standing at the center of our own observable universes.
    https://mic.com/articles/144214/you-technically-are-the-center-of-the-universe-thanks-to-a-wacky-physics-quirk

    ,,, In fact, when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a hypothetical observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.

    Introduction to special relativity
    Excerpt: Einstein’s approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,,
    Each observer has a distinct “frame of reference” in which velocities are measured,,,,
    per wikipedia

    The happiest thought of my life.
    Excerpt: In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it “the happiest thought of my life”:
    “The gravitational field has only a relative existence… Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings – there exists no gravitational field.”
    http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/.....ode85.html

    To further empirically establish humanity’s centrality in the universe in particular, in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”

    “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
    – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark
    The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe)
    https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715

    The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.

    The Scale of the Universe
    https://htwins.net/scale2/

    Whereas Dr. William Dembski, in the following graph, gives a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.

    Magnifying the Universe
    https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/

    Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption of the Copernican Principle.

    Verse:

    Psalm 46:10
    He says, “Be still, and know that I am God;
    I will be exalted among the nations,
    I will be exalted in the earth.”

  51. 51
    AaronS1978 says:

    First off I made no direct claim, which I find it annoying that you start off all of you post with I claim, please do not put words in my mouth,
    The only thing I said to a direct claim was Ed didn’t dodge you and it is astronomy 101 which Ed did say

    Second, it was a quick google search which I don’t believe you read anything I posted you simply dismissed it out of hand and declared that everything I posted doesn’t prove anything, then you repeated what you have posted in previous post on the subject from other threads

    Now as I stated to ET I might have misunderstood you because I’m speaking solely of the solar system NOT the universe.

    You are right there is almost NO WAY to know for sure that we aren’t the center of the universe, but if you say we are not orbiting the sun, this were I will clearly object, and there is multitudes of evidence supporting this, from pictures, video, mathematical models, physics, and the fact that so far that’s how gravity works, smaller masses will orbit the larger

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    No need to get huffy AaronS1978, when you claim that the sun can be given a privileged frame of reference since “that’s how gravity works, smaller masses will orbit the larger” you are disagreeing with General Relativity (our best mathematical description of gravity) not with me.

    “Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
    Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);

    Again, according to General Relativity, ANY place in the universe can be arbitrary chosen to be the still center of the universe and the rst of the universe can be modeled around that arbitrarily chosen point.

  53. 53
    Ed George says:

    KF

    EG, sorry but I live with a volcano that is a product of plate tectonics, observable as shifts and quake patterns etc. That has put up about three mountains here in the past several centuries. Two or so within the past 25 years. 3000 fit is by definition a mountain. KF

    Are you suggesting that mountain ranges are the result of volcanos? Geologists might disagree with you.

  54. 54
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, I am specifically pointing out that as a matter of empirical fact we can and do observe the creation (and destruction) of mountains on the scope of years to centuries. A mountain, being understood as an elevation of the land above base level, of at least 1,000 feet. In addition, with instruments we can and do observe the moving of this island, e.g. a swelling of six inches or thereabouts as magma rose from depth. Further to this, instrumentation and mathematical analysis allows us to observe the shape and processes of the associated island arc subduction zone, moving at rates comparable to the growth rate of a finger nail. Moving up to experimental vs observational vs historical [in sense of deep past reconstruction] sciences, there is a reasonable rule deriving from Newton that we should not ascribe to the unobservable distance or past forces and capabilities not seen to act with similar effect in the present. Lest, science becomes captive to speculative ideologies dressed up in lab coats. In short, I am calling for nuance in light of relevant facts. KF

    PS: This is of course directly relevant to attempts to infer that in the deep past blind chance and mechanical necessity created language, codes, algorithms and execution machinery for the living cell; an instance of what I abbreviate as FSCO/I. There is but one known causally efficacious force shown to do such. Intelligently directed configuration. That is based on trillions of observed cases and search challenge on gamut of sol system or observed cosmos for config spaces of order 500 to 1,000+ bits.

  55. 55
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, a volcanic island arc can be understood as a mountain range emerging from the ocean floor, off to a side of a subduction zone; but flooded by the sea to typically several thousand feet. BTW there is talk that within this century a new Island is reasonably likely to emerge due to Kick ’em Jenny off Grenada — sea flooding does not materially alter the dynamic of heated materials rising to the surface and erupting or even exploding . . . andesitic rocks (named for composition directly comparable to materials in — the Andes). I think there is talk of a continental mass off Australia in similar terms of flooded continent. Indonesia is of course a similar volcanic zone to the EC, and IIRC the Aleutians.

  56. 56
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS: Just thought, look at Wiki:

    Two classic examples of oceanic island arcs are the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific Ocean and the Lesser Antilles in the western Atlantic Ocean [ –> aka Eastern Caribbean, from Saba to Tobago]. The Cascade Volcanic Arc in western North America and the Andes along the western edge of South America are examples of continental volcanic arcs. The best examples of volcanic arcs with both sets of characteristics are in the North Pacific, with the Aleutian Arc consisting of the Aleutian Islands and their extension the Aleutian Range on the Alaska Peninsula, and the Kuril-Kamchatka Arc comprising the Kuril Islands and southern Kamchatka Peninsula.

  57. 57
    Ed George says:

    KF

    EG, I am specifically pointing out that as a matter of empirical fact we can and do observe the creation (and destruction) of mountains on the scope of years to centuries.

    Nice tangent. The Rockies, Himalayas, Andes, etc. Are not the result of volcanos. The current theory, which nobody here is questioning, is that they are formed by subduction and uplifting caused by plate tectonics. We have measured small scale uplifting (analogous to what you call micro evolution) but nobody has observed a mountain being formed by this process (analogous to what you call macro evolution). Yet, nobody here is questioning mountain formation by this process, but they question evolution. That is requiring a different burden of proof for a process that doesn’t violate your biased worldview, than one that does.

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, any responsible discussion of a phenomenon needs to be factually adequate. It so happens that for the past 28 years I have lived with a ramping up then an eruption and its aftermath, including build-ups, collapses, being woken up in the night by a roar leading to a 70 kft plume and the like. It means that I am specifically familiar with a class of mountains that are in fact in some cases rapidly built and/or destroyed. That’s why I intervened above by way of an augmenting note. Going further, your attempt to suggest an analogy between mountain building and formation of body plans fails utterly: to form a novel body plan, starting with the first, an island of function has to be found by traversing a sea of non-function. This starts with protein fold domains, thus with DNA. The unwarranted assumption of a like simple accumulation of incremental changes is radically false to fact. However, all of this is further inadvertently revealing in light of other current misadventures on your part in other UD threads . . . e.g. what is your answer regarding minimal facts and the lessons of Plato. KF

  59. 59
    Ed George says:

    KF

    The unwarranted assumption of a like simple accumulation of incremental changes is radically false to fact.

    That is just nonsense. Incremental mountain building, which is responsible for most mountain ranges, is analogous to the micro to macro evolution proposition. You have either seen both, or not seen both.

  60. 60
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    Incremental mountain building, which is responsible for most mountain ranges, is analogous to the micro to macro evolution proposition.

    That is complete nonsense and proves that you don’t know anything about biology. You have to be either a complete fool or a desperate and insipid troll to make such a nonsensical claim.

    Acartia Eddie is both.

    Next up, a pile of rocks that gets bigger because the cliffs above are eroding is like developmental biology.

    The problem is there isn’t any testable mechanism for macro-evolution. It can’t be simulated. And what we do observe in no way supports the claim of macro-evolution.

  61. 61
    ET says:

    The current theory, which nobody here is questioning, is that they are formed by subduction and uplifting caused by plate tectonics.

    The speed at which it happened has been questioned.

    But that is moot as only a desperate and insipid troll would try to compare geology to biology. Enter Acartia Eddie

  62. 62
    kairosfocus says:

    EG,

    you unfortunately doubled down on an error.

    Here, by an obviously false analogy between mountain building [effectively, get a big pile of rock] and creation of an entity with functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I]. To pick up the pile of rocks analogy, while incremental piling up can and does account for a mountain, only an extremely ill informed person would argue that such accounts for rocks organised to form say a slab roofed house with rooms, passages,entry ways, 90 degree corners, plumb and straight walls, etc. A good illustration is, if half your pile of rocks collapses (or explodes as with Mt St Helens 40 years back), you have a smaller mountain. If half your house collapses, you do not have a functional house.

    The reason for this intuition is that we recognise functional organisation requiring intelligently directed configuration and distinguish this semiotic and purposeful process from dynamic-stochastic processes. That’s why since Plato, we have contrasted the natural [ = blind chance and/or mechanical necessity] from the ART-ificial.

    The reason why there is even a debate on this, is that there is the imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism on matters of origins, through what we may term the Monod-Lewontin-Mahner-NSTA/NAS lockout. You and other inveterate objectors have been conspicuously silent in response to the recent headlining of Monod’s 1971 TV interview, building on his 1970 book, Chance and Necessity.

    Just to remind:

    [T]he scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.— Jacques Monod [Quoted in John C. Hess, ‘French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance’, New York Times (15 Mar 1971), p. 6. Cited in Herbert Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (1972), p. 66.

    In the book, he had written:

    [T]he basic premise of the scienti?c method, . . . [is] that nature is objective and not projective [= a project of an agent]. Hence it is through reference to our own activity, con-scious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as | makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object’s “naturalness” or “arti?cialness.” [pp. 3 – 4] . . . . [T]he postulate of objectivity is consubstantial with science: it has guided the whole of its prodigious develop-ment for three centuries. There is no way to be rid of it, even tentatively or in a limited area, without departing from the domain of science itself. [p. 21]

    I challenge that it is a historically, logically warranted premise of the scientific method — even, on assumption for sake of argument that there is any such one size fits all and only scientific inferences method and demarcation criterion [there isn’t!] — that we may not infer to design on empirically warranted signs. A better understanding of science is that while we typically focus on the dynamical and/or stochastic (the “natural”), we may validly infer to ART-ificial as a relevant causal factor when signs point that way. Forensic sciences are valid sciences, similarly, archaeology. In the latter, practitioners routinely distinguish natural phenomena from archaeological on relevant signs. In the former, we often hear of accident, suicide or murder. We see, accident vs arson. We distinguish, earthquake or tornado from burglary.

    So long as an intelligent agent is possible, it is reasonable to investigate whether empirical signs point to agent action. And, on trillions of cases, FSCO/I is a reliable sign of such intelligent action. In the case of the living cell, that appears in its general organisation but particularly in D/RNA, where we see coded, 4-state algorithmic information. This manifests language, functional organisation to achieve stepwise progress to a target outcome [creation of particular protein chains coming from thousands of deeply isolated fold domains . . . islands of function . . . in AA sequence space] and purpose. Those are hallmarks of design.

    The core challenge for origin of life [OoL] and for origin of novel body plans {OoBP] has always been the origin of required complex, functionally specific information. You have absolutely no warrant that such algorithms can be built by always functional small stepwise increments. Indeed, the deep isolation of fold domains in AA sequence space [which already has assumed solutions to the peptide bond and chirality issues] makes such incrementalism implausible. The relevant analogy is not hill climbing on a vast continent of function but the blind search for deeply isolated islands on respurces inadequate for credible success. It is readily shown that a sol system of 10^57 atoms or an observed cosmos of 10^80 where relevant reactions may happen at rates 10^12 to 10^15 per second (and Org Chem rxns tend to be slow) will not be able to significantly search a config space of 10^150 to 10^301 elements. Where as searches are subsets of a set, search for a golden search is looking in the exponentially harder sets of scope 2^[10^150] to 2^[10^301].

    Blind search is not a reasonable answer to what knowledgeable intelligence routinely produces. The text of your own posts [as opposed to random text strings and/or mechanical, repetitive patterns] is an apt case in point.

    At this point, after this has been pointed out for years, the clinging to failed analogies you show above is a strong sign that you have no valid answer.

    Cell based life uses language and algorithms, long before we came on the scene.

    We know the only credible source of language, codes, algorithms and execution machinery, design.

    Only, that does not fit with the imposed a prioris of evolutionary materialistic scientism.

    Doubling down simply shows that the imposition is an ideological commitment and a key to the agendas being desired.

    Fatal cracks in the foundations of evolutionary materialistic scientism stand exposed.

    KF

  63. 63
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, on observation over the past 25 years, I have questioned the notion that mountains are ALWAYS formed by slow cumulative increments. When it comes to island arcs with magma that is not runny like that of Hawaii, erupted materials pile up to build mountains over months, and such can collapse far more quickly than that. I have no doubt that slow-acting mountain building and erosion occur, but that does not exhaust the possibilities. It is fascinating to see the reactions to facts I have literally seen and heard [and sometimes have had to put on a dust mask and sweep away]. KF

  64. 64
    BobRyan says:

    Ed George @ 57 states:

    “We have measured small scale uplifting (analogous to what you call micro evolution)”

    Those measurements are observable and can be replicated, unlike macro evolution. Every theory must be based on what is observed and can be replicated. Macro evolution has never been observed and has never been replicated. It is not science, but philosophical in nature. Science requires observation and replication to be a valid theory.

  65. 65
    BobRyan says:

    Ed George

    From your posts, it appears you agree that macro evolution has not been observed and has not been replicated. There are 6 steps to the scientific method.
    1. Make an observation or observations. – Darwin did do this.
    2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information. – Darwin did this.
    3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis. Darwin did this.
    4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced. – This has never been done by anyone.
    5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary. – This has never been done by anyone.
    6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. – This has never been done by anyone.

    Without steps 4 – 6, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

Leave a Reply