Real Science Friday: A Horse is a Horse Of Course

[Jefferson]

RSF: A Horse is a Horse Of Course

This is the show from Friday March 12th, 2010.

BEST QUOTES OF THE SHOW:

There is scientific evidence from the red shift from the light from galaxies that it looks like our galaxy and our planet is near the center of the universe. If you can imagine yourself looking at a dart board and on your dart board on each concentric circle are galaxies and the farther you go out from the dart board there's another concentric circle of galaxies. So our galaxy is in the center of all these. If you're in the center it's the only way you can observe that pattern. And it's evolutionists who have discovered this. And it contradicts the big bang, it contradicts their Copernican principle, their principle of mediocrity that there is no center of the universe, there's no edge, we don't have a privileged place. And the evidence is coming in that that's just flat out wrong.

Why don't they tell students that there's no scientific evidence for the Copernican principle? ...It's a tax-funded religion taught in the public schools.

SUMMARY:

A Horse is a Horse Of Course Of Course: Bob Enyart blindsides his co-host Fred Williams with topics from the great January to March issue of Creation magazine. Fred has a fun time on this episode of Real Science Friday addressing:
- The full-grown tallest and smallest horses (6.5 vs. 1.5 ft) did not evolve from one another
- The balanced birth ratio of boys and girls argues against polygamy
- Google maps helps identify 200-mile wide flood debris patterns
- Former atheist Carl Sagan's non-sequitur: Earth is insignificant so be kind
- White blood cells have millipede-like legs that sense and move to infections
- 10-year old girl has full vision with half a brain, indicating design and not 'selection'
- Ancient lava flow from global catastrophe equaled MSH x 500,000 (Mt St Helens * .5M)
- Evolutionists: Darwin was wrong about the appendix, so CORRECT the textbooks already
- "Preponderance of scientific evidence:" kids raised without religion believe in creation

* Today's Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown'
In the Beginning and Bob's interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You'll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez' Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media's Unlocking the Mystery of Life You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart's Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; And the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI's tremendous Creation magazine!

 

[Johnny]

There is scientific evidence from the red shift from the light from galaxies that it looks like our galaxy and our planet is near the center of the universe. If you can imagine yourself looking at a dart board and on your dart board on each concentric circle are galaxies and the farther you go out from the dart board there's another concentric circle of galaxies. So our galaxy is in the center of all these. If you're in the center it's the only way you can observe that pattern. And it's evolutionists who have discovered this. And it contradicts the big bang, it contradicts their Copernican principle, their principle of mediocrity that there is no center of the universe, there's no edge, we don't have a privileged place. And the evidence is coming in that that's just flat out wrong.

Place six points on a balloon and blow it up. Every point moves away from every other point. By your logic every point is the center or near the center of the balloon because from the vantage point of any single point, all other points are moving away.

 

[Granite]

Since when is/was Sagan a "former" atheist?

 

[Stripe]

Place six points on a balloon and blow it up. Every point moves away from every other point. By your logic every point is the center or near the center of the balloon because from the vantage point of any single point, all other points are moving away.

Earth is not a point on the surface of a balloon. :nono:

If we were prepared to think about space as a normal, three dimensional thing it's fairly easy to understand the point being made. Might you be prepared to discuss this show under the assumption that space is just a normal, three dimensional thing?

Since when is/was Sagan a "former" atheist?

Since he died. :duh:

 

[fool]

I had my appendix removed when I was 17, the procedure involved having my groin area shaved by a large black man named Jerome.

 

[Alate_One]

Another wrong science Friday inspired by ridiculous creation magazine . . .

- The full-grown tallest and smallest horses (6.5 vs. 1.5 ft) did not evolve from one another

Of course it makes sense you don't use the tallest horses to breed the smallest ones . . . what do you people not even understand animal breeding? :kookoo: BUT they share a common ancestor, a mid-sized domestic horse. I think even a creationist would accept that.

- 10-year old girl has full vision with half a brain, indicating design and not 'selection'

I've no idea how an event like this would indicate "design" over selection. Especially when the genes for things like color vision are all virtually identical to one another.

- Evolutionists: Darwin was wrong about the appendix, so CORRECT the textbooks already

The vermiform appendix is a holdover from primarily herbivorous ancestors. Its only current function appears to be to serve as a refuge for microbes in the case of infection. (Note that Vestigial organs are not "functionless"). However its very frequently a source of infection say appendicitis! The lifetime risk of appendicitis is around 7%.

"Its major importance would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession."

Alfred Sherwood Romer and Thomas S. Parsons
The Vertebrate Body (1986), p. 389. :rotfl:

 

[The Barbarian]

The full-grown tallest and smallest horses (6.5 vs. 1.5 ft) did not evolve from one another

Someone told you that evolutionary theory says they should? Wouldn't it be better if you learned what the theory actually says? Incidentally, the smallest known horse was a bit smaller than any modern form artificially selected by man. I realize that this isn't about facts for you guys, but still...

The balanced birth ratio of boys and girls argues against polygamy

Actually, slightly more girls than boys are born. More males are conceived, but fewer make it to full term birth. We have it close, because humans are mostly monogamous.

Google maps helps identify 200-mile wide flood debris patterns

And we've found evidence of much larger flooding when the Mediterranean Sea flooded what is now the Black Sea. Don't see how this rules out evolution, though.

Former atheist Carl Sagan's non-sequitur: Earth is insignificant so be kind

This rules out evolution, how?

White blood cells have millipede-like legs that sense and move to infections

Chemotaxis is one of the evidences for evolution. Would you like to learn about it?

10-year old girl has full vision with half a brain, indicating design and not 'selection'

So organisms with nervous systems more open to restructuring rule out evolution? That seems to be evidence for evolution.

Ancient lava flow from global catastrophe equaled MSH x 500,000 (Mt St Helens * .5M)

Big lava flows rule out evolution? How?

Evolutionists: Darwin was wrong about the appendix, so CORRECT the textbooks already

Turns out Darwin was right. In The Origin of Species, he pointed out that rudimentary organs might retain some function or even gain a different one. The appendix is a good example.

You're easy to fool, only as long as you don't know about it. Libraries are free.

 

[rainee]

Hi Barbarian!

HUG!

I see you are still in fine form, my friend.
Giving us all fits and so forth if we try to take that big juicy bone of what really happened in the past out of the jaws of deception... (bet you didn't know I would say that!)

Are you going to be a friend on my buddy page?
(Don't really know what that means, but as long as you don't show up on my doorstep in the morning I guess it would be alright)
:ha:

And a pleasure of course to me.
HUG


BIG PS
How do you post messages on that page?
It's killing me i tell you!

 

[The Barbarian]

Hi Barbarian!

HUG!

Hello, rainee, my friend. So good to see you again!

I see you are still in fine form, my friend.
Giving us all fits and so forth if we try to take that big juicy bone of what really happened in the past out of the jaws of deception... (bet you didn't know I would say that!)

Nothing's really changed, has it?

Are you going to be a friend on my buddy page?
(Don't really know what that means, but as long as you don't show up on my doorstep in the morning I guess it would be alright)

Of course. I don't spend much time on those pages, but I will do that.

And a pleasure of course to me.
HUG

And to me.

BIG PS
How do you post messages on that page?
It's killing me i tell you!

Hmm...I'll take a look. As I said, I don't spend much time there.

 

[rainee]

Nothing's really changed, has it?

Actually, dear Barbarian, it has changed, or I have rather.

I've hit my head against this wall of science knowledge too many
times to keep up the same approach.

So the tactics and approach (hopefully) are geared differently.

Like so:

Evolution doesn't have to be false to be WRONG.

What do you think about that?

Does it say, do you say, there was change in organisms to an environment as the environment changed?

Well, I can go with that - as long as we restrict the time of great change to before and after the flood.

Also macroevolution could exist back then if monkeys and apes did not become something other than types of monkeys and apes.
But (and this is important) monkeys and apes did not have to exist in the form they are in now at the time of creation, do you understand?
They could have been different in dramatic ways to what they are now.

Like a whale going from having rear legs to not having them, that's ok.

And could a hippo and a horse and even a whale have come from the same creature before the flood? I don't see why not.
The Panda and the Polar Bear are dramatically different, afterall.

How am I doing so far?

Evolution doesn't have to be totally wrong...
for it to make a wrong assumption and so not be right.

 

[Johnny]

Earth is not a point on the surface of a balloon. :nono:

The balloon is an analogy for the metric expansion of space.

Read up. Get back to me.

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, if stipe has problems with the surface of a balloon, he could also consider an infinitely large loaf of raisin bread rising. An observer on any raisin would see every other raisin moving away from his, and would like our gullible creationists, assume that he was the center of the universe.

 

[rainee]

...he could also consider an infinitely large loaf of raisin bread rising. An observer on any raisin would see every other raisin moving away from his, and would like our gullible creationists, assume that he was the center of the universe.

:hammer:

I couldn't find an emoticon for screaming so the whacking myself in the head will have to do

(Which if anybody is reading this who cares about emoticons - shouldn't a Christian site have one for:
being humble?
giving a hug??
fainting or screaming?
Thank you)

So the evolution-istic science accepted and approved idea is indeed the rising of raisin bread, yes, it is.

Where are you to picture this bread according to the self same ones who use the figurative picture?

Not in time and not in space.

The time and space are in the bread.
The universe, and all time and all space - ALL Everything is The Bread,
and In The Bread.

Almost sounds religious, don't it? :jump:

This may be because the way we feel about God - They feel about All of Creation.

 

[GuySmiley]

BTW, if stipe has problems with the surface of a balloon, he could also consider an infinitely large loaf of raisin bread rising. An observer on any raisin would see every other raisin moving away from his, and would like our gullible creationists, assume that he was the center of the universe.

I know knee jerk reactions* are hard to overcome but think about it. Only raisins near the true center would see the other raisins moving away at nearly all the same rate.** Does it bother you that we may be near the center of the universe?

* disagreeing with everything a creationist says.

** I'm not even sure this is why someone is saying we are near the center of the universe, but still, your analogy is stupid.

 

[GuySmiley]

I had my appendix removed when I was 17, the procedure involved having my groin area shaved by a large black man named Jerome.

And this proves evolution how?

This is my impression of how Barbarian would answer if he were a creationist.

 

[The Barbarian]

I know knee jerk reactions* are hard to overcome but think about it. Only raisins near the true center would see the other raisins moving away at nearly all the same rate.**

No. That's not what happens. But if you want to try it, go ahead. The two-dimensional analogue is the surface of a balloon, but in the bread, each raisin will see every other raisin moving away from it, and the farther away the other raisins are, the faster they will be going. If this makes no sense to you, you need to try it first with a balloon and then, if you still can't see how it applies in 3 dimensions, with raisin bread.

Does it bother you that we may be near the center of the universe?

We could be at the "center of the universe", in the same sense that Topeka, Kansas might be at the center of the Earth's surface. If you don't get that, go to the library and get an introductory text on topology.

* disagreeing with everything a creationist says.

Actually, many creationists are smart enough to know that this isn't evidence that the Earth is at the center of the universe. Most 8th graders know better.

Or should.

** I'm not even sure this is why someone is saying we are near the center of the universe, but still, your analogy is stupid.

As I said, try it, or just go learn about the subject. It will be a revelation for you.

And rainee, science can only talk about what's in the loaf. (if the loaf is an analogy for the universe) What's outside the loaf is beyond the reach of science, and as you know, there are perfectly good ways to learn about that, even if science can't do it.

 

[GuySmiley]

No. That's not what happens. But if you want to try it, go ahead. The two-dimensional analogue is the surface of a balloon, but in the bread, each raisin will see every other raisin moving away from it, and the farther away the other raisins are, the faster they will be going. If this makes no sense to you, you need to try it first with a balloon and then, if you still can't see how it applies in 3 dimensions, with raisin bread.

Did you listen to the show? I'm speaking in context of the claim in the show. Apparently glaxies are arranged in concentric sphere's around us. That's the finding of some non-creationist astronomers. So, no we don't see the same rates for every object, like a balloon, but we see the same rates for each concentric sphere of galaxies, which we would only see from the center.

 

[Jukia]

Did you listen to the show? I'm speaking in context of the claim in the show. Apparently glaxies are arranged in concentric sphere's around us. That's the finding of some non-creationist astronomers. So, no we don't see the same rates for every object, like a balloon, but we see the same rates for each concentric sphere of galaxies, which we would only see from the center.

Does anyone know if that is accurate? I learned some time ago that everything Pastor Bob and his science advisors claim is not necessarily accurate. Well to be fair, I guess I would have to say--not likely to be accurate.

 

[GuySmiley]

Does anyone know if that is accurate? I learned some time ago that everything Pastor Bob and his science advisors claim is not necessarily accurate. Well to be fair, I guess I would have to say--not likely to be accurate.

I just went a read more about that. The non-creationist scientists found that redshifts fall into clear groupings. Its the creationist scientist who took those groupings of redshifts to mean distances (doesnt seem like much of a stretch). So that would put galaxies in concentric sphere's around us, with us nearly at the center. Here's a link to where I read about it.

http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show

Yes its a creationist site, but it has links, and its a creationist theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you listen to the show? I'm speaking in context of the claim in the show. Apparently glaxies are arranged in concentric sphere's around us.

Nope. Even for the very closest ones, this is not true.

http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~dmason/gregsclass/blobs.gif

galaxies are in clusters, not concentric rings. Certainly not around the Earth.

That's the finding of some non-creationist astronomers.

Nope. At least none I ever read about. Can you show us someone who disputes the data to which I just linked?

So, no we don't see the same rates for every object, like a balloon,

The rates are all different. The farther away they are, the faster they are receding from us. But for every other galaxy out there, the same thing is true.

Of course for galaxies in our own cluster, we can be moving closer or farther away, but outside that, every galaxy is moving away from every other one. There is no "center." You've been taken down the path, I'm afraid.