The dumbing down of America continues...

[llama64]

Originally Posted by photon

I think people understand each other fine, I understand both sides.

As you say it stems from a personal choice. Personal choices can be wrong though.

Ahh, but what makes them wrong? Is truth subjective or objective? Who decides that?

Not that this is at all on topic... but interesting stuff nonetheless.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by peter12

Wild poodles didn't roam the hinterlands ever, but wolves sure did. Human beings can effect the transformation of wolves into dogs by selectively breeding the traits we find desirable.

Why do "modern" dogs seem to have such human-like features? We like them. When we domesticated dogs about 7000 years ago (before the Earth was created, according to some!) we intensely bred them over a short period of time. That domestication has resulted in the vast area of dog breeds we see today.

That was my point. Evolution exists. The many variations of canine species proves it. But as you can see, natural selection was not involved. Rather human selection was the primary factor that motivated the change.

Still, the idea of wild poodles roaming the country side intrigues me.

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

Ahh, but what makes them wrong? Is truth subjective or objective? Who decides that?

Not that this is at all on topic... but interesting stuff nonetheless.

Some truths are subjective, other truths are objective. Right to self determination is something that is subjective, while the age of the earth is objective. The age of the earth doesn't change depending on who is looking at it or what their preconceptions are. The science that demonstrates the age of the earth doesn't change based on who's doing the measurements or what kinds of measurements are being used.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by llama64

That was my point. Evolution exists. The many variations of canine species proves it. But as you can see, natural selection was not involved. Rather human selection was the primary factor that motivated the change.

Still, the idea of wild poodles roaming the country side intrigues me.

Well, the wolves' genes were also responding to their environment.

[photon]

The fact of evolution is the theory of evolution are like the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity.. evolution is a fact in that it is observed and happened throughout the past. The theory of evolution attempts to describe the mechanisms involved. The how to describe the what.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by photon

Some truths are subjective, other truths are objective. Right to self determination is something that is subjective, while the age of the earth is objective. The age of the earth doesn't change depending on who is looking at it or what their preconceptions are. The science that demonstrates the age of the earth doesn't change based on who's doing the measurements or what kinds of measurements are being used.

The methodology involved to determine the age of the earth, and the measurements that are used to quantify are indeed subjective. I can redefine the length of a year to mean just about anything I want, not that other people half to agree with me.

I'm being a bit argumentative on this, but my point is that the pursuit of science is based on human devices. I take humans to be non-objective. So, we as humans need to define our own truth, which by my understanding is the nature of being subjective. But I could be barking around symantically without much of a point... I've been known to do that from time to time.

This reminds me of something. Where in the bible does it actually say that the earth is 6000 years old? Is it there or is it something that creations are just saying and then trying to back up using biblical references? I'll look it up but I'm certain someone here knows the answer so I thought I'd ask.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by llama64

Still, the idea of wild poodles roaming the country side intrigues me.

Mostly because they wouldn't survive. There are so many breeds of domesticated animals that absolutely no survival skills or adaptations outside the care of humans...not to mention their many genetic defects and diseases suffered by these breeds. I feel sorry for them. They'd look cute, but they were bred for cuteness and little else.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by llama64

The methodology involved to determine the age of the earth, and the measurements that are used to quantify are indeed subjective. I can redefine the length of a year to mean just about anything I want, not that other people half to agree with me.

This reminds me of something. Where in the bible does it actually say that the earth is 6000 years old? Is it there or is it something that creations are just saying and then trying to back up using biblical references? I'll look it up but I'm certain someone here knows the answer so I thought I'd ask.

Generally, when you say year, a year is more or less one orbit around the sun by the planet earth. What do you define it as? The precise age of the earth is open to debate but it more or less defined to a narrow range by radio-carbon dating of terrestrial samples, meteorites, lunar samples, and other elements in the fields of geology and chemistry which are filled with complimentary and concordant data that supports other findings.

It is not stated in the Bible that the earth is 6000 years old. Rather, the bible gives extensive family trees and other means by which to date events. By extrapolating from the birth of Jesus and moving backwards, theologians since the 16th century have estimated the time of creation was roughly 6000 years ago.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, the wolves' genes were also responding to their environment.

So, the theory is that genetic mutation is some how influenced by environmental conditions. The evolution is then produced by the artificial selection made by humans based on desired characteristics. The undesirable ones were disgarded and were cut from the gene pool.

It's a crude summary, but that's how I understand the argument. I believe this was from the 1915-1940 era of the debate. I'm not really up which what is currently being posited by biologists. Has the theory changed significantly?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by llama64

The methodology involved to determine the age of the earth, and the measurements that are used to quantify are indeed subjective. I can redefine the length of a year to mean just about anything I want, not that other people half to agree with me.

I'm being a bit argumentative on this, but my point is that the pursuit of science is based on human devices. I take humans to be non-objective. So, we as humans need to define our own truth, which by my understanding is the nature of being subjective. But I could be barking around symantically without much of a point... I've been known to do that from time to time.

This reminds me of something. Where in the bible does it actually say that the earth is 6000 years old? Is it there or is it something that creations are just saying and then trying to back up using biblical references? I'll look it up but I'm certain someone here knows the answer so I thought I'd ask.

@#$%. You just don't get it. If you re-define the year to say a "Llama" which lasts 6 months. The world would last for 9.2 billion "Llama's" by your calculation and it is still true.

Methodology is indeed subjective. Which is why so many scientific papers are thrown out every year based on the methodology. Remember the Korean scientist that said he could clone stem cells? Someone else (several other groups in fact) tested his methodology and found it to fail. Thus his paper was deemed invalid. On the other hand if they were able to repeat the experiment, then that is the first step to claiming validity.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by llama64

So, the theory is that genetic mutation is some how influenced by environmental conditions. The evolution is then produced by the artificial selection made by humans based on desired characteristics. The undesirable ones were disgarded and were cut from the gene pool.

It's a crude summary, but that's how I understand the argument. I believe this was from the 1915-1940 era of the debate. I'm not really up which what is currently being posited by biologists. Has the theory changed significantly?

No. Environmental selection determines which genes are passed on. For example, an organism, such as a tapeworm, who developed a light sensitive patch of cells would be able to survive better than a similar tapeworm without a patch of cells.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

A year is more or less one orbit around the sun by the planet earth. What do you define it as?

It is not stated in the Bible that the earth is 6000 years old. Rather, the bible gives extensive family trees and other means by which to date events. By extrapolating from the birth of Jesus and moving backwards, theologians since the 16th century have estimated the time of creation was roughly 6000 years ago.

I could define a year to be equal to 3 rotations. Or the length of time it takes to walk down the block. It's just a word and is open to interpretation. Don't get caught up on this though, I'm just trying to illustrate the subjective nature of how we define measurements and other things.

Does that number involve the idea that Noah, Abraham and others lived for 800-1000 years or something?

Hmm, maybe in biblical times a year meant something different?

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

The methodology involved to determine the age of the earth, and the measurements that are used to quantify are indeed subjective. I can redefine the length of a year to mean just about anything I want, not that other people half to agree with me.

If you want to be serious, don't say things like this. Sure you can redefine a year to whatever you want, and if you do then you won't be able to communicate with anyone else, so you might as well go live in a cave somewhere. That is just stupid. If you redefine a year, and provide your definition, then at least everyone can still communicate.

A year isn't even a subjective term, it's the time it takes for the earth to go around the sun. This is determined by the physics of the sun and earth and gravity.

The methodology to determine the age of the earth is NOT subjective just because it is expressed in years. Want to be less subjective, fine we can express it in the number of ossilations of a cesium atom when exposed to microwaves.

This reminds me of something. Where in the bible does it actually say that the earth is 6000 years old? Is it there or is it something that creations are just saying and then trying to back up using biblical references? I'll look it up but I'm certain someone here knows the answer so I thought I'd ask.

They get it through the genealogies in the bible, where you can trace back from Jesus all the way to Adam.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by peter12

No. Environmental selection determines which genes are passed on. For example, an organism, such as a tapeworm, who developed a light sensitive patch of cells would be able to survive better than a similar tapeworm without a patch of cells.

That's the part that hasn't been proven, just theorized. It's entirely possible that the light sensitive tapeworm could suffer a disease and die out before it has a chance to pass on it's mutation.

We really arn't arguing much here, just discussing the various ways by which evolution is carried out.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by llama64

So, the theory is that genetic mutation is some how influenced by environmental conditions. The evolution is then produced by the artificial selection made by humans based on desired characteristics. The undesirable ones were disgarded and were cut from the gene pool.

It's a crude summary, but that's how I understand the argument. I believe this was from the 1915-1940 era of the debate. I'm not really up which what is currently being posited by biologists. Has the theory changed significantly?

No, environmental conditions can affect what genes are passed on. Genetic mutation is generally random. If the mutation results in an adaptation that is more or less able to outcompete other organisms in that particular environment, then there is a higher chance that that animal with the mutation will be successful and its offspring would pass on that mutation resulting in an aggregate increase of that adaptive mutation and the proliferation of organisms with that adapation.

grossly oversimplifying example: Darwin's finches -> if a finch, due to genetic differences or mutation, has a larger beak that is able to break down hard nuts better than other finches, that finch and his offspring will tend to survive and therefore as the others die off, those finches will become more numerous and eventually largely representative of the species within a certain area or environment. This doesn't need to be PROVEN. It's been observed and recorded in a hundred years of statistical data!

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

I could define a year to be equal to 3 rotations. Or the length of time it takes to walk down the block. It's just a word and is open to interpretation. Don't get caught up on this though, I'm just trying to illustrate the subjective nature of how we define measurements and other things.

Does that number involve the idea that Noah, Abraham and others lived for 800-1000 years or something?

Hmm, maybe in biblical times a year meant something different?

Are you trying to be obtuse intentionally to tick people off?

Words and definitions are subjective yes. However measurements do not have to be, if the definition of that measurement is clearly given.

In biblical times if a year meant something different, then writings from that time would describe that.. but they don't, historical writings can be found that detail exactly what they thought a year was.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Regorium

@#$%. You just don't get it. If you re-define the year to say a "Llama" which lasts 6 months. The world would last for 9.2 billion "Llama's" by your calculation and it is still true.

Methodology is indeed subjective. Which is why so many scientific papers are thrown out every year based on the methodology. Remember the Korean scientist that said he could clone stem cells? Someone else (several other groups in fact) tested his methodology and found it to fail. Thus his paper was deemed invalid. On the other hand if they were able to repeat the experiment, then that is the first step to claiming validity.

No no, I get it. I don't actually want to re-define a year and can accept the observations of a year to be true.

Everyone is picking up on my concept of redefining units of measurements, but missing the idea that they require consensus to be regarded as "truth". That's subjective to me. That's all I'm saying. Truth is subjective. People have to agree in order to share information. That information holds zero truth and zero meaning outside of human consensus.

[MarchHare]

I could define a year to be equal to 3 rotations. Or the length of time it takes to walk down the block. It's just a word and is open to interpretation. Don't get caught up on this though, I'm just trying to illustrate the subjective nature of how we define measurements and other things.

Changing the unit of measurement doesn't change the age of the Earth nor does it make the scientific process used to determine the age subjective.

It doesn't matter what you define a year to be, the age of the earth is still the same number of seconds, which is the SI standard unit for measuring time.

One year = 365.25 days (approximately)
One day = 24 hours
One hour = 60 minutes
One minute = 60 seconds
One second = the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom

Think of it this way: if I say the distance between Calgary and Edmonton is 299 kilometers and you say that the distance is 186 miles, is the distance subjectively different or is it the same distance just expressed in two different units of measurement?

[llama64]

Originally Posted by photon

Are you trying to be obtuse intentionally to tick people off?

Don't mean to be, just challenging some base asumptions that people have regarding the truth of their understanding.

This was a side debate that I found interesting. But it's off topic and has come to dominate the discussion too much. If you react badly to my arguments, just ignore them as I will not be able to explain them properly in a medium like this.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Changing the unit of measurement doesn't change the age of the Earth nor does it make the scientific process used to determine the age subjective.

It doesn't matter what you define a year to be, the age of the earth is still the same number of seconds, which is the SI standard unit for measuring time.

One year = 365.25 days (approximately)
One day = 24 hours
One hour = 60 minutes
One minute = 60 seconds
One second = the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom

Think of it this way: if I say the distance between Calgary and Edmonton is 299 kilometers and you say that the distance is 186 miles, is the distance subjectively different or is it the same distance just expressed in two different units of measurement?

But, if a year means 1 rotation now, but meant 200 back when Abraham was walking aruond, the age of the earth could indeed be interpreted differently.

I'm not saying that it's literally different, just that how we percieve that measurement could be different. It's a hard concept to relate over a message board. I just don't want anyone thinking I'm a loon with my head in a cloud of sweetly smelling smoke...