Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

...as opposed to furthering an agenda.
sorry these are a bit random...please feel free to answer any or all. Brevity is appreciated.


Is there any evidence that physics has changed in the history of the universe? My understanding is that near the big bang the laws were different. I read somewhere it was proposed that the speed of light is slowing over time. Is this true? Does the 2nd law of thermodynamics imply that the laws of nature will eventually break down?

Is there direct sequential fossil links from lower primates to humans? If so, what % certainty?

What is the biggest flaw/criticism of Evolution?

Has there ever been a verified case of extra sensory perception, telepathy or any such thing?

What's the present day status of "unified theory" or the TOE?

Did Sklansky post on here that results of math type tests are the most indicative of intelligence? If so, how do women score on such tests compared to males? If they perform worse (I really don't know beyond my own stereotypes of men being better at math), does this mean men are inherently inferior intellectually? Iguess people won't answer this truthfully.

Aside from humans, what is believed to be the smartest creature to have ever lived?

Is there any indisputable evidence of aliens ever visiting, landing on Earth/abducting people?

Are radiometric dating techniques generally considered accurate?

What is the oldest known recorded time in human history?

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

To my knowledge (physics degree but out of the loop): No evidence the laws of physics have changed. No evidence the speed of light is slowing. 2nd law of thermodynamics is an observed statistical law and doesn't imply that laws of nature will break down.

Yes, there are direct sequential fossil links. See, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd....html#fig1.4.4
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

Going back to the time when evolution was first proposed, there is absolutely no reason we should have found these things if evolution was false.

The biggest flaw/criticism of Evolution would be the poor evidence of abiogenesis - the idea that the first cells arose out of simple chemicals. It's undetermined whether that actually happened, A number of paths in the process are certain to have happened, while others seem unlikely at this stage.

Men are better at math than women than women which is likely related to superior spatial analysis. This makes sense both from an evolutionary perspective and from what we know about the brain. However, women appear better at language. If men performed worse on math, it could well mean they are intellectually inferior to women in terms of spatial/logical analysis.

Smartest creature ever lived - hard to say. The elephant and dolphin are awfully intelligent, but I'd have to go with something like a chimpanzee or Orangutan. There is a case to be made for various pre human ancestors, or even neanderthals, but you could probably count them as human in some sense.

Aliens - no. There is little evidence of them ever visiting.

Radiometric dating - you'd have to read specifically about each method and timeframe. It's not exact, that's for sure, but doesn't have the flaws that religiously motivated people claim it does.

Oldest recorded time in human history - Not sure what you mean. Do you mean a written record? Cave paintings date back a long way before then and evidence of human used tools date back a lot longer.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any evidence that physics has changed in the history of the universe? My understanding is that near the big bang the laws were different. I read somewhere it was proposed that the speed of light is slowing over time. Is this true?

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been a number of cosmologies over the years that propose that vary fundamental constants; not just the speed of light but stuff like the gravitational constant. As far as I know none of these are currently in vogue. Certainly none have been tested experimentally.

[ QUOTE ]
Does the 2nd law of thermodynamics imply that the laws of nature will eventually break down?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This law is much misunderstood. All it says is that entropy of a system must increase, which is a pretty limited statement. Here's Wikipedia:

Furthermore, the concept of entropy in thermodynamics is not identical to the common notion of "disorder". For example, a thermodynamically closed system of certain solutions will eventually transform from a cloudy liquid to a clear solution containing large "orderly" crystals. Most people would characterize the former state as having "more disorder" than the latter state. However, in a purely thermodynamic sense, the entropy has increased in this system, not decreased. The units of measure of entropy in thermodynamics are "units of energy per unit of temperature". Whether a human perceives one state of a system as "more orderly" than another has no bearing on the calculation of this quantity. The common notion that entropy in thermodynamics is equivalent to a popular conception of "disorder" has caused many non-physicists to completely misinterpret what the second law of thermodynamics is really about.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there direct sequential fossil links from lower primates to humans? If so, what % certainty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes; for the answer to this and any other question about the specifics of evolution, check out talkorigins.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the biggest flaw/criticism of Evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

There aren't any. It's true that we don't know how certain evolutionary leaps happened, but gaps in knowledge don't invalidate the general theory, which is very well attested. We also have basically no idea how life first appeared, but that's a seperate field called abiogenesis and has nothing to do with evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Has there ever been a verified case of extra sensory perception, telepathy or any such thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If anyone could verify such a power, they could claim the JREF $1 million prize.

[ QUOTE ]
What's the present day status of "unified theory" or the TOE?

[/ QUOTE ]

The best current contender is one of the myriad variants of string theory. The problem with string theory is that it is currently unfalsifiable, so at the moment it's nothing but mathematical masturbation. That will change in the future, though; New Scientist's cover article this month is about possible experiments to test string theory, if you're interested.

[ QUOTE ]
Did Sklansky post on here that results of math type tests are the most indicative of intelligence? If so, how do women score on such tests compared to males? If they perform worse (I really don't know beyond my own stereotypes of men being better at math), does this mean men are inherently inferior intellectually? Iguess people won't answer this truthfully.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what Sklansky posted, but the best way to measure intelligence is anything that measures the General Intelligence Factor, g. Most studies find no difference in g between men and women.

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from humans, what is believed to be the smartest creature to have ever lived?

[/ QUOTE ]

The chimpanzee.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any indisputable evidence of aliens ever visiting, landing on Earth/abducting people?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
Are radiometric dating techniques generally considered accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. (Again, I think talkorigins would have stuff on this)

[ QUOTE ]
What is the oldest known recorded time in human history?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unclear question. Recorded as in there are written relics, or just oldest [censored] sapiens remains?

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is the oldest known recorded time in human history?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean written records that can be deciphered that is probably Sumerian cuneiform which is about 5,000 years old.

Cuneiform Script

Well recorded written Histories of human activities do not occur until sometime later.

-Zeno

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

Thanks for the answers all. It was more than I expected. Yes, Zeno, you guessed what my unclear was: that was what I was looking for. Interesting. I'm reading up on it.

I guess I don't understand the ever increasing entropy concept.It seems to me that something would eventually run out, as in ordered energy, then what? Doesn't that have some implications in some very distant time? I guess I read up more on it.


I take it that this talkorigins site is trustworthy since two good posters referenced it. I've looked at it a bit, maybe ask some more about it later. I'm busy reading Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking so it will be a while.

I'm thinking of taking physics in university. My uncle, who used to post here, has said he would pay for my undergraduate as long as it was science or math. If not I'll have to take out loans.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any evidence that physics has changed in the history of the universe?


[/ QUOTE ]

Physics models the way the universe changes, a model does not change that which it models.

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that near the big bang the laws were different. I read somewhere it was proposed that the speed of light is slowing over time. Is this true?


[/ QUOTE ]

You probably did. But no way we can be completely sure what was going on back then.

[ QUOTE ]
Does the 2nd law of thermodynamics imply that the laws of nature will eventually break down?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess they might change, never thought much of the laws of thermodynamics?

[ QUOTE ]
Is there direct sequential fossil links from lower primates to humans? If so, what % certainty?


[/ QUOTE ]

Don’t know, I would give approximately 100%.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the biggest flaw/criticism of Evolution?


[/ QUOTE ]

Unclear what you mean, I guess you can dislike its results. Evolution is a natural process that must occur where it can.

[ QUOTE ]
Has there ever been a verified case of extra sensory perception, telepathy or any such thing?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
What's the present day status of "unified theory" or the TOE?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t know, read the litriture.

[ QUOTE ]
Did Sklansky post on here that results of math type tests are the most indicative of intelligence? If so, how do women score on such tests compared to males? If they perform worse (I really don't know beyond my own stereotypes of men being better at math), does this mean men are inherently inferior intellectually? Iguess people won't answer this truthfully.


[/ QUOTE ]

No idea.

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from humans, what is believed to be the smartest creature to have ever lived?


[/ QUOTE ]

Where, on earth? Probably a member of the species humans evolved from, but just maybe a chimp or some dolphin. Depending on what smart means exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any indisputable evidence of aliens ever visiting, landing on Earth/abducting people?


[/ QUOTE ]

No

[ QUOTE ]
Are radiometric dating techniques generally considered accurate?


[/ QUOTE ]

Accurate within defined bounds, which might not be very accurate depending on perception of accuracy.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the oldest known recorded time in human history?


[/ QUOTE ]

No idea.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

What career is best for my son?

Does anyone know where my daughter's swim goggles are? She says she doesn't remember, and I didn't see where she put them.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]

I take it that this talkorigins site is trustworthy since two good posters referenced it. I've looked at it a bit, maybe ask some more about it later. I'm busy reading Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking so it will be a while.


[/ QUOTE ]

For another view by real Christian scientists go to reasons.org.

I'm very skeptical of evolution, especially human, and this site presents good scientific arguments against.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What career is best for my son?

Does anyone know where my daughter's swim goggles are? She says she doesn't remember, and I didn't see where she put them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the side-panel on the passenger's side door in the minivan. 98% certainty.

Oh, and he should be a botanist.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What career is best for my son?

Does anyone know where my daughter's swim goggles are? She says she doesn't remember, and I didn't see where she put them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the side-panel on the passenger's side door in the minivan. 98% certainty.

Oh, and he should be a botanist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source for any of this? I've worked through it and my results are that they are 63% in the laundry pile, 28% the passenger sidedoor, and 19% left behind at the swimming pool. Your son should be a radiologist or wrestler, fwiw.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and he should be a botanist.


[/ QUOTE ] Do you have a source for any of this

[/ QUOTE ]

The twenty one hundreds will be the century of the biological scientists, botany will be an excellent choice.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What career is best for my son?

Does anyone know where my daughter's swim goggles are? She says she doesn't remember, and I didn't see where she put them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the side-panel on the passenger's side door in the minivan. 98% certainty.

Oh, and he should be a botanist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source for any of this? I've worked through it and my results are that they are 63% in the laundry pile, 28% the passenger sidedoor, and 19% left behind at the swimming pool. Your son should be a radiologist or wrestler, fwiw.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG @ 110% chance of finding the goggles.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

"Does anyone know where my daughter's swim goggles are? She says she doesn't remember, and I didn't see where she put them."

Search random coordinates of the universe.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

Not Ready, "For another view by real Christian scientists go to reasons.org.

I'm very skeptical of evolution, especially human, and this site presents good scientific arguments against."

I'll try that eventually too. Something about some of the evolution theory doesn't sit well with me right now, either. But I haven't the knowledge yet to express it properly.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

Quote:
Is there direct sequential fossil links from lower primates to humans? If so, what % certainty?



Piers,"
Don’t know, I would give approximately 100%"

Alot here seem to be giving this high certainty level. Using Zeno's answer from my other question:

In 5000 years of human recorded history, has any species given birth to a different species?

Are there any present day living "transitional forms"?


Thanks everybody again. Now I've got some studying to do.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

surprising he would give 100. lol. we got the transitional issue down. never mind all the contrary [censored]. lol dont matter

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Is there direct sequential fossil links from lower primates to humans? If so, what % certainty?



Piers,"
Don’t know, I would give approximately 100%"

Alot here seem to be giving this high certainty level. Using Zeno's answer from my other question:

In 5000 years of human recorded history, has any species given birth to a different species?

Are there any present day living "transitional forms"?


Thanks everybody again. Now I've got some studying to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, do you understand the concept that 'transitional forms' is a nonsense term, and that any transitional form that we happened to find would simply create a demand for TWO new transitional forms? This is the 'missing link' fallacy.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

Piers said, [ QUOTE ]
Physics models the way the universe changes, a model does not change that which it models.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think alot more things then a know how to say. What I meant was, given the present known laws of nature, do we have any reason to think they were different in the past, or might be different at some time in the future?


"I guess they might change, never thought much of the laws of thermodynamics?"

Guess Im a nerd but I've thought about them alot. My uncle taught me over and over to look for what we know for sure and see what that tells us about we don't know.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
First, do you understand the concept that 'transitional forms' is a nonsense term, and that any transitional form that we happened to find would simply create a demand for TWO new transitional forms? This is the 'missing link' fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't want to keep pissing everybody off so I won't ask anymore for now until i know more. But I'll be back.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, do you understand the concept that 'transitional forms' is a nonsense term, and that any transitional form that we happened to find would simply create a demand for TWO new transitional forms? This is the 'missing link' fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't want to keep pissing everybody off so I won't ask anymore for now until i know more. But I'll be back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assure you, you aren't pissing everyone off. Most of us enjoy threads where the poster is actually, genuinely interested in understanding and learning new things. In my case, this is especially true when the thread is about evolution, because I think I have a fairly solid understanding of the concepts, and I find the topic to be incredibly fascinating. I never mind talking about it or discussing it.

However, we get burned a lot on here by trolls and dishonest people who are just looking to bash science or prop up their own misinformed understanding. So, we are very cautious and leery.

I'm more than willing to answer your questions, but the way this works is we start from the absolute basics. It makes no sense for me to show you Archaeopteryx if you don't really know what you want in a transitional form.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]

First, do you understand the concept that 'transitional forms' is a nonsense term,


[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to investigate this idea further before posting on it but since you brought it up:

Doesn't this make Darwinism unfalsifiable? Before you tell me about rabbits in the Cambrian, I obviously mean on a realistic basis. Whatever form you show me that you claim is transitional I can claim is a separate species.

BTW, this idea was what I was pursing with the phylogeny/homology thread that got chopped up so bad: how do you determine a form is transitional, especially if morphology produces errors?

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

First, do you understand the concept that 'transitional forms' is a nonsense term,


[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to investigate this idea further before posting on it but since you brought it up:

Doesn't this make Darwinism unfalsifiable? Before you tell me about rabbits in the Cambrian, I obviously mean on a realistic basis. Whatever form you show me that you claim is transitional I can claim is a separate species.

BTW, this idea was what I was pursing with the phylogeny/homology thread that got chopped up so bad: how do you determine a form is transitional, especially if morphology produces errors?

[/ QUOTE ]

This just gets us back to my favorite argument: species are imaginary.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]

This just gets us back to my favorite argument: species are imaginary.


[/ QUOTE ]


Which seems to mean:

Evolution is imaginary.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

Definitely not. There are groups of species that are isolated from each other. This is just arbitrary and a lucky outcome of the fact that most organisms die. Once they become isolated, they diverge, and we call this speciation. Some people put too much emphasis on this, as if it were some magical thing, but its really not. Speciation is just the NORMAL way that two groups become isolated and thus divergent. There are other ways, such as temporality. We are seperate and thus divergent from my dead great-grandparents in their graves. They aren't changing, we are, and eventually we may be a different species than they are.

To be strictly correct, there wouldn't ever need to be any speciation for there to be evolution, but I know you mean speciation when you say evolution, so its a bit nitty. There could just be one big species of bacteria and there could still be evolution.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

I thought of a better way to sum up my species complaint: 'Species' is really just another term for the point of no return along the divergence spectrum. All organisms are varying degrees of divergent from any of their neighbors, but this can ebb and flow, up until you get to the point of what we call speciation. This is simply because now they can no longer mix. If you put two groups of birds on opposite sides of some hypothetical eternal, impenetrable boundary, then the question of whether they can mate or not is entirely immaterial, and they are now two entirely different 'species,' regardless of the fact that they are pretty much identical, phenotypically.

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]

There could just be one big species of bacteria and there could still be evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

I usually mean macroevolution or OCA. I have no problem with microevolution or minimal speciation. The problem I see for OCA is you need transitional forms even if all of life is one species - you still gotta hop, skip and jump from microbe to man - how do you do that with no way to establish transition?

Re: Various actual questions re: science/religion...
 

[ QUOTE ]

how do you do that with no way to establish transition?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me throw something else out. This is very much a work in progress for me and I only bring it up to see if anyone wants to comment.

I've been going through a lot of the stuff on reasons.org. Whether you agree with them or not, they are way, way more qualified (many Ph.Ds in science) than most of the fundy sites on the web.

Briefly, they point out that as long as OCA is the only model to interpret the data it will never be abandoned because a bad model is better than no model. For years they have been constructing what they call a Creation Model. I have no desire at this time to debate the details of this. My point is that if evolutionists have no scientific basis to establish transitions that reduces OCA to a theory only, a model of explanation. I think Ross and Co. have it in mind to show that a Creation Model is as valid scientifically as OCA.

This would not establish Christianity as the Creator, but only that science can recognize that a creation model is as valid as OCA model. I think they have a point if transitions can't be normalized.

I've said before I can accept even OCA as a Christian, but I obviously would prefer some special creation. So I'm truly interested in what the data actually show, which model really fits best. And I think the focus has to be on transitions.

Edit: Ross believes in old earth and old universe - 4.5by and 14by, so he accepts Big Bang, etc.