I'm looking at both sides of the argument, but I'm having some major problems

may I suggest you read the Case For Faith by Lee Stobel--I think that is the right author.

Today at 07:42 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #1

4. How can irreducibly complex entitites evolve? This one really gets me. A five part irreducibly complex machine poses a significant problem, by it's nature (interdependent parts, one part not working without the simultaneous interaction of the other parts)

Click to expand...

I'd like to know how one determines if something is irreducibly complex or not.

7. Mutations have never been shown to be beneficial.

Click to expand...

This is false. Sometimes mutations are beneficial. Look at antibiotic resistance in bacteria or insect resistance to pesticides. And whether or not something is beneficial is largely dependant on environment.

8. The probabilities of a cell forming randomly are so slim as to be very near impossible. Furthermore, there's not enough time (even within a parameter of 20,000,000,000 years for a cell to form (according to probability theory). If there's not enough time for a single cell to form, how so for such a diverse universe, and creatures with trillions of interacing
cells.

Click to expand...

Based on the parameters in typical probability calculations involving cell formation, I could show you how it would take 500 000 years to take 10 white socks from a drawer of 100 socks. In a nutshell, probability calculations are usually rigged in a fashion to give such improbable results, simply to try to demonstrate that life, short of divine intervention, should be impossible.

10. How can life come from non-life? This defies the Law of Biogenesis.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the Law of Biogenesis is it only deals with fully formed cells spontaneously appearing. Abiogenesis, however, does not deal with spontaneous formation.

I would suggest the following from "Reasons to Believe," an organization dedicated to explaining science to believers who have questions such as yours:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

1. If not even a speck of life has been discovered (I could be mistaken, although Carl Sagan couldn't find any after 25 years) outside of Earth, isn't it a little odd that there's such a huge abundance of life on 1 planet? Shouldn't it be, I don't know, a little more evenly distributed?

We trully dont know. It really could be evenly distributed. Compared to the universe, 25 years is nothing.
We just recently became even closely able to find life, and even the SETI radio wave research only would detect life that is advanced enough to produce radio waves (we even havent even been able to do that for too long).

So we cant say that life isnt evenly distributed because we honestly dont know.

2. Concerning the atoms that make up everything (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc.): What is it in atoms that allow for consciousness, love, hate, a universal concept of good and evil?

Its not the atoms but what the atoms make that makes up people and life. Its really too large of a step. A smaller step would be Cells and emotions.
Cells dont have emotion. Cells are alive. Humans are made up of cells, but we have emotion.

4. How can irreducibly complex entitites evolve?

Because entities evolve in groups and not single creatures. And because more than one thing can evolve at once. Evolution is a bunch of baby steps that add up to large things. These baby steps take a very long time to work out. All the basic parts of a creature that need to work with each other evolved at the same time or else they evolved the need to have each other later.

6. Referring back to question 1: Not only is there an abundance of life, but diversity, and not only diversity, buy synergy. Thousands of irreducibly complex species of animal and plant life, humans etc. composed of smaller and smaller irreducibly complex entitites all living on an earth that is favorable to their existence. Not only favorable, but supportive (e.g. humans eat animals/plants -> animals eat plants -> plants take in energy from the sun) The sun governs the day, the moon the night etc. etc.

Because everything evolved together. just like if a cat and a dog grow up together, they will stay friends and work together. The earth grew up with all these plants and creatures, so everything evolved to work together.

7. Mutations have never been shown to be beneficial.

Not true.
A quick example is sicle cell animia. Its considered bad, but someone who has it (or who partially has it) is much more immune to malaria than normal people. so a bad thing is actually beneficial.

9. In his book, "In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the flood" Walt Brown, Ph.D. proposes a hydroplate theory of the flood which answers the "fossil record" as well as earth's many geological features. There seems to be more evidence for a worldwide flood than for evolution.

Not true. Much of this "explination" is just distorting of things to fit the creationist theory.
There is no real evidence for the global flood.
I would suggest, reading my flood thread bellow. Although it doesnt address the "flood did everything" claim, it does bring into question if the literal global flood ever happend.

This however, is a topic for an entire new thread.

11. My problem with the Big Bang is that it doesn't really explain anything. There's not really much evidence to back it up at all.

I would suggest reading up on the Big Bang, from non creationist sites.

12. The New Testament is historically accurate. Jesus walked the Earth some 2,000 years ago approx. His actions fulfilled over 300 Old testament prophecies. The probabilites of that happening by chance are near to impossible.

So far I have yet to see any evidence that doesnt come from the bible that says the NT is historically accurate.
sure his actions fulfilled over 300 old testament prophecies, because he was expected too. no one really knows for sure if he did any of that, let alone even existed.

I didnt answer some of the questions because im not sure what you were talking about, didnt know, or didnt know enough about to really give an answer.

Truth in Faith,

I will reply to some of you post.  Some has already been answer.

1. If not even a speck of life has been discovered (I could be mistaken, although Carl Sagan couldn't find any after 25 years) outside of Earth, isn't it a little odd that there's such a huge abundance of life on 1 planet? Shouldn't it be, I don't know, a little more evenly distributed?

How much of the universe outside the earth have we explored? There are estimated to be about 100 billion galaxies and ours has about 100 billion stars.  We are discovering more extra-solar planets all the time. Let’s say one in ten stars has a planetary system and that 1 solar system in a million has a planet somewhat similar to planet earth in size composition and distance from the sun.  We have explored only one solar system and think that there is only life on one planet. With these assumptions we have explored about 0.0000000000001% of the potentially habitable planets in the universe. I think it is a little premature to conclude that we are on the only one with life.  Though I suppose it is possible.

SNIP

. In his book, "Starlight and Time" Dr. Russel Humphreys (Ph.D. in physics) proposes a theory that fits in with all the reasons that scientists believe in a Big Bang (so there is just as much evidence for his theory as the Big Bang), although it works out to a young earth.


I could point you to some creationists trashing Humprey’s “model”.  

 
5. In relation to the above question, what about an irreducibly complex entity with trillions of parts, like the human. Referring back to question 2: Not only is it an irreducibly complex machine with trillions of parts, but it (we) can feel, love, hate, think, reason, and are the smartest beings on earth (e.g. animals are below us

6. Referring back to question 1: Not only is there an abundance of life, but diversity, and not only diversity, buy synergy.

That’s why it took a few billion years of evolution.

SNIP
9. In his book, "In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the flood" Walt Brown, Ph.D. proposes a hydroplate theory of the flood which answers the "fossil record" as well as earth's many geological features. There seems to be more evidence for a worldwide flood than for evolution.

Walt Brown’s hydroplate model is so goofy he won’t even try to publish it in creationist journals. Do you understand that it is directly opposed to Humpreys who you quoted above? For example Brown claims there is no evidence of magnetic reversals but Humphreys says they happed rapidly during the flood. They can’t both be right but they can both be wrong.  I think they are.  There is NO evidence for a worldwide flood and certainly NO evidence for massive amounts of water stored 10 miles beneath the earth’s surface before this supposed flood.  The worldwide flood of Noah was falsified about 200 years ago by Christian Geologists who were looking for evidence of said flood but found none. It has been falsified by the order in the fossil record, by features in the earth’s geology such as massive salt layers, by the biogeography of extant animals, by the very biodiversity that you talk about and by archeology and probably some branches of science that I left out.  I have done a calculation showing how Brown’s model cooks the earth to death many times over. You can see my analysis on page 4 of Arikay's Fun With Flood Math thread. Brown's model doesn’t cook the earth to death as many times over as Buamgardner et al.’s runaway subduction model but dead is dead. 


I'm really trying to look at both sides here, althought everything I see points to a Creator. It makes sense with Genesis perfectly, much more so than the Big Bang. I think someone has to have a lot of faith to believe in the Big Bang over God, at least it's like that in my case. 

 You are clearly not looking at both sides at all. You have just posted a bunch of stuff from some YEC site or book. Maybe you didn’t cut and paste it word for word but most of it sounds pretty familiar to me. 

Someone once said "A little science leads you away from God, much leads you back to Him."

I'm really seeking answers to these pressing questions. I was told to look at both sides, and I have, and am.

A little science may lead you to believe some of the claims of YECs since they may sound convincing even to those with some education especially if the person needs to believe it in the first place.  A knowledge of much science should lead to the realizations that YEC claims about the young earth and worldwide flood are totally bogus and that evolution doesn't have many of the problems that creationists claim.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

2. Concerning the atoms that make up everything (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc.): What is it in atoms that allow for consciousness, love, hate, a universal concept of good and evil?

The human brain is mechanical like a computer. It has functionality differences, but it is still mechanical. Love and hate are just algorithms we process to deal with our life. Without these preset emotions, we would not form a solid society that has an evolutionary advantage.

7. Mutations have never been shown to be beneficial. How is that such a vast number of them supposedly occured to produce thousands of different species. I always thought of mutations, not as creative force, but as something that deviates from a pre-existing set of information/life.

Don't forget that the advantage of sexual reproduction is that it allows for mutations not to be so deadly and also allows for different genes to be expressed in different combinations.

10. How can life come from non-life? This defies the Law of Biogenesis.
Furthemore, how can reason, logic, and human emotion come from nothingness? Doesn't every effect require a cause equal to or greater than itself? Is nothingness greater than everything?

If we take the blueprint for the wimpiest form of life (virus or single cell). We could collect all the atoms and put the cell together atom by atom. We know that the atome were non-life before the experiment and they were life after. Therefore, you can have life from non-life.

11. My problem with the Big Bang is that it doesn't really explain anything. There's not really much evidence to back it up at all. Refer to question 3 to see how the few things providing "evidence" for the Big Bang can be easily explained by God creating the Earth in 6 days according the general theory of relativity. Essentially, the Big Bang says: "Everything came from nothing". That's not really saying anything. All it's saying is that "It just is".

The Big Bang explains the 3 Kelvin background radiation and why galaxies are moving away from each other. If you were to trace back time, you would see all galaxies coming together. We know from relativity that the more energy density, the more curvature of space. So based on what we know and tracing back galaxies paths into the past we see signs for a Big Bang.

12. The New Testament is historically accurate. Jesus walked the Earth some 2,000 years ago approx. His actions fulfilled over 300 Old testament prophecies. The probabilites of that happening by chance are near to impossible. Not only that, but his coming is predicted to the very day:

I find it innaccurate and copied from earlier works. I have seen no proof that there ever was a person named Jesus.

Scott (Quath)

Yesterday at 07:42 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #1

With a naturalistic universe (big bang/evolution) 

Click to expand...

The "big bang" theory of creation has nothing to do with evolution. It is a creation theory proposed by the physician turned rabbi Nachmanides in the 1300's from his study of the Talmud, Midrash, and the  Kabbalah or Jewish Mystisism. More recently the science of physics has taken some interest in it and has adapted into metaphysics. Also those who study quantum physics have shown an interest in this theory.

Although perhaps Hubble was the one who made it most popular.

Today at 05:01 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #8



The "big bang" theory of creation has nothing to do with evolution. It is a creation theory proposed by the physician turned rabbi Nachmanides in the 1300's from his study of the Talmud, Midrash, and the  Kabbalah or Jewish Mystisism. More recently the science of physics has taken some interest in it and has adapted into metaphysics. Also those who study quantum physics have shown an interest in this theory.

Although perhaps Hubble was the one who made it most popular.

Click to expand...

Any similarity between the writings of Nachmanides and the Big Bang theory is most likely coincidence. The Big Bang theory was created based on examination of evidence, but Nachmiandes based his ideas on holy writings.

Truth in Faith: 1. If not even a speck of life has been discovered (I could be mistaken, although Carl Sagan couldn't find any after 25 years) outside of Earth, isn't it a little odd that there's such a huge abundance of life on 1 planet?

Click to expand...

DNAunion: No. Even if Earth were the only planet in the Universe to harbor life, we would still expect an abundance of life to exist on it.

Truth in Faith: Shouldn't [life] be, I don't know, a little more evenly distributed?

Click to expand...

DNAunion: To reiterate what someone else stated… We don’t know that it’s not. I look around at people I know and none of them have the same first and last name as me, so if all I examine is that small fraction of totality, I might incorrectly conclude that my name is unique. But if I check New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, and other large cities, I would likely find that my name is pretty much evenly distributed.

Truth in Fait: 2. Concerning the atoms that make up everything (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc.): What is it in atoms that allow for consciousness, love, hate, a universal concept of good and evil?

Click to expand...

DNAunion: The idea is that these things are emergent properties – properties that arise only at higher levels and which are not explainable in full at the lower levels. If you look at atoms only, you won’t see anything in them that will make a hurricane – yet hurricanes arise all the time. You have to look at an enormous collection of atoms, and how they are interacting at that higher level, in order to see a hurricane “emerge” from them.

Truth in Faith: 5. In relation to the above question, what about an irreducibly complex entity with trillions of parts, like the human.

Click to expand...

DNAunion: I think that is your application of IC, and not what the “biggies” in ID claim. For example, the human body itself is not an irreducibly complex system – it is a complex system of systems (and not a single system as is required by Behe’s definition).

Truth in Faith: 6. Referring back to question 1: Not only is there an abundance of life, but diversity, and not only diversity, buy synergy. Thousands of irreducibly complex species of animal and plant life, humans etc. composed of smaller and smaller irreducibly complex entitites all living on an earth that is favorable to their existence.

Click to expand...

DNAunion: Again, you seem to using the term irreducibly complex as you see fit, and not as Behe would.

Truth in Faith: 7. Mutations have never been shown to be beneficial.

Click to expand...

DNAunion: Others have given you some counterexamples. Behe (whose ideas you seem to accept) recognizes that beneficial mutations can occur. For example, basically, when the lac operon system was crippled in some bacteria, they were able to reestablish function by having the needed mutations occur.

Truth in Faith: How is that such a vast number of them supposedly occured to produce thousands of different species. I always thought of mutations, not as creative force, but as something that deviates from a pre-existing set of information/life.

Click to expand...

DNAunion: As someone already pointed out, the value of a mutation is determined by the “environment”. Eyes are surely a great asset, right? Sure, if you live where there’s light. But if you belong to a population of fish that migrate into a cave and live there for multiple generations – always in the dark – then eyes become rather useless. And as “bad” mutations occur – those that reduce the functional abilities of the eye - natural selection does not reject them because in the cave, the mutations are not a detriment to the fish. Over time, mutations accumulate until fully formed eyes don’t even develop in the fish. After a while, the descendants of the original population become blind. These blind fish actually have a selective advantage in the cave.

Again, the point is that the value of a mutation is determined by the circumstances (environment).

Truth in Faith: 8. The probabilities of a cell forming randomly are so slim as to be very near impossible. Furthermore, there's not enough time (even within a parameter of 20,000,000,000 years for a cell to form (according to probability theory). If there's not enough time for a single cell to form, how so for such a diverse universe, and creatures with trillions of interacing cells.

…

10. How can life come from non-life? This defies the Law of Biogenesis.

Click to expand...

DNAunion: Aren’t 8 and 10 basically the same thing?

"1. If not even a speck of life has been discovered (I could be mistaken, although Carl Sagan couldn't find any after 25 years) outside of Earth, isn't it a little odd that there's such a huge abundance of life on 1 planet? Shouldn't it be, I don't know, a little more evenly distributed?"

Actually, no. It makes pretty rational sense to believe that life is concentrated in clusters. When life reproduces, it reproduces in the general vicinity, not in the next solar system. As a result, life remains fairly confined. Since life as we know it cannot independantly fly around in space, we would expect it to be limited to Earth. Life may exist elsewhere, but we wouldn't expect life 'evenly distributed' throughout the galaxy. We'd expect it clustered around similar life, just as we find species on this planet. (i.e., you don't find two lions in Africa, three in Australia, nine in Colorado, and sixteen in Iceland - You find them clustered in one place.)

"2. Concerning the atoms that make up everything (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc.): What is it in atoms that allow for consciousness, love, hate, a universal concept of good and evil?"

Atoms do not independantly allow for abstract HUMAN concepts. Good and evil are constructs of human beliefs, not atoms. There isn't a 'loveonium' atom. There are, however, chemical reactions between atomic compounds that affect our brain chemistry, which in turn allows us to 'feel' love.

"3. In his book, "Starlight and Time" Dr. Russel Humphreys (Ph.D. in physics) proposes a theory that fits in with all the reasons that scientists believe in a Big Bang (so there is just as much evidence for his theory as the Big Bang), although it works out to a young earth. "

Good to know. Show us the evidence, show us the argument, and we'll discuss it.

"4. How can irreducibly complex entitites evolve? This one really gets me. A five part irreducibly complex machine poses a significant problem, by it's nature (interdependent parts, one part not working without the simultaneous interaction of the other parts)"

First, define 'irreducibly complex.' Like 'baramin' for creationists, 'ID' is something IDists never like to define. We don't have a way to say "X is ID, Y is not' in a reasonable manner. (The closest thing we have is the mousetrap analogy, which fails.)

"5. In relation to the above question, what about an irreducibly complex entity with trillions of parts, like the human. Referring back to question 2: Not only is it an irreducibly complex machine with trillions of parts, but it (we) can feel, love, hate, think, reason, and are the smartest beings on earth (e.g. animals are below us)."

Yes, we can. Humans are really complicated. That doesn't mean we were created, however. The argument "This is complex, therefore it was designed" is really a silly one.

"6. Referring back to question 1: Not only is there an abundance of life, but diversity, and not only diversity, buy synergy. Thousands of irreducibly complex species of animal and plant life, humans etc. composed of smaller and smaller irreducibly complex entitites all living on an earth that is favorable to their existence. Not only favorable, but supportive (e.g. humans eat animals/plants -> animals eat plants -> plants take in energy from the sun) The sun governs the day, the moon the night etc. etc."

The term "irreducibly complex" should be left out of this. Yes, there is synergy among lifeforms. This should be expected. If a relationship between two life forms is not synergistic (i.e., two species of predators exist that feed on the same prey, but cannot coexist), evolution would expect that one of these predators would eventually become extinct. Hence, we see synergy. Similar deductions can be used for the feeder fish, etc...

"7. Mutations have never been shown to be beneficial. How is that such a vast number of them supposedly occured to produce thousands of different species. I always thought of mutations, not as creative force, but as something that deviates from a pre-existing set of information/life."

Flat-out false. Research it, mutations can be highly beneficial. See previous posts.

"8. The probabilities of a cell forming randomly are so slim as to be very near impossible. Furthermore, there's not enough time (even within a parameter of 20,000,000,000 years for a cell to form (according to probability theory). If there's not enough time for a single cell to form, how so for such a diverse universe, and creatures with trillions of interacing cells."

Actually, there's some recent research regarding eletrical discharges into a 'primordial soup' that seem to explain abiogenesis fairly well. Furthermore, playing with numbers like this is pointless. Remember, evolution doesn't ask for things to form 'at random.' Hence, calculating the likihood of random formation is an excercise in futility.

"9. In his book, "In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the flood" Walt Brown, Ph.D. proposes a hydroplate theory of the flood which answers the "fossil record" as well as earth's many geological features. There seems to be more evidence for a worldwide flood than for evolution."

Oh, please. If you want to do research, and look at both sides equally, you have to LOOK AT BOTH SIDES EQUALLY. Reading a book by a creationist making a creationist argument isn't going to adequately show you both sides of the issue. Check out Talk.Origins. The evidence for evolution and against the global flood is absolutely overwhelming. For all intents and purposes, Noah's Flood is a falsified theory.

"10. How can life come from non-life? This defies the Law of Biogenesis.
Furthemore, how can reason, logic, and human emotion come from nothingness? Doesn't every effect require a cause equal to or greater than itself? Is nothingness greater than everything?"

Again, fallacy of reification - You want the abstract to be concrete. We have concepts of 'emotion,' 'reason,' 'love,' etc. They are not physical. There is not atom for them. They did not come from nowhere, they are the result of chemical processes in our brains.

"11. My problem with the Big Bang is that it doesn't really explain anything. There's not really much evidence to back it up at all. Refer to question 3 to see how the few things providing "evidence" for the Big Bang can be easily explained by God creating the Earth in 6 days according the general theory of relativity. Essentially, the Big Bang says: "Everything came from nothing". That's not really saying anything. All it's saying is that "It just is"."

As opposed to the far superior theory, "Everything came from God, which in turn came from nothing." The Biblical argument here just backs up the problem one step.

"12. The New Testament is historically accurate. Jesus walked the Earth some 2,000 years ago approx. His actions fulfilled over 300 Old testament prophecies. The probabilites of that happening by chance are near to impossible. Not only that, but his coming is predicted to the very day:
http://www.alotek.com/prophecy.shtml"

Whether or not the New Testament is historically accurate is unknown. We have no collaborating evidence for JC's existance - Just the Gospels. Which are wholy inconsistant and are written 70 years after the fact. JC fufilled some prophecies? No. Rather: According to the Gospels, JC fufilled some prophecies. Are the Gospels accurate? We don't know.

I really can't reasonably think that this list of questions was born of an unbiased examination of fact. The two books you cited are creationist. Your final comment (#12) is an assertion of fact, and it's not supported by anything. This type of comment is natural to someone who assumes the Bible is accurate. In order to realistically examine both sides of this debate, you CANNOT start with the conception that the Bible is right. It may be right, it may be wrong. Read your Bible. All the way through. Read the Apocrypha. I have.

Approach it as a POSSIBLY historic document, the same way you would approach, say, a possibly forged scroll from ancient Rome. It may be right, it may not be. Read the whole thing. Now, think: What would you EXPECT to be true if the Bible was accurate. Not "What aspects of reality agree with the Bible?" but "What do I _EXPECT_ the world to be life, assuming the Bible is right about everything?"

Then look around, and see if the world conforms. I found that it did not.

If God spoke the cosmos into existence wouldn't you expect a "Big Bang"?

I would think so.

Badfish,

The Sagan quote in your signature is good example of tactic numero uno of the creationist, out of context quoting.  I got out my copy of Cosmos and found the rest of the quote on page 29

The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament).

I  have investigated several creationist quotes of scientists over the years. Maybe someday I will find one that is totally in context but it hasn't happened yet.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Yesterday at 11:01 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #8

The "big bang" theory of creation has nothing to do with evolution. It is a creation theory proposed by the physician turned rabbi Nachmanides in the 1300's from his study of the Talmud, Midrash, and the  Kabbalah or Jewish Mystisism. More recently the science of physics has taken some interest in it and has adapted into metaphysics. Also those who study quantum physics have shown an interest in this theory.

Although perhaps Hubble was the one who made it most popular.

Click to expand...

Uh... right.

I think the Big Bang theory is more of a "Universe is expanding. Earlier, it was smaller. Theoretically, if you go back far enough, it's all at a single point" idea.

Edwin Hubble made it popular because he noticed that the farther away things were, the faster they were receding, consistent with an expanding universe (No, not at a constant rate, tyvm) which would indicate that it was at some point very very small. That's science.

Today at 04:58 AM Tenek said this in Post #14

Edwin Hubble made it popular because he noticed that the farther away things were, the faster they were receding, consistent with an expanding universe (No, not at a constant rate, tyvm) which would indicate that it was at some point very very small. That's science.

Click to expand...

Just because a universe is expanding does not mean it started off very small. Nachmanides in the 1300's felt the universe started off the size of a mustard seed. He did not claim to be the first to believe that. He felt the teaching was a part of the oral tradition of Moses, that got recorded later after Moses had died.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder has done a study of Nachmanides work, and he is the main person who is promoting this today. He has written some books and he has some articals on the internet.

http://www.windowview.org/science/schrdr/bigbang.gs.html

Today at 03:11 AM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #13 

The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, 

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like Sagan here is telling us about himself, not the fossil record. I remember back when Sagan was doing his PBS specials and making a name for himself and promoting his books. The general opinion of the guy at the time was, he has some really nice photos, but he did not have much of anything intellegent to say about them.

Sounds to me like Sagan here is telling us about himself, not the fossil record.

Click to expand...

again with the "i know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" schtick

Today at 11:24 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #16



Sounds to me like Sagan here is telling us about himself, not the fossil record. I remember back when Sagan was doing his PBS specials and making a name for himself and promoting his books. The general opinion of the guy at the time was, he has some really nice photos, but he did not have much of anything intellegent to say about them.

Click to expand...

Amazing! I point out a clear case of out of context quoting and you respond with an irrelevant ad hominem attack on the deceased writer who was quoted out of context. Are you really a Christian JohnR7? Or are you an atheist troll trying to make Christians look bad? If so you are doing a pretty good job.

The Frumious Bandersnatch




 

Today at 11:24 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #16



Sounds to me like Sagan here is telling us about himself, not the fossil record. I remember back when Sagan was doing his PBS specials and making a name for himself and promoting his books. The general opinion of the guy at the time was, he has some really nice photos, but he did not have much of anything intellegent to say about them.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Dr. Sagan didn't have much going for him, did he:

Dr. Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan

Founder and First President of The Planetary Society

Carl Sagan played a leading role in the American space program since its inception. He was a consultant and adviser to NASA beginning in the 1950s, briefed the Apollo astronauts before their flights to the Moon, and was an experimenter on the Mariner, Viking, Voyager, and Galileo expeditions to the planets. He helped solve the mysteries of the high temperature of Venus (a massive greenhouse effect), the seasonal changes on Mars (windblown dust) and the reddish haze of Titan (complex organic molecules).

For his work, Dr. Sagan received the NASA Medals for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and for Distinguished Public Service twice, as well as the NASA Apollo Achievement Award.

Asteroid 2709 Sagan is named after him. He was also given the John F. Kennedy Astronautics Award of the American Astronautical Society, the Explorers Club 75th Anniversary Award, the Konstantin Tsiolokovsky Medal of the Soviet Cosmonautics Federation, and the Masursky Award of the American Astronomical Society:

"...for his extraordinary contributions to the development of planetary science... As a scientist trained in both astronomy and biology, Dr. Sagan made seminal contributions to the study of planetary atmospheres, planetary surfaces, the history of the Earth, and exobiology. Many of the most productive planetary scientists working today are his present and former students and associates." He is also the 1994 recipient of the Public Welfare Medal, the highest award of the National Academy of Sciences for "distinguished contributions in the application of science to the public welfare."

This award reads as follows:

"Carl Sagan has been enormously successful in communicating the wonder and importance of science. His ability to capture the imagination of millions and to explain difficult concepts in understandable terms is a magnificent achievement."

Dr. Sagan served as Chairman of the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, as President of the Planetology Section of the American Geophysical Union, and as Chairman of the Astronomy Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

For 12 years, he was Editor in Chief of Icarus, the leading professional journal devoted to planetary research. He was the co-founder and first President of The Planetary Society and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.

A Pulitzer Prize winner, Dr. Sagan was the author of many bestsellers, including Cosmos, which became the best-selling science book ever published in the English language. The accompanying Emmy and Peabody award-winning television series has been seen by 500 million people in 60 countries. He received 20 honorary degrees from American colleges and universities for his contributions to science, literature, education, and the preservation of the environment.

At the time of his death on December 20, 1996, he served as the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences and Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell

At university of Chicago he got a doctorate in astronomy and astrophysics through Dr. Keiper.

Today at 11:24 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #16



Sounds to me like Sagan here is telling us about himself, not the fossil record.

Click to expand...

Please tell me we wont have to go through all this again.