Real Science Radio: A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Too Far Away

[Jefferson]

A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Too Far Away

This is the show from Friday March 1st, 2013

SUMMARY:



* Bob & Fred Have Fun with Science News: Real Science Radio co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss articles from the great Answers magazine, including...

* Galaxy Too Far Away To See Claimed Star Births: The so-called "supermom galaxy" that allegedly gives birth to 700 stars per Earth year is five billion light years away, far too distant to see a star, let alone a star being formed. The observations are agreed to by creationists and evolutionists. The public is misled however, to believe that the naturalistic interpretations of the evolutionists are actually the observations themselves, or at least that they are as objective and certain as the observations. However, according to John Maddox, physicist and 23-year editor of the journal Nature, scientists don't even know, "which objects came first, stars or galaxies?" Thus, like PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and all the Darwin Marketing Reps, evolutionary astronomers oversell the public on their confidence gaffle.

For today's show RSR recommends
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!

* Noah's Ark Hollywood Blockbuster Coming Soon: Starring Russell Crowe as Noah, a major Hollywood production house is making a $130-million movie about the global flood of Genesis. Related: Regarding Noah's Arks, Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis organization is building a full-scale Noah's Ark in Kentucky, which will be one of the extraordinary memorial arks built! For as God often says, "Remember."

* How Many Animals Were On The Ark: Check out Marcus Ross' great article, No Kind Left Behind, presents the taxonomic reasoning that suggests that Noah and his family would have had to care for 2,000 land-dweling vertebrates on the ark.

Today’s Resource: Getting a science DVD, debate, or book from us will help keep our science program on the air! Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s 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 (clip)! 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 and Ken Ham's Answers magazine! Or to order call BEL at 1-800-8Enyart.

 

[Frayed Knot]

* How Many Animals Were On The Ark: Check out Marcus Ross' great article, No Kind Left Behind, presents the taxonomic reasoning that suggests that Noah and his family would have had to care for 2,000 land-dweling vertebrates on the ark.

Wow, in the last 4,000 years, lions and tigers have diverged from a common ancestor, and possibly all the cats descend from a single "kind" that Noah took aboard the ark. I guess all the bears were represented by a single "bear kind" on the ark as well!

What that means is that creationists believe in not just evolution, but a souped-up hyper-evolution on steroids. If you believe that tigers and lions diverged into their present states in just 4,000 years, you should have no trouble at all in accepting that all vertebrates diverged from a common ancestor in the last few hundred million years. In fact, at the rate they apparently believe, creationists should expect that all the vertebrates could evolve in less than a million years.

Oh, and Noah didn't have to take the fish on board? You know that if you put a fresh water fish in salt water, it dies, right? And vice-versa. Did God just miraculously make them so that they could tolerate the flood water for a year? If so, it's just as easy to claim that God miraculously allowed polar bears and kangaroos to breathe underwater for a year - why don't y'all just claim that instead? It's less hypocritical than denying that evolution is even possible on one hand while claiming hyper-evolution in the last 4,000 years.

 

[Nick M]

Neg rep for lack of critical thinking skills, and just cribbing from an atheist site.

 

[Nick M]

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/51293/how-can-two-seas-not-mix

Great question.

Where the fountains of the great deep fresh or saltwater? It is interesting to study how it happened.

The picture isn't salt/fresh barrier as far as I know.

 

[gcthomas]

The 'evolutionary astronomy' links in the op take you to this:

* Evolutionary Astronomers & the Funny Phil Plait Spat:
We've already reported that Discover magazine's astronomer, evolutionist Phil Plait, accused Spike Psarris of being deceptive because he uses the term "evolution" to describe naturalistic astronomy for, as Plait wrote, "evolution has nothing to do with astronomy." Now Plait has also criticized us here at Real Science Radio for our report on the spat, which included this comment: "Spike knocks it out of the park by showing the covers of nine astronomy texts, each one with the word evolution in their titles, such as Solar System Evolution." .​

And it goes on to show several planetary science texts with the titles "Planets and there atmospheres: Origins and Evolution", "A Comparison of the Dynamical Evolution of Planetary Systems" and "Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective".

Really! It does! :noway:

:rotfl:

 

[Frayed Knot]

The picture isn't salt/fresh barrier as far as I know.

It's patently obvious that it's shallow on the left, and deeper on the right. Not sure what your point was by posting it.

 

[Jukia]

Where the fountains of the great deep fresh or saltwater? [/QUOTE] Does Walt Brown say?

 

[Paulos]

Oh, and Noah didn't have to take the fish on board? You know that if you put a fresh water fish in salt water, it dies, right? And vice-versa.

Many aquatic species are sensitive to specific ecological conditions such as narrow ranges of temperature, salinity, acidity, turbidity. How did they manage to survive a violent global flood?

Reference: http://paleo.cc/ce/craters.htm

 

[Stripe]

in the last 4,000 years, lions and tigers have diverged from a common ancestor, and possibly all the cats descend from a single "kind" that Noah took aboard the ark.

Possibly.

I guess all the bears were represented by a single "bear kind" on the ark as well!

Yip.

What that means is that creationists believe in not just evolution, but a souped-up hyper-evolution on steroids.

Nope. Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection.

Organisms can adapt to changes in environment according to their design. But when they do this, they diversify. Diversification brings a genetic cost to a population.

If you believe that tigers and lions diverged into their present states in just 4,000 years, you should have no trouble at all in accepting that all vertebrates diverged from a common ancestor in the last few hundred million years.

It's not about what I can believe, it's about what the evidence says.

Oh, and Noah didn't have to take the fish on board? You know that if you put a fresh water fish in salt water, it dies, right? And vice-versa. Did God just miraculously make them so that they could tolerate the flood water for a year?

1) The fish we see today have adapted to their new environments

2) Water need not have been of uniform salinity the world over during the flood.

Try understanding what it is you're up against before ranting like a mad man. :up:

 

[xAvarice]

The so-called "supermom galaxy" that allegedly gives birth to 700 stars per Earth year is five billion light years away, far too distant to see a star, let alone a star being formed.

...Eh?

five billion light years away, far too distant to see a star....

five billion light years away, far too distant to see a star...

five billion light years away, far too distant to see a star...

uh...

five billion light years away, far too distant to see a star

...what?


"So-called... allegedly" - Well, it's not allegedly objective.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Wow, in the last 4,000 years, lions and tigers have diverged from a common ancestor, and possibly all the cats descend from a single "kind" that Noah took aboard the ark. I guess all the bears were represented by a single "bear kind" on the ark as well!

What that means is that creationists believe in not just evolution, but a souped-up hyper-evolution on steroids. If you believe that tigers and lions diverged into their present states in just 4,000 years, you should have no trouble at all in accepting that all vertebrates diverged from a common ancestor in the last few hundred million years. In fact, at the rate they apparently believe, creationists should expect that all the vertebrates could evolve in less than a million years.

Oh, and Noah didn't have to take the fish on board? You know that if you put a fresh water fish in salt water, it dies, right? And vice-versa. Did God just miraculously make them so that they could tolerate the flood water for a year? If so, it's just as easy to claim that God miraculously allowed polar bears and kangaroos to breathe underwater for a year - why don't y'all just claim that instead? It's less hypocritical than denying that evolution is even possible on one hand while claiming hyper-evolution in the last 4,000 years.

Yep, this lion -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/520788706/

- must have hyper-evolved from the ubercat-kind within next to no time after the floodwaters receded.

 

[xAvarice]

Yep, this lion -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/520788706/

- must have hyper-evolved from the ubercat-kind within next to no time after the floodwaters receded.

That#s what happens when children who watch pokemon attempt science.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Possibly.

Should be fairly easy to demonstrate with some genetic evidence then, Professor.

Yip.

Does that include the marsupial bears?

Nope. Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection.

That would be the consequence of what evolutionary evidence indicates. Biological evolution is any genetic change in a population inherited over several generations. This does not require that all organisms descend from a common ancestor, such that life on an hypothetical distant planet need not be related to life on Earth.

Organisms can adapt to changes in environment according to their design. But when they do this, they diversify. Diversification brings a genetic cost to a population.

Some assumed conclusions there, Professor.

It's not about what I can believe, it's about what the evidence says.

So what evidence says all extant cats evolved - sorry, diversified - from an Ark-borne ubercat-kind 4500 years ago?

1) The fish we see today have adapted to their new environments

There's another one of those assumed conclusions.

2) Water need not have been of uniform salinity the world over during the flood.

So just as much or as little as needed wherever it was needed. Do you have any, you know, evidence to support any of this speculation?

Try understanding what it is you're up against before ranting like a mad man. :up:

The Professor should take his own advice.

 

[Jukia]

Many aquatic species are sensitive to specific ecological conditions such as narrow ranges of temperature, salinity, acidity, turbidity. How did they manage to survive a violent global flood?

Reference: http://paleo.cc/ce/craters.htm

Well since if you put most oceanic fish into fresh water or fresh water fish into salt water they dont seem to last long, your choice is either magic (read FSM miracle) or the Noah story is a pretty myth.

Or perhaps there is yet another choice to consider, that all the fish prior to the flood were more like some of the estuarine fish we find today (see the killifish, F. heteroclitis, for example) and if that is the case then given the wonderful tools that we have today that allow for DNA analysis, one of those crack creation scientists should be able to do the research to look at that and determine that all extant fish, both fresh and salt, have "adapted" from a few kinds that existed during the flood 4,000 years ago.

Anyone else hear those crickets???

 

[False Prophet]

Gen 9[1]And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
I don't see any dating here. Although they did not have a calendar back then, I do believe that they could have left behind a clue in the scriptures how to determine their age.
Gen 7[6]And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
The pope said that the earth was six thousand years old, and that was four hundred years ago. Now the earth should be six thousand four hundred years old. The Bible does not give us any dating for the age of the earth.
Gen 61And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, 2that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. 3And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. 4The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

5And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

I don't see any way we can date these occurrences.

 

[Stripe]

Anyone else hear those crickets???

:loser:

 

[Lordkalvan]

Point, Professor?

 

[Jukia]

:loser:

Ah Stripe, you never fail. I come up with a specific suggestion, even suggested a specific experimental animal, that one of the creation scientists can use, given current technology to blow evolution and a long time scale out of the water and all I get is one of your icons.

 

[Stripe]

Ah Stripe, you never fail. I come up with a specific suggestion, even suggested a specific experimental animal, that one of the creation scientists can use, given current technology to blow evolution and a long time scale out of the water and all I get is one of your icons.

:mock: Julia.

 

[Lordkalvan]

:mock: Julia.

I see the Professor is maintaining his usual high standard of debate.