https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discoveries-about-ancient-human-evolution-win-2022-nobel-prize-in-physiology-or-medicine/

Svante Pääbo proved the fact Eurasians are 1-4% Neanderthal and Asians/Melanesians are up to an additional 6% Denisovan, two species of humans that went extinct 40,000 yrs ago, after evolving for 300,000 yrs in Eurasia before we (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) arrived from Africa and wiped them out, after interbreeding with them.

How any creationist reconciles that fact with a 6,000yo creationism fairy tale, is beyond me.

Francis Collins, who mapped the Human Genome and is a Christian, accepts the theory of evolution, he just figures God guided the process. Which doesn’t account for why interbreeding with Denisovans and Neanderthals 40k yrs ago is completely incompatible with a 6,000 y.o. Creationism narrative.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2022 02:31PM by schrodingerscat.

Hominids owe a tremendous debt to the interstellar attack that wiped out Dinosauria 65 million years ago.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hominids owe a tremendous debt to the interstellar
> attack that wiped out Dinosauria 65 million years
> ago.

Thank you asteroid!

DING

Round 367

Elderolddog VS Schrodingerscat

Which one is the dong?

"How any creationist reconciles that fact with a 6,000yo creationism fairy tale, is beyond me.

Francis Collins, who mapped the Human Genome and is a Christian, accepts the theory of evolution, he just figures God guided the process. Which doesn’t account for why interbreeding with Denisovans and Neanderthals 40k yrs ago is completely incompatible with a 6,000 y.o. Creationism narrative."

COMMENT: Of course, it is beyond you, because you have dismissed the idea, without much thought or research.

There are several competent and prominent scientists who have attempt to rationally reconcile 'young-Earth creationism' with evolution. They do this in a number of ways, all of which center around the nature of time.

One such author, Gerald L. Schroeder, a distinguished Jewish physicist, provides a comprehensive account of such a reconciliation. Schroeder notes that the Bible's timeline differentiates between cosmic time, and Earth time, claiming that Earth time in the Bible begins with the creation of Atom on the '7th day' while cosmic time covers the 'first 6 days'. So, the challenge is to reconcile the first 6 days of the Bible narrative with scientific understanding of cosmic time.

The essence of the claim, is that just as space expanded after the Big Bang, so did time, as established by the cosmic background radiation (CBR). In other words, the high frequency radiation emanating from the big bang 'stretched out' over cosmic time creating the wavelengths we see now in the CBR. From this we can infer a drastic difference in time as viewed from the Big Bang. Whereas from Earth's perspective, the time from the Big Bang is 13.8 billion years, from the perspective of the early universe, the time was 6 days. Here are a couple of quotes:

"The immense stretching of space since the big bang has strong implications for our cosmic clock. Waves of radiation that have propagated in space since the early universe have been stretched, expanded, by the same proportion that the universe has expanded. For example, as the universe doubled in size, the distance between wave crests (and hence the time between ticks of its clock) also doubled as the wave was stretched by the expanding space. For that clock, time would be passing at half its original rate. Again, please note that this time dilation relates solely to the stretching of space."

"This cosmic clock records the passage of on minute while we on Earth experience a million million minutes. The dinosaurs ruled the Earth for 120 million years, *as measured by our perception of time.* Those clocks are set by the decay of radioactive nuclides here on Earth and they are correct for our earthy system. But to know the cosmic time we must divide earth time by a million million. At this million-million to one ratio those 120 million Earth years lasted a mere hour. That's the peer-reviewed physics and the biblical tradition of this discussion."

(Gerald L. Schroeder, *The Science of God* (1997)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder

My heavens.

Do you realize you are now treating as credible some of the arguments that W. Cleon Skousen and his friends were preaching in the late 1950s?

Does that not worry you?

The credibility of an argument is based upon the plausibility of stated facts as applied to sound logic. Where the argument comes from, and the motivations of the claimant, are irrelevant. That is the whole point of my post here.

In the present case, in my view the book I cited here as an apologist treatise for God and Biblical legitimacy was factually and logically flawed. However, this particular argument as related to Biblical creationism and time was well thought out and interesting, primarily because of its scientific orientation. Understanding time remains elusive and controversial, even now, and not withstanding Einstein's theory of relativity.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The credibility of an argument is based upon the
> plausibility of stated facts as applied to sound
> logic. Where the argument comes from, and the
> motivations of the claimant, are irrelevant.

A word, if I may.

The argument was buried by actual research in the 1960s and 1970s. You found an idiot who was still preaching it in 1997. Since that latter date, the evidence against the claims has mounted steadily. Which raises two questions: first, why are you ignoring the evidence post 1960 and post 1997? And second, why are you treating material from 25 years ago as if it is still relevant in a field that is progressing at, intended, light speed?

Once an argument is disproved, it is silly to repeat it as if it were credible.


----------------
> In the present case, in my view the book I cited
> here as an apologist treatise for God and Biblical
> legitimacy was factually and logically flawed.

In your post you wrote, with evident approval, that "there are several competent and prominent scientists who have attempt to rationally reconcile 'young-Earth creationism' with evolution.'" If you think the argument is "factually and logically flawed," why did you promote it in the first place?


-----------------
> However, this particular argument as related to
> Biblical creationism and time was well thought out
> and interesting, primarily because of its
> scientific orientation.

It's every bit as good as when Skousen published it in 1958--and every bit as bad. That the later incarnation was by a man with initials after his name doesn't change anything.


-----------------
> Understanding time remains
> elusive and controversial, even now, and not
> withstanding Einstein's theory of relativity.

There are so many variations on the argument--the timing of cosmic expansion, the speed at which U13 deteriorates, all sorts of speculation aimed at explaining why the Bible is right and depending on hypotheses that have been disproved by everything from geology to astronomy--and none of them are worth the paper they are printed on.

Posting such nonsense isn't a good look.

Discusses the conflicts between Schroeder's arguments and the Genesis story of creation

https://www.judaismandscience.com/science-and-judaism-the-strange-claim-of-dr-schroeder-part-iii/

And this sounds like more mormon attempt at apologetics:

http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/top-five-religious-myths-popularly-accepted-as-fact/

See #5 Adam was the first of the Homo-Sapiens

"Adam was the first human, the first Homo sapiens with the soul of a human, the neshama. That is the creation listed in Genesis 1:27. Adam was not the first Homo sapiens."

"Not changed to man but another kind of man, a homo sapiens / hominid became spiritually human. The error in the term “cavemen” is in the “men.” They were not men or women. Though they had human shape and intelligence, they lacked the neshama, the human spirit infused by God. Cave men or women were never a theological problem for the ancient commentators."

Yeah, Numbers 1 and 2 are standard apologetic fair and got wide play among Mormons.

1) The flood changed cosmic chronology. In one case of Mormon apology that I remember, the earth was hurled from its place near Kolob (heaven in its Christian version) and that changed the length of various units of time as well as (in other versions) . . .

2) . . . the speed of atomic decay. We therefore need not take the scientists' hypotheses as true even if that very science informs much of what we take for granted today.

For example, if the speed of radioactive decay is wrong, then not only is the history of the earth profoundly flawed but so is the foundation of modern genetics. It follows that the only way someone who accepts this proposition can be logically consistent is if s/he refuses to accept DNA evidence in the courtroom.

Number 5 also enjoyed currency among Mormons. Evolution was the means God used to create human bodies, and then 6,000 years ago God breathed moral sentience into those bodies and voila we have Adam and Eve.

None of this makes sense in the Biblical framework, but it's the sort of contortions one must go through to harmonize something approaching the Bible with something approaching science. And it demonstrates how Jews, Christians, and Mormons aspiring to the maintenance of their mythologies all end up grasping at the same straws.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The credibility of an argument is based upon the
> plausibility of stated facts as applied to sound
> logic. Where the argument comes from, and the
> motivations of the claimant, are irrelevant. That
> is the whole point of my post here.
>
> In the present case, in my view the book I cited
> here as an apologist treatise for God and Biblical
> legitimacy was factually and logically flawed.
> However, this particular argument as related to
> Biblical creationism and time was well thought out
> and interesting, primarily because of its
> scientific orientation. Understanding time remains
> elusive and controversial, even now, and not
> withstanding Einstein's theory of relativity.

When the premise of an argument comes down to,”Time isn’t real.” That’s jumping the shark. I quit suspending disbelief, at least on this side of the singularity, where nothing is real, in any material, mathematical or theoretical sense of the word.

According to the Penrose/Hawking theorems of Black Hole Singularity, Time and space reverse roles inside of a black hole, you can go forwards and backwards in time, you just can’t escape, unless it’s through a white hole into another universe.

And that may be what caused the ‘Big Bang’ according to Penrose’s Conformal Cyclical Cosmological theory, which seems like the most logical theory we have, to explain what happened before the Big Bang? It wasn’t a beginning, but the end of another Universe crunching into a black hole and bouncing out through a white hole.

Don't stop him, he's on a roll.

If "days" correlate to epochs of time, what are the odds that each of those epochs was one cosmic day?

I wanna know about the cosmic nights!

I also want to see the data regarding the transition from 'mindless coupling' to 'sentient coupling.'

And just for kicks, what's the holy rationale for the altering of brain function by alcohol, et alia?

How about caffeine brain alternation? No care about that?

I never hear gossip about a fellow golfer's game being affected by caffeine... At least not for the worst.

Hmm. I wonder if it is good before mindfulness coupling?

If human evolution is true, how come a chimp has never received a Nobel prize?

Bemis quoted:

" Waves of radiation that have propagated in space since the early universe have been stretched, expanded, by the same proportion that the universe has expanded. For example, as the universe doubled in size, the distance between wave crests (and hence the time between ticks of its clock) also doubled as the wave was stretched by the expanding space. For that clock, time would be passing at half its original rate. Again, please note that this time dilation relates solely to the stretching of space.""

If the clock has changed, the speed of the light has changed.

Yes, as space stretches, the wavelength increases. This is the whole principle of the James Webb Telescope frequency sensitivity. However, the speed of the EM (light for conversational purposes) does not change. The speed of infrared light - longer wavelength - is the same as UV light of shorter wavelength. His speed argument is patently false and a basic misunderstanding of how light works.

This is about an energy change, yes, but light that changes energy doesn't slow down or speed up, it changes wavelength.

Wait--are you suggesting Henry doesn't really understand science?

I'm shocked.

I thought we had moved on from this sub-thread about Gerald Schroeder’s ‘cosmic time’ argument, but then noticed your response. I appreciate your input, but respectfully challenge your analysis and conclusion, which is clearly based upon a misunderstanding of the physics of Schroeder’s argument. This misunderstanding makes your summary dismissal completely invalid. I will explain this below in more detail, but first would like to make a few preliminary points:

1. First, I want to reiterate that this is NOT my argument. I do not endorse it, and particularly do not indorse Schroeder’s book. As I noted previously, I *do* find this particular argument attempting to reconcile cosmic time with Biblical time “interesting,” primarily because the physics is thoroughly presented and well-documented. The Biblical part of the argument I am much less interested in, and less qualified to evaluate. The rest of the book I found completely unpersuasive, to put it kindly.

2. It is important to remember just what Schroeder is attempting to argue. He believes that the 6 days of creation as found in Genesis can be divided into two Einsteinian reference frames. The first frame is measured in cosmic time, and the second frame Earth time. So he has to provide an account of cosmic time that roughly coincides with Earth days. In other words, he needs an account of time from the reference frame of the Earth (relatively easy and noncontroversial), and also an account of time from the reference frame of the early universe. (the hard part) According to Schroeder, after the creation of Adam, the Genesis account abandons cosmic time and assumes standard Earth time. My interest is solely in his account of cosmic time, and how it correlates with Earth time. I have little interest in the Biblical interpretation that he claims makes the specific connection.

3. Schroeder’s argument for cosmic time is fully footnoted, and cites standard texts and essays in the cosmological literature. Specifically, he draws most of his argument from Jim Peeble’s book, *Principles of Physical Cosmology.* (1993) However, several other citations to articles in well-established scientific journals are included, with specific citations.

4. Schroeder is a well-respected and distinguished physicist. To suggest he would make such a simple error as you have described, as related to the speed of light is ludicrous, and he in fact did not make any such an error, as I explain below.

5. Finally, I have searched for commentary on Schroeder’s argument, and have not found a single authoritative challenge to his scientific assumptions. As cited by the poster “[|]” there are criticisms from the Biblical and religious side, which undermine his argument, but to my knowledge not on the physics or cosmological side. Most of the religious objections are from people how object in general to ‘scientizing’ religion.

Anyway, here is my substantive response to your post:
________________________________________________
Bemis quoted:

" Waves of radiation that have propagated in space since the early universe have been stretched, expanded, by the same proportion that the universe has expanded. For example, as the universe doubled in size, the distance between wave crests (and hence the time between ticks of its clock) also doubled as the wave was stretched by the expanding space. For that clock, time would be passing at half its original rate. Again, please note that this time dilation relates solely to the stretching of space.""

dbg: “If the clock has changed, the speed of the light has changed.”

COMMENT: Not true. Schroder makes no argument related to the speed of light. First, the ‘stretching’ of the cosmic radiation occurs from the expansion of the universe from the initial Big Bang, not the emanation of light from matter. The time relevance of this stretching is located in the expanded red-shifted, wave-lengths, not any increase in velocity of the radiation. Here is an extended quote:

“Three aspects of the universe produce identical effects on radiation frequency. Positive differences in velocity, gravity and stretching of space as the universe expands all increase (stretch) the wavelength of radiation. Since the frequency of radiation (and hence the beat of the cosmic clock) is lowered in direct proportion to the increase in wavelength, this increase in wavelength slows the perceived passage of time. THE FIRST TWO OF THESE THREE PHENOMENA RELATE TO DIFFERENCES IN THE FLOW OF CONVENTIONAL TIME—BIOLOGICAL TIME—BETWEEN SPECIFIC LOCATIONS. THE THIRD, THE UNIVERSAL STRETCHING OF SPACE, EQUALLY ALTERS THE PERCEPTION OF TIME'S FLOW AS RECKONED BY THE UNIVERSAL COSMIC CLOCK. IT IS WITH THIS THIRD ASPECT, THE STRETCHING OF SPACE, THAT I WORK . . . THAT IS TO SAY, NEITHER GRAVITY NOR VELOCITY ENTERS THE CALCULATIONS THAT FOLLOW.” (Emphasis added)

I will add a reminder that the cosmic expansion exceeds the speed of light, and therefore is not subject to the speed of light limitation.
________________________________________________

dbg: “Yes, as space stretches, the wavelength increases. This is the whole principle of the James Webb Telescope frequency sensitivity. However, the speed of the EM (light for conversational purposes) does not change. The speed of infrared light - longer wavelength - is the same as UV light of shorter wavelength. His speed argument is patently false and a basic misunderstanding of how light works.

COMMENT: See above. The wavelength increases, not the velocity. This is NOT a speed argument, nor a speed of light argument; rather it is a cosmic expansion argument.

Here is a quote from the Peebles text (noted above) that Schroeder cites:

“It is standard practice to label an epoch of the universe by the expansion factor [the ratio of stretched radiation wavelength as it is observed relative to the unstretched wavelength as it was emitted.] This is defined by redshift, z, even when an epoch is so early the redshift cannot be observed in detected radiation . . . The standard interpretation of the redshift as an effect of expansion of the universe predicts that the same redshift factor applies to observed rates of occurrence of distant events.” (p. 91, 96)

Obviously, the reference to “observed rates of occurrence of distant events” refers to the measurement of time.
_______________________________________________

dbg: “This is about an energy change, yes, but light that changes energy doesn't slow down or speed up, it changes wavelength.”

COMMENT: Again, you misunderstood Schroeder's argument, and thus have drawn a false conclusion.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. First, I want to reiterate that this is NOT my
> argument.

That is why I said Bemis quote
> ________________________________________________
> Bemis quoted:
>
> " Waves of radiation that have propagated in space
> since the early universe have been stretched,
> expanded, by the same proportion that the universe
> has expanded. For example, as the universe doubled
> in size, the distance between wave crests (and
> hence the time between ticks of its clock) also
> doubled as the wave was stretched by the expanding
> space. For that clock, time would be passing at
> half its original rate. Again, please note that
> this time dilation relates solely to the
> stretching of space.""
>
> dbg: “If the clock has changed, the speed of the
> light has changed.”

> COMMENT: Not true. Schroder makes no argument
> related to the speed of light.

Not directly, but you can't change time without changing speed, given that speed is measured by time units.

> I will add a reminder that the cosmic expansion
> exceeds the speed of light, and therefore is not
> subject to the speed of light limitation.

Yes and no. Inflation exceeds the speed of light. Cosmic expansion does not, see Hubble's Law. Inflation lasted (from wikipedia)
The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity. This will not give Schroeder what he is claiming nor what you try to claim he is claiming.

So no, I don't misunderstand the argument. Schroeder explicitly ties time to the idea of distance between wavelengths and that this occurs during regular cosmic expansion, not just inflation.

One stone, two birds.

exmos can insert lenses between a magnetic vortex wormhole generator to bring in low-speed-of-light hyperspace energy that has a light speed of 1 meter/second ~


the generator creates negative energy to open up a wormhole between space and hyperspace ~


because negative energy has a lower potential than low-density positive hyperspace energy ~


the hyperspace energy will flow into this dimension between the lenses ~


it is like putting a vacuum pump on the end of a garden hose ~


this will increase the available time ~


the hyperspace energy can be curved using electromagnetic fields since they are subject to the lorentz transformation ~


the light can be curved around any object ~


this concept is what einstein ~


the discoverer of hyperspace ~


was trying to do in the philadelphia experiment ~


that was covered up by the u.s. american navy ~


u.s. american navy wanted a way to bend light around ships ~


which resulted in the discovery an accomplishment of teleportation ~


for an exmo to cloak something ~


the exmo would create a wormhole opening in front and back of the object and light will travel around the object through the hole of the wormhole ~


this is the same as the wormhole elevator that exmos have between earth an the "planet" called "mars" ~


as the wormhole elevator ascends ~


it becomes wavy in space-time ~


because the spring constant of space has been decreased substantially ~


due to the wormhole elevator's dependence on the speed of light squared ~


an the linear mass of the exmo multi-verse ~

In other words, the earth is 6,000 years old?

Praise Jesus and pass the snakes.

thanks for summing it up lottie ~

More concise, no?

Can the device be built without a dance pole?