A very long email (masters degree in biology), doesn't agree with most scientists
Offline A LONG EMAIL FOR YOU TO RESPOND TO, I POSTED TWO FOLLOW UPS BELOW:
I am rather curious, how many of you started out believing in a religion,
but didn't really know much about it? Or believed in a religion and later
became atheist? Why do most atheist groups hold the theology that there is
no god but concentrate most of their arguments towards Christians, and Jews
when there are thousands of cult religions out there and many other
religions? I just want to clarify that I am a research scientist in
biology working on a double doctorate at the moment (DDS/PhD). My BS was
in Biology with a high concentration in molecular biology and a chemistry
minor. My Masters is in biology as well. Basically, my life has been
centered around two studies, the study of religion and the study of
science. I do believe that there are many many religions out there that
make outrageous claims and contradict scientific FACT. However, I do
believe that there are religions out there that science does not
necessarily disprove either or vise versa. I think a huge problem is that
many people take on the aspect of one extreme or the other. In other words
you're either for pure religion and what it says, or pure science and what
it says. Being a researcher I have been trained sufficiently to question
pretty much everything I come across. I question religion and science. I
have found that Christianity holds very strong points but I think is
easily misinterpreted by atheist’s theologians and the like. This sadly
draws weak support to their claims without even studying the materials at
hand in depth. The same can be true for the Christian who doesn't study
science. Ignorance may be bliss for many, but I beg to differ. I felt my
calling was to study both and try to make a connection to end the war on
the 'brainwashed' stereotype. From my studies, I have concluded that I am
more of a creationist than an evolutionist. Don't get me wrong, because I
am Christian it does not mean I disregard what science has to offer with
theories, facts and data. One thing I am blessed with is an open mind
that allows me to see past what is already understood or held true and to
put in my own fresh ideas that helps break down the walls.
This is what I believe: I believe in Christianity, the God of Christianity, the creation
story, and the bible in the literal sense, evolution in the standpoint of
genetic drift to a degree, adaptative radiation, microevolution and
geographical barriers (I am trying to keep this as simple as possible for
those who may not understand biology). As you may be aware, there are two
creation stories in the bible. This I am well aware of. However, it does
not contradict like many people think it does, but actually makes more
sense and thus provides supporting biblical evidence that the world is
older than 6000 years. I personally believe it is much older but many
Christians don't realize the two stories: the creation of the universe
and the world, and later the creation of the garden (simple explained
version, I could write a whole page on the whole ordeal). There is a time
frame there that isn't recorded which makes the age of the earth variable
even in the biblical sense. Another thing I believe in is Noahs ark.
Strangely it seems the creation story and the Noah’s ark story are the
two leading causes that people use not to believe in the bible, both from
genesis. The story of Noah’s ark holds many truths and evidence: No
living organism on the earth is older than 4600 years (and many can be
older than that) The oldest trees are 4600 years, the sahara desert with
the rate of spreading has only covered enough ground for a 4600 year time
frame, the oldest coral reef is 4600 years old. This is where science
plays in the bible, in Genesis it states that Noah should collect every
animal of it's KIND. Not every species. Many people disregard this and
see it as every animal in the world, when it is actually only land
dwelling animals of its kind that breathes through lungs, this doesn't
include insects who breath through slits on their exoskeleton, worms
through skin diffusion etc. This allows supporting evidence for
adaptation and changes in animals over the years after this point in
history. In the past thousand years we have taken wolves and bred them
into thousands of different types of dogs with probably 100 pure breeds,
(just ball parking it). So why is it so hard to think that 8 people
formed the 9 distinct geographical races of the world? Modern genetics
show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin
color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. There is good
evidence that the various people groups we have today have not been
separated for huge periods of time. [Worldwide variations in mitochondrial
DNA (the "Mitochondrial Eve" story) were claimed to show that all people
today trace back to a single mother (living in a small population) 70,000
to 800,000 years ago. Recent findings on the rate of mitochondrial DNA
mutations shorten this period drastically to put it within the biblical
time-frame. See L. Lowe and S. Scherer, "Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot
Thickens," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1997, 12(11):422-423; C.
Wieland, "A Shrinking Date for Eve," CEN Technical Journal, 1998,
12(1):1-3.]
Next question is: What Is a "Race"?
There is really only one race -- the human race.. Clearly, though, there
are groups of people who have certain features (e.g., skin color) in
common, which distinguish them from other groups. We prefer to call these
"people groups" rather than "races," to avoid the evolutionary
connotations associated with the word "race."
All peoples can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This shows that
the biological differences between the "races" are not very great. In
fact, the DNA differences are trivial. The DNA of any two people in the
world would typically differ by just 0.2 percent (J.C. Gutin, "End of the
Rainbow," Discover, November 1994, pp. 71-75.). Of this, only 6 percent
can be linked to racial categories; the rest is "within race" variation.
The variation in DNA between human individuals shows that racial
differences are trivial. This genetic unity means, for instance, that
white Americans, although ostensibly far removed from black Americans in
phenotype, can sometimes be better tissue matches for them than are other
black Americans.
Anthropologists generally classify people into a small number of main
racial groups, such as the Caucasoid (European or "white"),3 the Mongoloid
(which includes the Chinese, Inuit or Eskimo, and Native Americans), the
Negroid (black Africans), and the Australoid (the Australian Aborigines).
Within each classification, there may be many different sub-groups.
Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups
did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not
each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with
the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same
original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the
Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of
separation. Most believe that there are such vast differences between the
groups that there had to be many years for these differences to develop.
One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable
differences arise from some people having unique features in their
hereditary make-up which others lack. This is an understandable but
incorrect idea. Let's look at skin color, for instance.
One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable
differences arise from some people having unique features in their
hereditary make-up which others lack. This is an understandable but
incorrect idea.
What about SKIN COLORS?
It is easy to think that since different groups of people have "yellow"
skin, "red" skin, "black" skin, "white" skin, and "brown" skin, there must
be many different skin pigments or colorings. And since different chemicals
for coloring would mean a different genetic recipe or code in the
hereditary blueprint in each people group, it appears to be a real
problem. How could all those differences develop within a short time?
However, we all have the same coloring pigment in our skin -- melanin.
This is a dark-brownish pigment that is produced in different amounts in
special cells in our skin. If we had none (as do people called albinos,
who inherit a mutation-caused defect, and cannot produce melanin), then we
would have a very white or pink skin coloring. If we produced a little
melanin, we would be European white. If our skin produced a great deal of
melanin, we would be a very dark black. And in between, of course, are all
shades of brown. There are no other significant skin pigments [Other
substances can in minor ways affect skin shading, such as the colored
fibers of the protein elastin and the pigment carotene. However, once
again we all share these same compounds, and the principles governing
their inheritance are similar to those outlined here. Factors other than
pigment in the skin may influence the shade perceived by the observer in
subtle ways, such as the thickness of the overlying (clear) skin layers,
the density and positioning of the blood capillary networks, etc. In fact,
"melanin," which is produced by cells in the body called melanocytes,
consists of two pigments, which also account for hair color. Eumelanin is
very dark brown, phaeomelanin is more reddish. People tan when sunlight
stimulates eumelanin production. Redheads, who are often unable to develop
a protective tan, have a high proportion of phaeomelanin. They have
probably inherited a defective gene which makes their pigment cells
"unable to respond to normal signals that stimulate eumelanin production."
See P. Cohen, "Redheads Come Out of the Shade," New Scientist, 1995,
147(1997):18].
In summary, from currently available information, the really important
factor in determining skin color is melanin -- the amount produced.
This situation is true not only for skin color. Generally, whatever
feature we may look at, no people group has anything that is essentially
different from that possessed by any other. For example, the Asian, or
almond, eye differs from a typical Caucasian eye in having more fat around
them. Both Asian and Caucasian eyes have fat -- the latter simply have
less.
What does melanin do?
It protects the skin against damage by ultraviolet light from the sun. If
you have too little melanin in a very sunny environment, you will easily
suffer sunburn and skin cancer. If you have a great deal of melanin, and
you live in a country where there is little sunshine, it will be harder
for you to get enough vitamin D (which needs sunshine for its production
in your body). You may then suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which could
cause a bone disorder such as rickets.
We also need to be aware that we are not born with a genetically fixed
amount of melanin. Rather, we have a genetically fixed potential to
produce a certain amount, and the amount increases in response to
sunlight. For example, you may have noticed that when your Caucasian
friends (who spent their time indoors during winter) headed for the beach
at the beginning of summer they all had more or less the same pale white
skin color. As the summer went on, however, some became much darker than
others.
How is it that many different skin colors can arise in a short time?
Remember, whenever we speak of different "colors" we are referring to
different shades of the one color, melanin.
If a person from a very black people group marries someone from a very
white group, their offspring (called mulattos) are mid-brown. It has long
been known that when mulattos marry each other, their offspring may be
virtually any "color," ranging from very dark to very light. Understanding
this gives us the clues we need to answer our question, but first we must
look, in a simple way, at some of the basic principles of heredity.
Heredity
Each of us carries information in our body that describes us in the way a
blueprint and specifications describe a furnished building. It determines
not only that we will be human beings, rather than cabbages or crocodiles,
but also whether we will have blue eyes, short nose, long legs, etc. When a
sperm fertilizes an egg, all the information that specifies how the person
will be built (ignoring such superimposed factors as exercise and diet) is
already present. Most of this information is in coded form in our DNA [Most
of this DNA is in the nucleus of each cell, but some is contained in
mitochondria, which are outside the nucleus in the cytoplasm. Sperm
contribute only nuclear DNA when the egg is fertilized. Mitochondrial DNA
is inherited only from the mother, via the egg.].
To illustrate coding, a piece of string with beads on it can carry a
message in Morse code. The piece of string, by the use of a simple
sequence of short beads, long beads (to represent the dots and dashes of
Morse code), and spaces, can carry the same information as the English
word "help" typed on a sheet of paper. The entire Bible could be written
thus in Morse code on a long enough piece of string.
In a similar way, the human blueprint is written in a code (or language
convention) which is carried on very long chemical strings of DNA. This is
by far the most efficient information storage system known, greatly
surpassing any foreseeable computer technology.6 This information is
copied (and reshuffled) from generation to generation as people
reproduce.
The word "gene" refers to a small part of that information which has the
instructions for only one type of enzyme, for example.7 It may be simply
understood as a portion of the "message string" containing only one
specification.
For example, there is one gene that carries the instructions for making
hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in your red blood cells. If
that gene has been damaged by mutation (such as copying mistakes during
reproduction), the instructions will be faulty, so it will often make a
crippled form of hemoglobin, if any. (Diseases such as sickle-cell anemia
and thalassemia result from such mistakes.)
So, with an egg which has just been fertilized -- where does all its
information, its genes, come from? One half comes from the father (carried
in the sperm), and the other half from the mother (carried in the egg).
Genes come in pairs, so in the case of hemoglobin, for example, we have
two sets of code (instruction) for hemoglobin manufacture, one coming from
the mother and one from the father.
This is a very useful arrangement, because if you inherit a damaged gene
from one parent that could instruct your cells to produce a defective
hemoglobin, you are still likely to get a normal one from the other parent
which will continue to give the right instructions. Thus, only half the
hemoglobin in your body will be defective. (In fact, each of us carries
hundreds of genetic mistakes, inherited from one or the other of our
parents, which are usefully "covered up" by being matched with a normal
gene from the other parent
To give an example of the speed time frame: The blue Fugates weren't a
race but rather an excessively tight-knit family living in the Appalachian
Mountains. The patriarch of the clan was Martin Fugate, who settled along
the banks of Troublesome Creek near Hazard, Kentucky, sometime after 1800.
His wife, Mary, is thought to have been a carrier for a rare disease known
as hereditary methemoglobinemia, which we'll call met-H.
Due to an enzyme deficiency, the blood of met-H victims has reduced
oxygen-carrying capacity. Instead of being the usual bright red, arterial
blood is chocolate brown and gives the skin of Caucasians a bluish cast.
Hereditary met-H is caused by a recessive gene. If only one of your
parents has this gene, you'll be normal, but if they both have it, there's
a good chance you'll be blue.
None of Martin and Mary Fugate's descendants would have been blue had they
not intermarried with a nearby clan, the Smiths. The Smiths were
descendants of Richard Smith and Alicia Combs, one of whom apparently was
also a met-H carrier. According to family historian Mary Fugate, the first
known blue Fugate was born in 1832. Because of inbreeding among the
isolated hill folk--the Fugate family tree is a tangled mess of cousins
marrying cousins--blue people started popping up frequently thereafter. A
half dozen or so were on the scene by the 1890s, and one case was reported
as recently as 1975. They were quite a sight. One woman is said to have had
lips the color of a bruise. – one hundred years and we observe a
phenotypically different group of individuals
Also there is a group of people that have two giant claw like toes for
feet called the ostrich people.
With all of this being said, is it still hard to believe that Noah’s ark
is a possibility? I still want to go back to my original question and ask
what made you atheist etc. Hope we can continue to talk because, as you
might see from just a partial piece of a topic, I have a lot to say.
1. Did you really just write that whole email for us?
2. Would you join our forum and discuss your email with others if I posted
it?- Sapient
1.yes I did.
2.I would love to discuss my email with others as well as potential others
under a few conditions: my faith isn't bashed....i.e. having people saying
that I'm gay for my beliefs, Jesus is a homo, christians are closeminded
etc, people stay on the subject at hand (it is easy for someone to talk
about one topic and then bombard their response with potentially endless
amounts of other comments acusations, questions, theories etc. Obviously
I have a life outside of the computer world, it takes time for me to type
and feel that I may be overwhelmed with too many emails to respond. I
also have control over what I say and request that any comments that I
state should not be taken out of context or used in an abusive manner that
may threaten my educational/oocupational endeavors. With this said, how do
I join and how fast do people respond? Obviously in a day I cannot go
through more than a few comments and have appropriate time to read, obsorb
think and respond.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
Online 
Actually the original map I gave you was on the basis of thickening and thinning of the ice itself and showing that this glacier does infact cover most if not the entire country. Once again though, this rate of snow fall is only covering 11 years and not 50 years which the planes had endured.
Map of Greenland with temperature changes. Image credit: ESA
The movement of glaciers is extremely slow. I think the average speed is an inch a year but I haven't looked that up in years so that could be inaccurate. The crevass idea still has a high probability of crushing. Also, the area where the planes were was level, meaning there wasn't a huge dip in the ice where they found them showing that the collaps you guess could have happened might have not happened. The other thing is the crevass would leave uneven ice rings and major gaps would be observed. This was not the case during excavation of the main plane. The method of going down into the hole was blasting steam through the ice to make a smooth stable tunnel through the solid ice. Doing this did not obstruct the sides left alone and didn't change the ring patterns normally seen in the ice core samples scientists use. Scientists base their measurements of annual rings in the ice on light and dark lines. The light and dark signify times of hot and cold, dust collection, thawing and freezing. They literally count these rings. This has been the basis of counting for years. The same methods were performed in the expedition of the planes. Professionals and experts would have to be at the site to assure that someon plane hungry man wasn't putting himself in danger. The same methods were used in this case of counting the rings all the way down. The air bubble density wasn't used because it wasn't a site for core samples and also they didn't have the tools used for those experiments. Still the methods used for ice core bubble samples is used after line counts and still throws off the data by 1000 years.
True, but it wouldn't sink that far down, once the wings rest on the surface the weight distribution would be enough to prevent further sinking. I agree that this would happen, but only about 4 feet at most.
I can't find the site that I took the information from. I'm not surprised because the information was from a project a few years ago during undergrad and the internet changes daily. The guys that were on the dig did a speech about it and I watched the video when they mentioned the rings running down the sides. One of the scientists at the site mentioned this and they showed a video traveling down the hole to the final resting place of the planes. The ice rings on the sides were the same in ice core samples: showed image and compared the two. The difference was not visible. Although I will agree that melting could affect the oxygen content a little bit, it wouldn't change the whole physical makeup of the walls beyond that first half inch which turns transparent after freezing again. This gave a nice window to look through at the undisturbed ice.
Once again the link you gave me is now based on a local area and doesn't represent the whole country. I guess what I'm saying is it works both ways. You can't take a country average and expect all areas to obey. You can't take area samples and expect the whole country to obey. Since the core sample counting is based on rings and then fine tuning with other methods, it still shows that the data is far from truthful.
seems that everyone against him uses the same internet newsarticle. There is no way he would get that many life sentences from back taxes.
<snip>This is obsurd. First off, the fossil record have missing gaps ranging millions of years. They way species are lined up, to anyone who takes anatomy can agree that the phenotipic path that scientists lie down has a lot of contradictions and jumps around with many inconsistancies.
THE MYTH OF HUMAN-CHIMP SIMILARITY IS DEADFor a very long time, the evolutionist choir had been propagating the unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little genetic difference between humans and chimps. In every piece of evolutionist literature you could read sentences like "we are 99 percent equal to chimps" or "there is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human." Although no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been made, Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between the two species.
A study in October 2002 revealed that the evolutionist propaganda on this issue, like many others, is completely false. Humans and chimps are not "99% similar" as the evolutionist fairy tale would have it. Genetic similarity turns out to be less than 95%. A news story reported by CNN.com, entitled "Humans, chimps more different than thought," reports the following:
New Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject in an article titled "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled":
Biologist Boy Britten and other evolutionists continue to assess the result in terms of evolutionary theory, but in fact there is no scientific reason to do so. The theory of evolution is supported neither by the fossil record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary, the evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove the existence of an "intelligent design."
1. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/24/humans.chimps.ap/index.html
2. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833
Have you ever questioned the relationship between humans and pigs? Obviously our DNA has to be extremely closely related because 1. most of our influenza mutations occur when we give them to a pig and they give them back to us (in a nutshell).
2.We are able to take, skin, valves and organs from pigs and successfully transplant them into a human who can live with these organs.
Adrian Friday and Martin Bishop of Cambridge have analyzed the available protein sequence data for tetrapods… To their surprise, in nearly all cases, man (the mammal) and chicken (the bird) were paired off as closest relatives, with the crocodile as next nearest relative
Schwabe's studies on relaxins produced rather interesting results:
Against this background of high variability between relaxins from purportedly closely related species, the relaxins of pig and whale are all but identical. The molecules derived from rats, guinea-pigs, man and pigs are as distant from each other (approximately 55%) as all are from the elasmobranch's relaxin. ...Insulin, however, brings man and pig phylogenetically closer together than chimpanzee and manThanks Dr., another copy and paste.
Lie.
http://www.genome.gov/15515096
You can even browse the chimp genome.
Okay, I'm going to stop here because this article you copy and pasted just contradicted itself. First it says no conclusive comparison has been made, then it quotes a new article that says that there was a new genetic study finding that there were more differences than once thought. That sounds like a conclusive comparison.
From the link I posted:
There are qualifications to these numbers.
Personally, I'll no longer respond to anything you blatantly copy and paste. Please post a link.
-Triften
I have a feeling this argument is going to go back and forth for a while. here is my summary
1. dr. w believes something
1. atheist believes something else
2. dr. w believes he has evidence which makes him right, and when he is right he feels good because his belief is reinforced
2. atheist believes he has evidence which makes him right (principally by countering the evidence of dr. w), and when he is right he feels good because his belief is reinforced.
3. if dr. w is 100% right that the evidence he has provided is a. valid and b. corresponds with Bible he still hasn't proved there is a Christian God
3. if atheist is 100% right about the evidence he has provided which debunks dr. w's evidence he still hasn't proved there is not a god (even if he proves that this god is contradictory by some rational philosophical standards).
4. we don't have access to knowing the relationship between our beliefs shaped by our experiences ( "evidence" ) and "reality"; we pretty much only know what makes us feel good about ourselves.
a. dr. w feels good about being Christian
b. atheist feels good about being atheist (Some atheists say something like well maybe i'd be happier if i believed in heaven/afterlife/whatever but i'd rather sacrifice that happiness for truth; ultimately, atheist is choosing his own happiness)
that's about it.
Hello hello... um, hello.
Here's the problem:
A lot of Dr. W's "evidence" is either based on lies or is unverifiable. For example, the artifacts that Hovind uses to "debunk" claims of evolution are kept under lock and key. Other scientists aren't allowed to freely examine them and come to their own conlcusions.
If I told you I had evidence of something but refused to show anyone else that evidence, you'd have good reason to doubt me. Very, very good reason.
I think you may be using different definitions of evidence than the rest of us. Perhaps a view that everything is subjective? I recommend dropping in on the Philosophy with todangst forum.
-Triften
You don't understand how these things work. None of his charges carries a life sentence. Each carries a penalty not more than n years in prison. For example, looking at someone's tax return without their permission is punishable by imprisonment of not more than 1 year and/or a fine of up to $1000. If I were to look at the tax returns of 50 people, that'd be 50 counts of unauthorized inspection of tax returns. If I were found guilty on all counts, the judge could hit me with a maximum of 50 years in prison and/or $50k fine. It's up to the judge. If I looked at 288 tax returns, I could be sentenced to up to 288 years in prison and/or $288k fine.
If you want an eye-wintness account of the outcome of the court case, perhaps you can e-mail Nicole Lozare ([email protected]) of the Pensacola News Journal.
Six years of biology classes along with Schaum's text book definitions, Eckert's Animal Physiology, Cambell's Biology and Science journals of Journal of Molecular biology, Journal of Physiology, Journal of Micrbiology.
You are only taking one part of the definition. I am taking the whole picture. The picture starts with each of its origins. You just have to follow it back. Scientists kind of skip this part because they don't have any evidence for it.
Testable? No. Science is things observed and testable. Theories aren't testable to this degree. Convienient isn't it? Another problem is the fact that Conservation of Angular momentum isn't observed. this would be observed if the big bang occurred. Also, if the big bang occurred then the particle expansion would be observed uniformily from a single point in space. this also isn't observed....the point isn't seen....and uniformity isn't observed.
Evidence?
This is heavily based on speculation. Also fusion reactions such as this produces boron and many isotopes that are extremely undstable and crash back into helium and hydrogen giving off the energy of the stars. The problem with this is that these stars that create these elements questions (how do we know they form these things other than theory? Can we go out to space to an exploding star and measure its core and the elements given off? What is this based on? I really don't know but I know it's a lot of theory and not much actual study. Before I go further and anyone else on this I'm going to talk to somenoe about it from harvard or a national natural science museum. I can honestly say I don't know much about it because it's out of my field. But from what the internet has provided me with is a matter of fact statement without showing study materials or ways to measure such events. And others state the element synthesis is purely theory.) You would have to continue this and say at the time of the big bang, billions of stars blew up and gave enough of these elements that they were hurled lightyears away to earth and somehow collect here and not local planets.
NEW INFORMATION: I just spoke with a scientist from the platentarium/space travel museum in Chicago, IL. They said that it is speculated that the elements come from the stars after exploding. They observe this through spectrum observation, whether the elements come from the star itself or is already in space and once hit with part of the explosion is unknown. Stuff in the way is accounted for and measured differently. They don't know for sure if the elements coming from the star are formed then, during the time of the stars life, or if the elements existed already and are part of the catalyst or core of the reaction since the beginning.
That would be nice if the light isn't continually refracted from the elements that are free floating in space all the time. You line that up a few light years away and you get a nice interference. Is it really radiating from the star, or radiating beyond that star in the vaccum of space? Once again I need time to study this, it's not my field....but does seem like they miss some basic things that would make their data askew.
But once again, Miller and Ulrey disregarded a huge point to consider. Based on origin evolution, the world started out sterile and without oxygen producing organisms. The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). At this time they stated that oxygen would destroy any living structure and it was anaerobic. So the problem is without O2 in the environment you can't have O3. You see, science teaches that the ozone came after organisms started giving off oxygen as a by-product. Without ozone (O3) gas escapes....the ozone is why we have the green house effect.
Sure, first off, other planets have a much greater gravitational pull than us, why are the same elements not seen? First Venus my favorite planet: The thick atmosphere made up mainly of carbon dioxide, with a slight amount of water vapor and a bit of nitrogen and other elements....no ozone, no hydrogen, no methane, no building blocks for amino acids.
From: http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm
Venus' water was always in the gaseous form and could reach high enough in the atmosphere for ultraviolet light from the Sun to hit it. Ultraviolet light is energetic enough to break apart, or dissociate, water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The very light hydrogen atoms were able to escape into space and the heavier oxygen atoms combined with other atoms. Venus' water was eventually zapped away. The Earth's ozone layer prevents the same thing from happening to the water here.
Another problem, the one that debunks the amino acid theory completely....well I think I already have...seeing that ozone keeps hydrogen on our planet, and plants make ozone, but plants weren't around before unicelluars were according so science so no ozone and no amino acids....
From: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/environ/ENV019.HTM
Also, speaking with a organismal biologist at the museum in Chicago, he stated that he agreed with my statement about the ozone. He also said that recently the experiment was also debunked because the charge they used was not the same as the time frame that it supposedly occurred. With this being said, he said either the lack of ozone or the charge level makes the experiment useless for the argument towards origin of life.
The step between amino acids to the next is miles apart from each other on a micro scale.
Actually recently we have even observed in a vaccuum that light has changed from the originally conceived constant notion. Of course light is going to seem constant when you are measuring light with light. Measure it with lasers and you get a different story. I will agree that under a vaccuum experiment, light will travel with a constant speed. BUT this is disregarding any gas, particles, or obstructions normally observed in space that does affect the speed of light to our own planetary system. The scientist at the planetarium stated that what we base on our planet we assume happens in the galaxies and in space the same way.
We still haven't seen a star form from here, we have seen gas move and brigthness take its place which is easier to note that there are stars behind this cloud that are being seen for the first time for our observers. We are only seen dull places become lighter. We see stars at different stages according to our theories of how old they are, we take each star we see and put them in a computer simulator to place them in the order that we believe them to form. This is on the premis that it actually occurs according to our belief...not necessarily what actually happens....because it's too long of a time frame to observe. But as for a star, it still hasn't formed, the short wave could still be a conglomerate of stars behind this mass pushing it's own radiation and waves through the cloud or is close enough that it heats the cloud itself allowing the elements to react with this situation. Once again, this is all based on theory and speculation, not facts. For this to happen we must assume that light spectrum remains the same between that point and the point it reaches our telescope and also reacts the same way as it does on earth or in our own solar system. She said that we thought that we have a great idea of how our solar system came to be, only to find others mixed up and completely opposite of our own making our assumptions questionable.
I'll say it again, evolution != origin. And see above for how it is possible.
No transitional states?
This is interesting but doesn't mean they are descendants. Keep in mind you have animals that produce similar traits all the time according to evolution that have nothing to do with each other at all. Sinosauropteryx prima doesn't even have feathers, it has a tuft of hair going down its back believed to be for keeping it warm. "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age - Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, and an evolutionist. Fossils of the different kinds of animals appear suddenly in the strata and don’t change much from the deepest to the shallowest rocks. In other words, there is no clue that any kind of animal evolved from a different kind of ancestor, or that any kind of animals evolved into other kinds after they first appeared in the deepest rocks. The feathers are not halfway transition from scales to feathers, an assumed transformation of the most astounding complexity. If for no other reason, this would disqualify it as a transitional form. A bat is not a transitional form between bird and mammal, nor is a platypus transitional between duck and mammal, even though it exhibits some features of both.The evolutionist Lecomte du Mouy recognizes this. In the book ‘Human Destiny’ (N.Y. 1947) he writes:
there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.
The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.
The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared.One amazing adaptation of most echo-locating dolphins and small whales is the ‘melon,’ a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This ‘melon’ is actually a sound lens—a sophisticated structure designed to focus the emitted sound waves into a beam which the dolphin can direct where it likes. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves traveling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to focus the returning sound echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes.
For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.
look up the coelecanth to understand why this reasoning is wrong.
all evolution has a beginning. That is the point I'm making.
I don't base my scientific knowledge on what he has to say. I base it on what I was taught from the univeristy, what I have learned through research, personal research, and real world models.
I received my degrees from an accredited university. I prefer not to say because this is the internet and I don't need people looking up my information because of the tendacy of stalkers and crazy people out there. Let's just say I turned down U of M because I thought it was too expensive for my undergrad.
based on opinionated third hand quotes....still irrelevant to this discussion so lets get off of it.
P.S. Honestly, is the sarcasm too much? I can lay off if you like.
it's annoying. I don't have time to respond to all of these so slow down with the long discussions. This is one of me and all of you.