This Time Lapse Video of the Very Large Telescope At Work is the Coolest Thing You'll See Today

WOW AWESOME COOL!!!!!

Absolutely amazing!!! Blew me away!

wow you weren't kidding. That is absolutely amazing. Living in eastern PA I have never seen such a night sky before. I am really missing out living in such a light polluted and poor air quality area.

Time to get somewhere remote I gather.

Mankind can surely draw a very long and beautiful straight line!

What stunning beauty and artistry! Truly, "The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world." (Psalm 19:1-4, NLT).

Who says religion and science can't coexist!? God you are one heck of an engineer!:) It only took science this long to really appreciate it.

An absolutely breathtaking marvel of design!

wow at the idiots bringing up religion. religion has nothing to do with beauty or this video. get your head out of your butt and realize what true beauty is. any ways great video. makes me appreciate science even more. makes you wonder if there is intelligent design behind it all. only someone who appreciates beauty would create something like this i think. i could be wrong. who knows lol.

wow... there telescopes in the video???... amazing footage... let me guess a 5DmkII??

@JediMindset... Just a thought for you... We could argue all day about whether or not it's God, an intelligent designer, or evolution that brought about the world and the beings in it. There is evidence all around, every bit of it examined with a bias in mind as to which side of the argument it really supports. I just want you and everyone else out there to consider this...

THE ORIGIN OF EARTH IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC FIELD! There are theories, not facts, about the beginning. By definition, to become fact a theory must be tested over and over, consistently returning the same conclusion through controlled observation. Since not a single one of us was around at the beginning, and it is physically impossible to duplicate it as of this time, none of the above THEORIES can be proven.

All of us take our viewpoints by faith. We believe it happened a certain way and none of us can prove his point.

So you evolutionists and atheists, keep the word "science" out of it because science has nothing to do with it. Let the others believe what they want, just like you.

And you creationists and ID people, don't get preachy. Please. Present your view and get on with your life. Intelligent people can decide for themselves who to believe after looking at the evidence.

Regardless! Truth is God has nothing to do with religion...
Religion use God!

Truth is the Supreme Architect (GOD) of this Universe is simply to complex for a finite mind to comprehend an infinite being. It is everything and nothing.

Beautiful Sky Canvas

Let me correct my previous comment... There are three groups-

Evolutionists and atheists

Creationists and ID believers

People who took so few classes in logic, English, and the sciences that they can't even construct a cohesive sentence

Please people... if you can't understand what you just wrote, don't get in the argument. It's better for everyone that way.

FFS guys, just shut up and watch the video.

And it's one amazing video. I was torn between the night sky and the telescopes themselves - those big machines are fascinating enough on their own without the night sky behind them in all its glorious splendor.

exactly, STFU, truly breath taking video

Science and religion are 2 separate things. Humans watching an event and perceiving something that is beautiful, often have a sense of God and Wonder of the Universe. 100 of thousands of year’s humans have been look at the stars in the sky with wonder and yes have a religious feeling. It all goes hand in hand. Science is human discovery and understanding of what is all around him. Science is a picture of the art God has bad. God and the feelings you feel and the religious books you read is an approach to your inner being and soul. I say again, Science and religion are 2 different things. Both do exist at the same time. If religion at times does not make sense, it’s only because of our own human limitations and feelings about it. I love to look at the stars at night and enjoy the feeling it brings!

Science and religion are 2 separate things. Humans watching an event and perceiving something that is beautiful, often have a sense of God and Wonder of the Universe. 100 of thousands of year’s humans have been look at the stars in the sky with wonder and yes have a religious feeling. It all goes hand in hand. Science is human discovery and understanding of what is all around him. Science is a picture of the art God has MADE. God and the feelings you feel and the religious books you read is an approach to your inner being and soul. I say again, Science and religion are 2 different things. Both do exist at the same time. If religion at times does not make sense, it’s only because of our own human limitations and feelings about it. I love to look at the stars at night and enjoy the feeling it brings!

*FACEPALM* Here we go again.

Ok the biggest issue I see is this:

Scientific minded people would accept a God/Supreme being if one was ever PROVEN to exist.

Religious minded people would deny any and everything that says there is not God/Supreme being, regardless of if that fact was proven without a doubt, over and over again. You would still hold to the "facts" that you were spoonfed from a book written by some Humans Thousands of years ago and revised far too many times to fit the times.

So please.. Religious minded people, keep your ghost stories to yourself. No one asked for you to impose views.

Religious people, next time you want to preach, ask yourself this and ponder for a while. Why does the Vatican hide and censor information? Dead sea scrolls, removed biblical stories, previous revisions of all "holy books"... What do they have to hide? And why do they want to keep it hidden?

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

@psycophysics
so in a sense "science" is something used to try to explain creation. its only a theory. For the most part Evolutionists, atheists, Creationists and Intelligent Design believers all get mad when you try to disprove them. Since not anyone is 100% certain of the truth i don't understand why they do. they try to deny what is against their creed or beliefs. i understand its human nature to defend what you believe in but don't take it to heart. you are right none of use can prove the big bang or creation. we can merely speculate. i wasn't trying to start a battle but they brought religion into this article discussion. and i'm not against a belief in god just watered down religion.

Fascinating. Anyone know the purpose of the array of shutters along the back of the domes? My guess would be for cooling.

As for religion/science debate here is my two cents:

1. You don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
2. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

For those of you that do not regularly visit APOD, here is collection of time laps video that is along the same lines as above but with some fascinating weather phenomena mixed in.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110516.html

@CodeZero
yeah modern "religion" if you want to call it that, is more like a mcdojo. and true religion is dying off and rare to find. its been changed and alter every 100 years to fit the times. the modern bible doesn't even mention where jesus was during half of his life. and several books have been removed. like the book of Judas, book of Enoch, the book of Mary so many other ones. i'm surprised that a "book of jesus" was never included. the catholic church is evil.

@JediMindset. Regardless of whatever argument you are having, you said "wow at all the idiots bringing up religion" and stated religion had nothing to do with it and then in the same post went on to speculate about intelligent design. "Makes you wonder if there is intelligent design behind it all." You're a hypocrite.

On another note, this video is awesome.

@democedes I didn't say you had to be an atheist to believe evolution. I was simply grouping them together because most atheists are evolutionists, at least in my experience. It could be I'm wrong on that count.

@jedimindset and others I did not take religion's side or any other. One simply cannot prove or disprove ANY theory about the origins of earth. When a person starts a comment by calling a group of people idiots, I just get really annoyed.

Sorry to all for cluttering the post. I just hate to see a viewpoint ridiculed for no reason. Here's to hoping that we can all appreciate each others views in the future.

And yes, the view is spectacular....

And Human said, "Let there be a very long straight line."

@CodeZero... Good post.

@ All the religious people who are posting on a science web sight. Why are you here? You have already made up your mind and any amount of the scientific information that explains evolution will not change your mind.

There is a fundamental difference between religion and science. Science starts out examining all the possibilities then uses the scientific process to see what the evidence leads to. Religion starts with a decree by it's deity then looks for evidence to support it. Science has improved the lives of mankind with medicine, technology, etc. How many millions of people have been killed in the name of religion? The crusades, wars between Judaism, Islamism, Christians, ect.

Let's understand, humans have made huge improvements on God's creation.

God couldn't draw a long straight line out of a paper bag if His life depended on it!

@slacklineaddict... You defeated yourself with your own logic.

The field of science does start with all the possibilities and look at the evidence objectively. However, "science" over religion does not do things the same way. For decades now, "science" has been out looking for evidence in favor of evolution, exactly the same way religion does.

I read in a science article published by AP news recently that two separate types of super-viruses had just been discovered. Scientists were puzzled by the two because they were closely linked to a third, existing type.

The question presented? Where is the fourth virus?

Their reasoning? Evolution creates groups of like animals in series. Therefore, a fourth type of virus must exist to fill the gap between the first and later viruses. The scientists started assuming that an unproven theory was fact, and then drew a conclusion and started a new line of research just because "it must be so."

Read some articles. Analyze them objectively. You will find that many scientists today take evolution for granted, then go out with that assumption and look for supporting evidence. Worst case scenario, data is misinterpreted to the point that any conclusions by studies are logically flawed.

psychophysics I appreciate your argument.

However, large amounts of scientific evidence supports evolution, therefore scientists utilize this knowledge to learn more. It is similar to an astronomer using our knowledge of gravity to predict the location of a black whole based on it's effect on a neighboring star.

I grew up in a creationist household and was taught to disregard scientific evidence that failed to prove the bible's accuracy... whether it be carbon dating, fossils, the retention of DNA traits of a species ancestors, etc. After starting engineering I realized that we live in a world where the laws of physics are upheld.

I do not argue that science will ever prove or disprove the existence of god. Just that scientific evidence shows a universe governed by physics where natural selection promotes the evolution of creatures with traits that help them survive while species that cannot adapt go extinct. I hope that children will be raised to question their surroundings and use the scientific process... and not be handicapped by their parent's decree that it does not matter what science says because god, allah, buda, etc has already decreed how the world works.

Seriously, does anyone truly believe this world could have happened by accident? Creation itself is proof of God's existence.

"I hope that children will be raised to question their surroundings and use the scientific process . . . "
- - -

Would this be the same scientific process that brings us the "settled consensus" concerning anthropogenic global warming?

I was raised in the Lutheran church, and wandered away into agnosticism, mostly due to a character defect that refuses to allow me to believe assertions of others that seem to be backed, and proved, by nothing except those others' causeless but yearning faith. If there truly is a god, I expect she'll let me know eventually, but any god that values blind adherence would seem to have feet of clay.

What do you call someone who feels like wandering away from today's crop of "scientists" for much the same reason? Or, as I suspect, am I merely wandering away from the temple priests?

Those of you castigating religious commenters for baseless beliefs really ought to be cleaning your own temple out first.

We are the Universe; evolved to view itself and discuss itself. How awesome?
Our little galaxy is so beautiful. This video is a chance to look around our neighborhood with a new and wondrous perspective. I was made to feel both significant and insignificant at the same time.

@slacklineaddict I can appreciate your point. In some cases one must start with a certain view to proceed, but your comparison does not quite fit...

We can prove gravity exists. It is a constant, predictable force as far as we currently know. Therefore, we can calculate the position of an unknown body by its gravitational effects on a known body.

However, neither evolution nor creation is a proven, reliable fact. Neither has ever been observed in action, and neither can be predicted to act or not act in any way. Because of this, neither theory should ever be used as a starting block to interpret data.

I do not argue for either side in particular, but you may want to check into your carbon dating facts... There is no way to calibrate the machine after a few thousand years. This is a blink of an eye on the scale of millions of years. Once you go so far back in time, there is no way to prove the accuracy of carbon dating, so it's just a shot in the dark. There are documented cases of rock that was observed forming 40-50 years ago from lava flows. When put through the best current dating methods, the results said that the rocks formed millions of years in the past.

BTW, its a pleasure to argue with a cohesive thinker. I love debate.

This is great work. With full attribution to the originators and with ad revenue turned off, I've uploaded to YouTube at www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1O66XsbrOA a version of this same video that shows the Earth rotating instead of the stars. I find myself when driving at dusk across the Arizona desert trying to remember that it is the Earth, not the sun, that is setting. I hope this video helps to demonstrate that.

psychophysics

Thank you for the enjoyable debate. I approach carbon dating using the assumption that consistency exists at the atomic level through the millennia... half lives remain constant, electrons hold their charge, the effects of positive and negative charges remain constant, etc. However, it is good for people such as ourselves to continually challenge all assumptions. Personally I conclude that sufficient scientific information exists to support this assumption. And I respect you for examining the evidence and arguing for the alternate position.

My hope is that regardless of ones world view or religion that everyone does their part to incourage debate and open-mindedness... so we will continue to learn more about the universe. Best of wishes to all who investigate their world with an open mind. This is how mankind will continue to better itself.

Fantastic

To understand the reason for being is to become God in those moments

The universe exists, and that is fact

The reason the universe exists is infinitely unexplainable

That which cannot be explained - the ultimate mystery my Dad used to say - is God

Enjoy the moments you are in fact God

@slacklineaddict I have one thing you could look at... something I've actually wondered about and you might could give an opinion on. I know this is drifting far off topic but I swear this is the last one.

Even considering slight variances in dates using current testing methods, the Money Pit of Canada is an oddity... Some parts of the excavation actually have FUTURE dates. This makes absolutely no sense. Might be an interesting read for you.

Not trying to disprove you or anything, I agree to disagree lol. This is just an oddity from any viewpoint.

@ chrisrico
"Seriously, does anyone truly believe this world could have happened by accident? Creation itself is proof of God's existence."

Let me pose another question. If the universe has creator, then why do we assume that we (humanity) are of any significance to that creator?

@psycophysics

"However, neither evolution nor creation is a proven, reliable fact. Neither has ever been observed in action, and neither can be predicted to act or not act in any way. Because of this, neither theory should ever be used as a starting block to interpret data."

This is a false or inaccurate statement. Further in depth discussion and support is needed to validate your claim. Evolution has been observed at the microbial level.

@Everyone talking about being objective

We are only human, and due to this human condition, we can never truly be objective, there will always a subjective degree to our thought.

@Everyone

Constructively argue all you want it's only part of being human, WELCOME TO THE HUMAN CONDITION, isn't great!? Now cut it out, and enjoy the perception and interpretation, of what I can only describe as true beauty.

Reminds me of that old Beatles song, "The Fool On The Hill".

@ tom.engineer My statement is completely accurate. The microbial evolution you are talking about is not evolution. It is an adaptation mechanism already built into the genes of the creature. There is no change in the genetic makeup of the microbe, simply a change in which characteristics prosper. It is still the same microbe, not a new species.

There are a select few animals including one or two species of birds (immune system only) and a few bacteria that posses the ability to completely scramble their DNA, but this is done within EXACT parameters. A new type of animal is never created, simply a more diverse genome of the same kind that is needed to survive long term.

Evolution of one creature into a more advanced or simply a slightly different species has never been observed.

@psycophysics

My definition of evolution does not attempt to define the introduction of homo sapiens, nor attempt to reject creationism. My definition is much more scientific, and deals in the realm of natural selection. I would just ask that you define your definition of evolution, which I believe you did. According to your definition you would be correct. Now, here is what I was talking about.

For example, and I quote "Antibiotic resistance is a type of drug resistance where a microorganism is able to survive exposure to an antibiotic. Genes can be transferred between bacteria in a horizontal fashion by conjugation, transduction, or transformation. Thus a gene for antibiotic resistance which had evolved via natural selection may be shared. Evolutionary stress such as exposure to antibiotics then selects for the antibiotic resistant trait. Many antibiotic resistance genes reside on plasmids, facilitating their transfer. If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug or super bacterium."

Also, IMO, if you are looking for an observed functionality trait derived from a evolutionary mutation, then you are going to have to wait much longer ;)

Another interesting discussion, THIS IN NO WAY IS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT FOR FUNCTIONAL EVOLUTION, it's only interesting; If Neanderthals, who looked up at a not so different night sky, are thought to have been smarter and stronger than Homo Sapiens. Then why are WE having this discussion, about this night sky? The Answer is thought to that our slower metabolic rates gave us a natural advantage.

@psychophysics

"THE ORIGIN OF EARTH IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC FIELD!"

How can you even say that? Astrophysicists, geologists, biologists, and a countless number of other professionals are exactly that. They are studying the Earth around us, and determining how it originated.

We now know that we're all stardust, and the result of a cosmic event around 14 billion years ago. Are you seriously going to come to science-based website and argue that?

"So you evolutionists and atheists, keep the word "science" out of it because science has nothing to do with it. Let the others believe what they want, just like you."

What? You make my brain hurt with your logic. Evolution *is* science!

The Oxford dictionary defines science as: "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

I don't see how you can argue that the study of evolution is not exactly that.

@Haxus I'm glad somebody said it.

*facepalm Read this again please...

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

OK, now lets look at what I said before and compare.

"Systematic study... through observation and experiment." Haxus, I would like for you to explain how we can experiment with the origins of earth. How do we observe micro or macro evolution? Every mutation large enough to separate a species that has been observed or caused by man has ended in sterility or death. Creation is also unobservable.

I am not arguing for or against either side, simply that we cannot currently prove or disprove either side. We must decide for ourselves who to believe based on the evidence gathered by scientists. The ORIGIN is not a science in itself.

@tom.engineer I'm sorry it seemed I was jumping to that conclusion, but what I meant was that a change in species has never been observed. Only natural selection within a pre-existing group. Given a change in environment, the "less desirable" attributes would reappear as if they never left.

shut up everybody! the earth was created in 6 days, and is only 6,000 years old! Let's just ignore all the evidence pointing otherwise, cover our ears, and go back to "catastrophism"... mmmhhh, that makes a lot of sense

If you liked this, you'll love this one:
watch?v=Rk6_hdRtJOE
(It's in YouTube)
Regards

jesus f'n christ, would you all just shut up

I don't understand the contempt that scientists have for religious people. I am a scientist and not a religious person. I believe that, given time, science will be able to explain everything. However, I recognize that that is an article of faith for me, since there is no logical argument that can conclude that science will explain everything. Since this makes me a man of faith, I have no basis for attacking other people of faith. Neither do any other people of science.

It is possible to view this video and just enjoy the beauty without conflict between people of different faiths. One can understand, however, how viewing the heavens led man to contemplate his relationship to the infinite beyond.

@Rathe
he brought it up in the first place. so than it was technically ok for me to talk about it as well. im not being hypocritical. im just saying how no ones for certain knows if intelligent design is responsible for life. it possible how we humans have the ability to create A.I. and robotic life forms. its possible. science is always up for the impossible. and testing it.

@psycophysics
you are right my mistake for calling them idiots it just boils my blood sometimes. and im like you. i take no sides i just listen and learn. cant we all just appreciate beauty without glorifying religion or science?

and for those of you that quote the bible, just dont...
its annoying. it was written by man. just like Dr Seuss' cat in the hat.

This thread has seen it's time, most likely everyone has spewed their thoughts on this matter. For any new viewers reading this, geesh!! sorry for starting a Holy War!! I am more spiritual than religious, so my use of "religious" was a bit of a misnomer. Just as people usually affiliate themselves to political parties that best reflect their views, I have joined a religious institution, but really have mixed feelings considering myself religious. I consider myself a "conclusionist", with all of the intricate designs ranging from the double helix to stellar formations, I am comfortable with a higher order "God" being an engineer's engineer. So, my militant anti-religious friends, three words, "Get a grip!!". If you don't believe, just pretend I'm talking about Santa Claus and lower your blood pressure.

Question: How do you know someone created your BMW
Answer: Because it is THERE

The Universe being here is proof in itself that something created it. Something cannot be produced out of nothing...that's a scientific law.

Reading this thread alone is proof that the Evolutionists and Creationists will never agree. Both have faith in their "beliefs". But this opens up a great opportunity to be open minded and accepting of "different" people.

Why can't you watch this video and say "OMG the big bang must have been AMAZING" & I say "I truly see God at work" and not sling insults at each other?

This is a science website not an anti-religious website....yes it's true believers appreciate good science.

For those actually interested in evolution, research has been done at the organismal level demonstrating evolution and speciation (and is still ongoing). Check out "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner.

I deeply respect, respect. It is a very good bet that the respectful person is also a civilized person. Agree to disagree.

Fantastic imagery that just makes you feel humbled as a human being.

Religions that believe in the supernatural will never have a place in science. And therefore religion will not have a place in the future. Science is the future and the old ways of thinking are declining.

@boka Religion made science...therefore science cannot and will not EVER exist w/o it.

I respect that people have the right to believe what they choose.

But since this is a science website...why not reference the scientists who have influenced the scientific revolution throughout the ages.

Sir Isaac Newton – Christian
Nicola Tesla – Orthodox
Einstein "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Max Plank
Ben Franklin -"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them."

William Kelvin was a creationist who placed the age of the earth @ 500 million yrs...(we know now it was low estimate, he did not have the instruments available to us today.)

Micheal Farady - Sandemandian (off shoot of Prespertarian)
Robert Boyle - Protestant
Rene Descartes - father of modern philosophy he coined the phrase "I think therefore I am". -Roman Catholic

Sir Francis Bacon "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity"

The lists goes on and on and on. The greatest minds in our history have had a belief in God. We would be living in the stone ages if it wasn't for these GOD fearing men. These men that laid the foundations for modern, chemistry, astronomy, electricity, magnetism, philosophy, quantum physics, etc etc. Believed in God. Smart people believe in God. This website wouldn't be here if these religious people had not made their contributions...and they probably prayed to God for understanding as we all do.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

If you choose to follow Darwin, so be it..even though his theories will never be proven. But there are many, many scientists that are far superior to him and have put forth worthwhile theories that have been proven. And they believe in God.

Remember when you bash God you are second guessing some of the greatest scientific minds this world has ever seen.

@Aldrons Last Hope "Fatality"

@Metovex lol you "finished them" with that Truth is God statement...the great scientific minds knew this and searched for truth through science. Peace

OK, great, another science and religion debate *sigh*. I have a few points.

1. I don't know what crap you've been taught, but evolution is an observed phenomenon. To argue evolution doesn't happen is completely foolish. Don't bother bringing that BS argument of "macro vs. micro evolution" to the table, because they're the same thing. The ability to pass on genetics and immunities is proof. Recognizing some mutations give something a better ability to reproduce, eat, survive, etc IS recognizing evolution.

2. Recognizing evolution (notice I didn't say "believing in") doesn't mean you can't be religious. That's just ridiculous.

3. Religious texts were written by man. I'm assuming most of the religious people here are some form of Christian. That thing called the "Bible" was named that way by man, and the texts included in it were also chosen by man, which were written by man. Observe human nature and think about that. Just please keep this in mind.

4. The idea of a divine being cannot be proven or unproven. Therefore, an argument down to this level is purely philosophical in nature. What I'm saying is nobody is convincing anybody else as far as this argument goes.

@dyinman

1) I disagree. There is a difference between adaptation and evolution. Owls have adapted to become nocturnal...but an owl will not evolve into a human. Darwin observed adaptation. No one has ever or will ever observe evolution: an animal adapting to become a different species.

2)I agree with this point. It's just that most that subscribe to that belief system don't believe in God. But you are right, beleiving in evolution does not rule out a creator.

3)Yes all religious texts were written by man, however Judaism, Islam, and Christianity were revealed to the prophets by God or his angels. I've read the bible and I feel that there is truth in there.

4)This is true and I will agree again.

My argument is that religious comments shouldn't be shunned because many of our great scientists believed in God or at least were agnostic..not flat out atheist. Therefore it stands to reson there are religious scientists alive and working today and their opinions should not be dismissed because of prejudice.

@Aldrons Last Hope: “If you choose to follow Darwin, so be it..even though his theories will never be proven. But there are many, many scientists that are far superior to him and have put forth worthwhile theories that have been proven. And they believe in God. “

Scientific theories are never proven. It is a peer review process where certain theories become favored among the scientific community. And the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution (even though the general US population is split).

According to a 1997 Gallup Poll of US scientists:
4% Believe in “Young Earth Creationism”
40% Believe in “God Guided Evolution”
55% Believe in “Evolution Without God”

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Darwin is the father of evolution, not the end. Go take a class in anthropology at your local community college/university. You will find there is more to evolution theory than you think.

@Aldrons Last Hope: “Owls have adapted to become nocturnal...but an owl will not evolve into a human. Darwin observed adaptation. No one has ever or will ever observe evolution: an animal adapting to become a different species. “

There are over 200 species of owl. Where do you believe they came from? Did they all pop up from the ground one day?

If a population of owls can experience a change in its biology over time, why would it not continue to adapt? What is preventing the changes from being drastic? When two populations have adapted to the point where they can no longer interbreed, they have become separate species. What is to stop adaptation from crossing that threshold?

@psycophysics

*facepalm at your facepalm*

"Haxus, I would like for you to explain how we can experiment with the origins of earth. How do we observe micro or macro evolution? Every mutation large enough to separate a species that has been observed or caused by man has ended in sterility or death. Creation is also unobservable."

First of all, evolution has happened over billions of years. The likelihood of a successful mutation within our lifetime is very unlikely. If you're waiting for this, good luck.

Secondly, creation *can* be observed, at least indirectly. Observing the cosmic background radiation is exactly this. As far as creation of life, we're still experimenting to determine how exactly this may have happened. Have you ever heard of the Miller and Urey experiment? If that's not an example of systematic study of the structure and behavior of "the physical and natural world through observation and experiment," then I don't know what is.

"I am not arguing for or against either side, simply that we cannot currently prove or disprove either side."

This is similar to the argument from ignorance if you're familiar with it. Simply put, it's when someone says something is true because it cannot be disproved. And yes, I understand that you are not saying that creationism is proven, which would be the real definition of the argument for ignorance, but the way that you say this seems to put them at an equal weighting for their compelling evidence.

The United States National Academy of Science states: "The Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong"

Evolution is fact. It happened, and we have plenty of evidence for it. Show me a shred of evidence towards creationism. I'll agree that they are both theories, but only one is considered fact, and has mounds and mounds of evidence to prove it.

And to all of you "c'est la vie" people out there who say that everyone is free to believe what they want, and we shouldn't judge them because it doesn't concern us. Well, it does, because their ignorance is a threat to the well being of others. Religion affects everyone's lives, because it affects their world view, and therefore the decisions they make. Need an example? George Bush put a ban on stem cell research due to religious influence, and it took many years for that ban to be lifted by our current administration. People will die from the delay in research. Holy wars are fought every day to determine who has the better imaginary friend. People die every day for religious reasons.

@Haxus Seriously? The Miller-Urey experiment? Please refer to the following list...

1. This experiment started with a completely false atmosphere. Cores take from the earths surface show that the earth never had the chemical makeup that this project took for granted.

2. Yes, the chemical building blocks of life were created by the sparks in the machine. However, a system had to be installed that would siphon off the chemicals, because the same "lightening" that created the materials even more easily destroyed them if they remained in that environment.

3. Even taking for granted that the above statements are false (which they are not), the chemicals created are separate pieces. The chances that they would come together in the correct order to create anything resembling life are so astronomically small that the idea is almost ridiculous.

4. By the experiment's setup, technically we are the intelligent designers of anything that might arise from these types of lightening-in-a-bottle experiments.

As to the "evolution has happened over billions of years. The likelihood of a successful mutation within our lifetime is very unlikely. If you're waiting for this, good luck." comment, let me get this straight... You want me to believe that through mechanisms we can't replicate, from substances of which we don't know the origins, life has evolved into what it is today over a period of time so long that there is no way to know for sure how it was achieved. Sounds an awful lot like faith to me.

And to provide a single shred of evidence for an intelligent designer? I'll give you three.

1. Physics- Can someone please quote me the laws of thermodynamics? The first two...
a. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed within a system. How then can you explain the existence of the universe? Even if we create something, it is because energy is taken from somewhere else. From the perspective of that system, we are "creating" energy/matter, but in reality we are part of a bigger system with a finite amount of energy. At some point, something had to have put the energy here in the first place.
b. Law of entropy - In all energy exchanges the potential energy of a system decreases. Therefore, if there are energy-burning objects in existence (stars all the way down to people), then there must be potential energy. For the universe to have always existed, there must be infinite potential energy. So why is the universe expected to die heat death? There is no known mechanism by which potential energy is created without using more energy.

2. Biology- Every known animal decreases in complexity. I agree that natural selection happens, but it does so within a given species. There is no change in DNA, simply a greater likelihood of one trait surviving. Since that trait is then prevalent in mature, reproducing (read "I survived") creatures, it is more likely to be passed down. There are no new traits added, but some might possibly be lost. This is completely in line with natural selection, but totally opposite the overall picture of evolution.

3. Geology- I have two cases that support a young earth.
a. Granite- There are naturally occurring zircon crystals in granite. Contained within the crystals are deposits of helium. After formation, helium can't naturally enter the crystals, but it does dissipate at a steady, measurable rate. According to this method of dating, the rocks are only thousands of years old, not millions. Even if you argue that there are other dating methods, it only proves that the average range is so unreliable that we can not know for sure how old the rocks are.
b. The ocean- There is not enough salt in the ocean for the earth to be very old. Salinity (~3.5% currently) ALWAYS increases at a steady rate, as even the most extreme tectonic activity cannot remove minerals as quickly as the rivers and evaporation bring it in. Barring a catastrophic event of a type we do not know, there should be much higher salinity readings from an old earth.

It looks realy fantastic, to see such a big portion of bright sky in a detail, amateur videos I've seen can't capture such a big picture with their equipment.
So time lapse is looking fast forward at clear night sky, but how about a time lapse inside a time lapse? Those stars are at diferent distances from Earth and I wonder how it would looks like if instead od seeing lights of all the stars at once, only a single moment would be captured and those lights seen coming one by one, according to how far away they are from us. It would be interesting to watch those fireworks popping in and out of an existence, because that's how relativity realy works.
It make me think of life itself and how time is passing by, we feel as a whole being, time for us flowing in only one direction, from birth to death, but for universe itself perhaps it doesn't realy matter, except maybe as a whole everything, we could never see.
Makes me feel so fragile, thinking how easily everything would change if weight of my body or composition of an atmosphere would suddenly be diferent, but than again if everything would change at once perhaps it wouldn't feel so much diferent, since I would change also.
I'am going to sleep now and hope to dream about life, if all those philosophical and scientific ideas, selected one by one through millenniums are true, one day we should wake up as diferent beings anyhow, forming new consciousness of mankind as a whole.

@psycophysics

My intention was not to prove the Miller-Urey experiment correct, it was to show that we are indeed experimenting. Yes, the conditions were purely hypothetical, but that is part of the scientific process. I'm not arguing what that experiment did or did not prove, I'm simply saying that we are experimenting and observing. If we got everything right the first time, it wouldn't take so long to get where we are today.

"Even taking for granted that the above statements are false (which they are not), the chemicals created are separate pieces. The chances that they would come together in the correct order to create anything resembling life are so astronomically small that the idea is almost ridiculous."

You are exactly right, and that's why life is so rare. If life was a common occurrence, we'd probably have already contacted other beings by now. For all we know, there are many different ways that life can be created, and we're just one of them. To quote Carl Sagan, "We won the cosmic lottery." Think about it. An intelligent designer would have no reason to create an entire lifeless universe to host one planet full of life.

"You want me to believe that through mechanisms we can't replicate, from substances of which we don't know the origins, life has evolved into what it is today over a period of time so long that there is no way to know for sure how it was achieved. Sounds an awful lot like faith to me."

It's not a matter of faith. All of the elements needed for life can be explained by supernova nucleosynthesis. How they came together in that exact order is still unknown. I'm even open to the idea that life was seeded through meteorites. We just don't know yet, but nothing about it provides compelling evidence for a creator.

"Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed within a system."

Yeah, I think most of us here took high school physics. Who says that anything was created or destroyed though? Why could it not have just always existed? Theoretical physics can provide insight into what may have happened (P-Branes, multiverses, etc), but the answer right now is "we don't know." Not knowing is better than assuming.

"Biology- Every known animal decreases in complexity."

From everything I have read, "devolution" as it is called only occurs when a species has reached stability. Once environmental pressures and competition diminish, features can disappear as long as they are not crucial for survival. An example would be a species with eyes evolving in a pitch black environment. Since the eyes would no longer be advantageous, they could disappear over time without negative effects to survival.

"There are naturally occurring zircon crystals in granite. Contained within the crystals are deposits of helium. After formation, helium can't naturally enter the crystals, but it does dissipate at a steady, measurable rate. According to this method of dating, the rocks are only thousands of years old, not millions."

Oh man, another claim that you can find on almost any creationist website. Is that where you're pulling all this stuff?

Ok, I'll bite anyway. Both of your claims regarding geology are centered around studies done by a group called RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth), run by a man named Russell Humphreys, a known creationist with obvious religious bias. I have read quite a bit about his work, and in every case he uses false assumptions, bad math, or incomplete data. This is not peer-reviewed material, and has been largely criticized for the reasons stated above. Google "HeliumDiffusionZirconTechnicalpPaper.pdf" for a full technical paper by Gary H. Loechelt if you would like to read more about why none of his work should be considered credible. Geologist Kevin Henke and a number of other scientists have also criticized Humpreys's theories. There are too many assumptions made for any of his work to even be considered real science.

I'm surprised how you are so critical of the Miller-Urey experiment, but how readily you accept Humphreys's work as fact. This is a huge problem, because when you present the average person with a huge mound of scientific data "proving" something, they will often take it as fact when they have nothing to contradict it. Creationists have a habit of taking this supposedly correct data and running with it as if it has been properly scrutinized by other scientists. That's just not how the scientific community operates.

Unless you have some better peer-reviewed evidence, then I think we're done here.

Well, I am halfway through that paper and I must admit that he makes some very excellent points... Thank you for the study based correction. I'll pull that "fact" off my list till I can do some further research.

However, you have not fully addressed the other points.

In the area of thermodynamics, both laws must be taken into account... you only referred to the first. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, but the universe will die a heat death when all forces reach equilibrium through entropy. This is a readily accepted fact. So, for the universe to have always existed, there must be infinite potential energy. Even giving the cataclysmic start of the galaxies as the current time frame requires that there be enough potential energy stored in the system to set off such an event. Yes, there could be strictly matter/energy that has always existed and always will, but POTENTIAL energy could not have been here forever because of entropy. If I am missing something here, please inform me.

As to devolution, I did not mean that it must happen. Species may lose traits, but they don't have to. They cannot, however, acquire new traits from the same DNA. You do show how a species could change, and i don't argue that, but you fail to show increasing complexity in a life form. The creature LOST its sight and developed no new traits. Again, give me an example and I would be happy to look it up as long as its not about super-resistant bacteria.

Lastly, about the ID theory and chances of life... If the designer only wanted one planet to look at, it may have only made one. We don't know the potential motives. I'm not saying this is the case, just stating the possibility. And if life was seeded here by an asteroid? That doesn't solve the problem of life's origination. It simply throws the ball to another court somewhere else in the universe.

I'm going to go finish that paper... and no, I am not a creationist, and I do not pull from a list on a website. I simply wish to bring all arguments to the table. In the comments on zircon crystals, I sincerely apologize for not more thoroughly investigating the source of the information. That was a serious misstep in terms of debate.

One last point... I was preoccupied and forgot to ask about the salinity of ocean water. Is there an explanation of this that I haven't heard?

Thermodynamics
@psycophysics “At some point, something had to have put the energy here in the first place.”

This is the assumption of a creationist. Not much is known about the earliest moments of the universe’s history. There is no evidence that the energy that makes up the universe has not always existed in some form.

@psycophysics “b. Law of entropy - In all energy exchanges the potential energy of a system decreases.“

The “Law of entropy” is a construct of creationists. It is not used in mainstream science. It is certainly not a law of thermodynamics. According to Wikipedia, “The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system.

//www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/entropy.html

@psycophysics “Biology- Every known animal decreases in complexity.”

Another Creationist assumption. There is a ton of evidence to the contrary.

the fossil record of change in earlier species
the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
the geographic distribution of related species
the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

@psycophysics “Salinity (~3.5% currently) ALWAYS increases at a steady rate”

Yet another Creationist assumption.

“For a process to be considered a good natural clock, it must contain the following: a known initial condition, an irreversible process, a uniform rate, and a final condition. With the salt clock, the initial condition is not known. The process of salt accumulation has been proven to be reversible and in constant change. There is also no uniform rate of accumulation of salt. The only criterion met is the known final condition. Because of these factors, the salt clock can obviously not be used as a natural clock to calculate any type of age.”

//orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/failed_scientific_clocks/ocean_salinity.html

@psycophysics “no, I am not a creationist, and I do not pull from a list on a website. I simply wish to bring all arguments to the table.”

Yet every piece of evidence you have presented thus far is straight from the creationist handbook. These are not new arguments, and have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. Do some research that doesn’t exclusively consist of pro-creationist web sites. Always surf the net with the assumption that 90% of what you see there is BS. Consider the source, read the other side’s argument, and keep an open mind.

@democedes

Thanks, I was getting exhausted handling this by myself. ;)

@psycophysics

"You do show how a species could change, and i don't argue that, but you fail to show increasing complexity in a life form."

Fossil records show that it happened. Primitive eyes developed long before what we have today. The same can be said about our brains, ears, and the rest of our body. If what you're suggesting is true, complex life forms would have come before bacteria, which is essential for their survival. Maybe I don't see where you're going with this though.

"And if life was seeded here by an asteroid? That doesn't solve the problem of life's origination. It simply throws the ball to another court somewhere else in the universe."

That it does, and if true, science will continue to explore those avenues. Answers aren't always easy. :)

"Yes, there could be strictly matter/energy that has always existed and always will, but POTENTIAL energy could not have been here forever because of entropy."

The universe is very mysterious, and we still don't know exactly what happened in that first instant after the big bang. There are many theories that I mentioned before, but nothing conclusive. Sometimes we assume that we are a closed system, and subject to the same physical laws we study because that's all we know, but all of those laws may not apply in a singularity, or maybe we are part of a multiverse that "fed" us this energy from a much larger source. Go look up M-Theory (Membrane theory), it's a concept related to string theory, and would explain a lot of what you're wondering.

Yes a lot of this is just theory. Science doesn't have all the answers, and we may never know for sure how the universe was created. I've never seen a solid piece of evidence for a creator though, and I'm tired of seeing this outdated theory presented as if it was on the same level as other theories that actually do have scientific evidence to back them up. With that said, thank you for keeping this a fairly mature debate.

Absolutely beautiful!
Almost like science and nature in a dance
Nature in all its beauty and grace and science a bit awkward

I really don't like big-bang theories.

From what I understand, which may not be enough, part of the Dopler Shift could be a result of a changing time metric -it only has to be a tiny bit! Well, what if this changing metric is relatively flat in our "time neighborhood" but falls off an exponential cliff 15 billion light-years back? It could be very well 1 year of current time, is equal to 100 years 15 billion years ago, but equal to trillions of trillions of years 15.4 billion years ago; and so on. Where a beginning just doesn't exist, but there appears a limit.

And this whole God argument: maybe God exists; maybe God doesn't exist; maybe God exists and doesn't exist.
Logic is not a boundary condition for truth; wave-particle duality, and superposition, entanglement, non-locality all prove this, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure who said this but the saying goes, "Maturity is our ability to cope with uncertainty."

"Everything not forbidden is mandatory." Murray Gell-Mann

I am currently in the middle of a LOT of reading on about a hundred different topics spurring off of the zircon debate and string theory. I haven't done any extensive research in the area of advanced physics beyond a few abstracts in probably 12-14 months... A grave mistake considering how quickly this field changes. I am ceasing arguing as of now pending further study, although I am not accepting defeat ;P Hope you guys understand.

I will touch on these two thoughts and probably check back on this thread once more, but after that I'll just have to leave it up to future findings.

1. On potential energy... Democedes, I swear if one more person references Wikipedia in a debate I will lose all faith in humanity, tear my hair out, and check myself into the nearest loony bin. Do you realize that in a college setting, if you mention Wikipedia your papers are automatically failed on the basis of created facts? Just saying. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that from all observed evidence and the conclusions of the best current science, entropy happens. Therefore, you must have either an infinite source of potential energy (which we don't as the observable universe is decaying), or something had to create the initial amount.

UNDERSTAND THIS! I am not trying to be a stubborn a@@hole (pardon). I just don't see the proof. The second I see solid proof that A. There is a source of infinite potential energy or B. There exists an alternate universe with different laws than our own that can interact with our observable universe I will gladly recant all doubts and start reorganizing my other viewpoints. To me, even saying that energy was added to our plane by another is still passing the buck unless we can also prove that the other side of our proverbial coin operates under different rules. I'm sorry for the simplistic statement, but I think you will get my point. This is the main area I am currently researching.

2. Increasing complexity of lifeforms...

"the fossil record of change in earlier species
the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
the geographic distribution of related species
the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations"

Fossil record- The exact same layers of geographic formations and fossils would form in the case of a single, catastrophic event as would form over the timespan described by evolution. There are some better points to the long timeline argument... There are some serious problems with anomalous formations and fossilized remains. Since these are all "old arguments" I won't bore you. To me, the evidence seems split and I choose to side with the catastrophic event. The main deciding factor for me is the discovery of soft tissue in fossilized remains..... If the deaths of these animals were really as long ago as is supposed, it is impossible that the soft tissue could still be around. Here, all kinds of questions could be brought in about various dating methods, rearranging of rocks (although this one is hard to prove), and many other debates, but in my mind few of these will be decisively settled. It all boils down to "you approach it with your bias and get one interpretation of the data, and I approach it with mine and get my own interpretation." This is the biggest and most debated issue.

Without a proof of timeline, none of your other items prove increasing complexity, they simply argue for similarity of species. Please give the sources of those genetic changes over generations findings, I'd like to read up on them. The only ones I have ever heard of simply recorded slight changes, not a new function or an increase in complexity.

As for the salinity of oceans, I'm not gonna argue that one lol. That was as stupid to put in there as the Wikipedia comment, so I guess we are even.

Please remember...some people argue for the sole purpose of learning more. I am not so stuck in my ways that I won't consider correction. I am currently revisiting even the items I put in this post. It has been a while, so its back to the journals, articles, and papers for brush up. Time to study.....

@democedes I was not questioning the exact validity of the statement in Wikipedia, but the source. I did go on to show my argument against your statements.

Just please please please pull up Britannica or something if you need a definition. It grates every nerve ending I have when someone sources Wikipedia.

Of course, that may be how you feel when I source an argument like salinity, so I guess we are once again even.

Best of wishes, and my sincerest apologies for any fried nerves or spontaneous twitches.

@psycophysics

"Therefore, you must have either an infinite source of potential energy (which we don't as the observable universe is decaying), or something had to create the initial amount."

Nobody is saying the power source would be infinite. The power could be exponentially larger, but still a finite amount. Maybe it is so great, that even with entropy, it would last trillions of times longer than the span of our universe. We don't know how any of this works yet, but once again, no evidence I see favors intelligent design. As for how it has existed all of this time, we just don't know yet. Projects like the Large Hadron Collider will hopefully shed more light on this in years to come. We still don't even know what role dark energy or dark matter plays in our universe, so there are many answers that could be staring us in the face.

"If the deaths of these animals were really as long ago as is supposed, it is impossible that the soft tissue could still be around. Here, all kinds of questions could be brought in about various dating methods, rearranging of rocks (although this one is hard to prove), and many other debates, but in my mind few of these will be decisively settled."

Since time travel is not an option, we can only use evidence from what we have today. If you don't believe that the radiometric methods that scientists use are accurate, then that's a lengthy debate that I'm not prepared to have using this website as a forum. Soft tissue discoveries have perplexed scientists for quite a few years now. There are many surrounding theories as to what conditions cause this to happen, but nothing has been proven as far as I know. The fact that we rarely find fossils with soft tissue, but most of them without, means that these are exceptions to the norm. If things were as young earth creationists believe, then would find these soft tissue fossils much more often than we do. Catastrophic burial, or even landslides could conceivably produce these results. Once again the answer is "We don't know yet."

"Just please please please pull up Britannica or something if you need a definition. It grates every nerve ending I have when someone sources Wikipedia."

I find it ironic that you ask people to pull up Britannica over Wikipedia. There have been numerous studies showing that Wikipedia is more or less as accurate as Britannica. I'm not saying to use either as your only source, but rather multiple sources. Wikipedia can be a great tool for finding these other sources though.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just a friendly debate. While I did find some of your earlier "facts" preposterous, I don't believe they have caused any fried nerves or spontaneous twitches. :) I engage in these types of debates to challenge my own beliefs, and my eagerness to do this is the reason for everything I believe today. No matter how hard the truth is to accept sometimes, I would rather that over ignorance.

@democedes So according to you 45% of scientists believe in God. This is a huge number how can 55% scoff @ %45 of the people. What ever happened to mutual respect? I never realized how sensitive darwinites are toward their views. I guess they are smart enough to shut up in public….but then get on message boards and spew hate.(not talking abou tyou in particular) What your stats fail to mention is that the top tier scientists, the ones who have made a difference in our societies have a belief in God.

No way in this universe a mouse evolves into a lion….no circumstance will allow this to happen only imagination and satanisim.

@Aldron

"No way in this universe a mouse evolves into a lion….no circumstance will allow this to happen only imagination and satanisim."

Funny, I have similar feelings when it comes to the idea of a God. Hypothetically, what if there was a way to prove it to you? Would you still be unwilling to accept those facts? This type of undying faith poisons the scientific process.

I don't have a problem with people that believe in an ambiguous God without the label of a religion, or believe that one may or may not exist, such as agnostics. Those aren't dangerous people. What I do have a problem with is people who read teachings from their holy books that are centered around violence and hate. I could spew out quotes of the Bible or Koran all day long to prove my point, but I don't think that's necessary.

You have people in our modern scientific age who base their life on books that say it is ok to beat your children, hate gays, kill non-believers, or own slaves. These are archaic morals, and have no place in modern society. Many religious people overlook these teachings and pick and choose what they want to believe. Many of them will also tell you that these books are up to interpretation, but I strongly disagree. I've read both the Koran and the Bible, and this is a very warped way of looking at their teachings.

The idea of a God only begs a bigger question. Who or what would have created the creator? If a God truly did exist, has it always existed? Where did it acquire its knowledge? I don't think the idea of a God answers any questions at all. Nothing about it makes sense scientifically, which is why so many scientists are opposed to involving religion in their work. Entertaining these ideas is a waste of their productivity, and a large reason as to why they are so hostile towards theists.

@Haxus
funny. i have the same mentality as you when you write about god and religion.

That's pretty awe inspiring. Amazing universe we live in, isn't it?

Too bad there had to be a religious argument here about that vid. I'm all for God but I know where and when to get into that, when a video like that come up, it is not the time. It is time to join with our "enemies" and simply watch the universe around us amaze us by doing what it does best... just kinda sit there, look pretty and smile for the camera! =]