A very long email (masters degree in biology), doesn't agree with most scientists

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7574
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
A very long email (masters degree in biology), doesn't agree with most scientists

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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 donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.

Brian Fitzpatrick


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: That does

BobSpence1 wrote:
That does make your initial comment seem a little strange, where you said "But also you are basing it on the WHOLE COUNTRY and not on particular regions." I hope you see why I have problems making sense of your comments.

 Actually they did cover the entire country apart from those 'steep slopes' which I don't think are relevant the are where the planes were found. Then you say the whole sheet is effectively a glacier, which still means it will tend to move.

Note that the accompanying map is a temperature map, not a representation of the altimetry data.

Here is a map of that kind of data, not necessarily of the particular set discussed:

Altimetry-derived Greenland mapAltimetry-derived Greenland map

A legitimate criticism, which I am a little surprised you didn't jump on, (but then we know by now you really don't understand any of this stuff yourself ..gratuitous ad hominem Smiling ), would be to point out that this is nett accumulation, ie not allowing for subsidence due to melting.

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 http://www.peopleandplanet.net/thumbnail.php?id=1166&max=1000

 

Quote:
However, since this is on a glacier, the main thing offsetting build-up is the movement of the glacier away down the slope from the area where the snow initially fell. If there was no significant movement over the 50 years, ie they are on a slow moving part of the glacier, so the satellite measurements of nett acummulation apply.

This leaves the question of just how the planes ended up 250 feet down under 'solid ice'. Either subsidence due to melting accompanied by sufficent fresh snowfall to more-or-less compensate, or slipping down a new crevasse, which subsequently closed. I agree there is at least an intuitive problem with potential crushing of the planes, but crevasse behaviour is not quite that simple, so I don't think that is ruled out.

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.  

Quote:
There is also the tendency of heavy objects to slowly sink down through ice under their own weight, which could also explain why they ended up deeper than just the depth of compacted snow cover would predict.

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.  

Quote:
Further searching does suggest that snowfall in coastal areas could possibly amount to enough to account for that depth of coverage, although some recent high falls seem to be unusual:

From http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2004/2004121517998.html

The sudden thickening was due to some unusually large amounts of snowfall. While up to a meter of snowfall a year would not be out of the ordinary for the area, around 3 meters (9.8 feet) of snow fell between May 2002 and May 2003. The study’s authors wonder if this too might be a sign of climate change.

“This was the largest amount of snowfall we have observed in the area, by a long shot,” said the study’s lead author, Bill Krabill, a physical scientist at NASA’s Wallops Space Flight Center, Wallops Island, Va. Ice cores from nearby this area show that in last 100 years there has never been this much snowfall in a single year.

Even if what covered the planes was all normal local snowfall, we still have a major question:

I saw no reference on the recovery project web-site to ice-core analysis. Who came up with the observation about '400+' 'layers'?? You need a carefully drilled intact ice-core subject to some relatively complex tests to detect the patterns of density and included gasses, etc to generate this data, especially in an area subject to large variations in annual precipitation. As you yourself point out, there are many sources of variation in snowfall in addition to an annual seasonal variation, which is why many parameteres need to measured to clearly identify the annual cycle. It ain't just a matter of eye-balling the side of a hole carved in the ice, especially one carved by a machine that relies on melting its way thru the ice - that would rather tend to scramble the sometimes subtle properties of the ice used to map the layer profiles.

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. 

Quote:
And please, there has to be more references to this than from someone convicted of a number of charges whose total maximum possible prison terms add up to 288 years

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>

 

Quote:
And I re-affirm that I have heard him debating, and seen some of his other videos. I don't off-hand recall the ice-core debunking bit, but I certainly recall his monotonous repetion of his straw-man absurdities, which were even more stupid than your assertion about 'half-man half-ape'. Genetic analysis does reveal that we share somewhere between 94 and 98 percent of our DNA.

From here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744

The small difference between genotypes reflects the recent split between chimps and humans, says Goodman, who dates the divergence to between five and six million years ago.

The point is that the chimp could be regarded as an example of an intermediate form between us and, say, the gorilla and the rest of the higher primates, like the bonobo and the oran-utan., which are possibly somewhat more distantly related to us.

We are NOT descended from apes. We share a common ancestor with them in the geologically recent past. That common ancestor would have shared some chacteristics with both us and the apes, but both we and the apes have evolved away from that ancestral species, so that ancestor would not have been a simple mix of our current attributes.

That ancestral species' descendents are still around. They are us and the apes. Do you get any of this?

All life is related, so any existing species is an 'intermediate' to all the others, to the extent that they share significant amounts of DNA code.

If you could trace any individual lineage back 'all the way', we would not see at any point an offspring that was clearly a different 'species' from its parent. 'Species' is an artificial construct to help us classify life. There are examples of 'ring species', where you trace a related family of birds, for example, around the world at a similar latitude and environment. The differences between geographically close groups is not really sufficient to declare them different 'species', but if you compare groups from opposite sides of the world would appear to be clearly different species.

There ARE NO 'Speciation events', in the sense of something that could be recognised at the time. We CAN in retrospect, in principle, trace back thru fossil and genetic evidence a likely Most Recent Common Ancestor' for any group, whether a family, an 'ethnic' group, a whole species, a group of related species etc. For any two now distinct species, we could say that this was the time and place at which two given lineages diverged, but only after the 'event'.

The ultimate 'Common Ancestor' would be probably be some anonymous individual member of a population of micro-organisms, at some level of the transition from pre-biotic molecules to what we would clearly recognise as 'life'.

 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 DEAD

For 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:

There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.
Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.

Britten based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.

This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent.1

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":

We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps. 2

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 man

 

 


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Dr., another copy

Thanks Dr., another copy and paste.

drdoubleu wrote:

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.

Lie.

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

You can even browse the chimp genome.

drdoubleu wrote:

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:

There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.

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:

HumanGenome wrote:

The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence.

There are qualifications to these numbers.

Personally, I'll no longer respond to anything you blatantly copy and paste. Please post a link.

-Triften


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I have a feeling this

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.

 


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Hello hello... um, hello.

Hello hello... um, hello. Smiling

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


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu

drdoubleu wrote:

Quote:
And please, there has to be more references to this than from someone convicted of a number of charges whose total maximum possible prison terms add up to 288 years

seems that everyone against him uses the same internet newsarticle. There is no way he would get that many life sentences from back taxes.

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.


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: [ My

triften wrote:
[

My apologies, I missed your previous reply. What sources are you using for definitions to these terms?

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. 

trifen wrote:
"Evolution, you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." Evolution is usually (as far as Noah Webster is concerned) referring to how things change, not origins. Your statement would have been more clear had you not used the word "evolution" in that way.

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. 

triften wrote:
Yes, a theory about the _origin_ of the universe is indeed the big bang. It's partly based on the observation that the universe is expanding. Also, it's based on direct observeable evidence that the forces (gravity, weak atomic, strong atomic, and EM) will combine at higher and higher energies. If the Universe is expanding, what if it was alot smaller? Hmmm... (physicist with more brains than I calculates a bunch of stuff) "Well, according to what we know so far, the various forces would start combining and things would get strange" How strange? "Pretty darn strange, like a singularity" Wow, that's pretty weird. Any idea where the singularity came from? "Not a clue. I could give some guesses that are mostly speculation." (FACT: In a vacuum, particle/antiparticle pairs can spontaneously pop into existence. THEORY based on this fact: A "big bang" particle and an "anti-big bang" particle could have just appeared in a vacuum of nothingness and they just haven't collided yet.)

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.

triften wrote:
The theory that the universe was once a singularity has evidence backing it up. Then again, the universe might have always existed.

Evidence? 

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

#2: Reproduceable experiments show that a chemical soup similar to what may have been the Earth's atmosphere billions of years ago formed amino acids when electrical currents (lightning, for example) were passed through them. Given a soup of amino acids the size of the oceans of the Earth and enough time (a few million years), the probabilities are very, very good (and I am a mathematician so I can talk about probabilities) that a self-replicating molecule (there are a lot of them that are known) will assemble.

No! Chemical evolution is the evolution of Helium and Hydrogen, the two elements in the big bang evolving into the 105+ elements we have today. I asked a chemical engineer and he laughed at me he said that hydrogen cannot evolve into another element, you can't even do that in the lab and chemistry is the most flexible of the sciences.....but evolutionists believe this.

triften wrote:
Chemistry deals with interactions of atoms and molecules, not changes of the atoms themselves. Perhaps you should have talked to a physicist who could tell you about a fusion reactor (where we have turned H and He into heavier things)... or stars. So, a star appears to be a large ball of gas whose own gravity is crushing it, the crushing forces are so strong (it's a lot of gas) that hydrogen atoms get squeezed together to form helium. The heat released from this keeps the star from collapsing entirely. Eventually, this converts all available hydrogen to helium, then for a moment, gravity starts to win, until the force becomes strong enough to begin fusing helium together! Each transition can result in massive releases of gas. Eventually, all that's left (in any quantity anyway) is nickel. The fusion of nickel releases no extra energy, the nuclear furnace dies out and there is no heat released to create outward pressure to counter gravity. So the star collapses to one of a number of states (brown dwarf, black hole, brown dwarf) and possibly has one last massive explosion as its energy level spikes. This results in lots more outgassing and possibly having iron fused together into large elements. Eventually, some of this dust may get mixed up in another cloud of hydrogen that is forming into another star and the cycle begins anew. Thus, hydrogen turns into heavier things and we are made of stardust.

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. 

triften wrote:
BTW, the determination of the composition of stars is based on observation of spectra lines. In case you haven't done it, I highly recommend looking at various gas tubes excited by electric current through a refractor to view the spectra lines. You can then look at defracted star light and determine what elements are currently radiating light in that star.

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.

triften wrote:
Without ozone, gas escapes? Actually, the Earth's gravity does a pretty good job of that. Could I see a source on that claim? Ozone actually absorbs and shields the planet from some of the more harmful wavelengths of UV light.

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

UV breaks apart water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen

 

  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

 

 A long time ago, plants began to grow on Earth and they released 
oxygen molecules (02) into the atmosphere, and these oxygen molecules traveled
to the stratosphere (the part of the atmosphere above where planes fly where
temperature begins to increase with height again). Ultraviolet radiation from
the strikes these molecules and splits them into two oxygen atoms (O + O).
Then the oxygen atoms combine with an oxygen molecule to make ozone (O + 02 ->
03). Above this layer there are not as many oxygen molecules and below this
layer the W radiation cannot reach so the ozone is concentrated at the height
of the layer.

 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.

 

drdoubleu wrote:

The lightening would have to continually strike an area for over a week to produce a little bit of amino acids which in water would eventually disassociate. Hydrogen is the key element that holds DNA, RNA, proteins and amino acids together. Even if amino acids could form, what would cause them to reproduce? You need RNA, DNA, RNA polymerase, DNA polymerase I-III, Gyrases, helicases etc. Did all of these evolve simulatenously and then some how bump into each other and have the ability to hybridize? NOPE. So let it be known that Miller and Urey's experiment has been debunked.But still, how did hydrogen evolve into 105 + elements which is what chemical evolution is. I guess if you think 1/999,999,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000^100,000,000,000 is good chances of coming up with what we are now, then be my guest. You are talking to a scientist so even if you have numbers you base it on an impossible experiment once all factors have been taken into consideration. What are the odds now?

The step between amino acids to the next is miles apart from each other on a micro scale.  

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

#3: We can look into the sky and see stars at various stages in their life cycles. Some activities take millions of years and some take milliseconds.

How do you base the time frame on millions of years? because of a theory? You do realize what you are saying is spoon fed information to you since the time of a kid that has caused you to believe a theory to be a fact. Because a book told you that it's millions of years old without any proof doesn't make it millions of years old. They base things on the speed of light. But there's a problem with this, they have recently found that (c) the velocity of light is not a constant. In fact cambridge, yale and harvard have taken light and slowed it down to 38 mph and now completely stand still. So the distance of a star is measured in light years, or the distance traveled in a yeaqr for light....but how can you measure it based on a changing system? However, that is not what stellar and planetary evolution is: formation of a star and planets. Do you know there has never been one person who has ever seen a star form? We have observed stars getting lighter and dimmer but not form. Every 30 years or so we see a star blow up but that's opposite to what is trying to be acheived through evolution. It is PURELY THEORETICAL therefore not science.

triften wrote:
Actually we (our physicists anyway) have been paying very close attention to the speed of light (and other constants for that matter.) The speed of light in a vacuum has, so far, proved constant. When passing through materials, its speed is affected based on the observed refractive index of the material. Bose-Einstein condensates have shown that. However, these materials require temperature very, very close to 0K. The observed background temp of the observable universe is 2.73K which makes the codensate a little hard to form.

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.  

triften wrote:
Regarding the actual birth of stars, we have observed a nebula's ( the nebula is called B335) densest regions emitting shortwave radiation that is evidence of inward collapse leading to the start of fusion. ( http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM7SVRMD6E_index_0.html ) The radiation is caused by hydron atoms rubbing together in intense gravity.

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.   

triften wrote:
And again, you use "evolution" instead of "origin". It's okay, it's a common mistake of creationists.
  origin is part of the theory, piss off.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

#4: Organic Evolution = evolution of living things. I thought we agreed that this does occur? You said so in your original e-mail. A recent (past month) study done by the University of Maryland showed that there was a distinct proliferation of lactose-tolerance in certain areas of the world right about when we domesticated the cow. Lactose-tolerance gave people with it a distinct advantage (more food) and so their children could grow stronger and they'd have more kids and eventually large portions of the population were lactose-tolerant.

That's adaptation and microevolution.  Organic evolution is the origin of life.   

Once again this has nothing to do with Organic evolution. You might consider that to be evidence from Microevolution. Organic evolution is the formation of life and origination of life from non living material. See above for how this isn't possible.

I'll say it again, evolution != origin. And see above for how it is possible.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

#5: I'm going to borrow a phrase from someone I know: "It's strange to claim that you can't walk a mile by taking a step at a time." Lots of "microevolution" can add up to "macroevolution".

Macroevolution has never been observed once, in the lab, in the field, or in fossil records. We never see a single animal in a transition state. Only complete species that we link with other species and tie them together as if they evolved from each other, disregarding hundreds to millions of steps inbetween. Bacteria is the fastest growing organism we know. E. coli reproduces and doubles every 20 minutes. Yet why can't we take 40 years of e. coli which would be the time frame of 1,051,200 years of homosapien existance if even reproduction was at age 20. At this time frame, E. coli will not evolve into a completely new bacterium and can be shown for humans as well. Your statement of microevolution can equal macroevolution is just a THEORY! ONLY A THEORY. Microevolution is a fact, we see adaptation and changes such as people being tall and small, brown, white, yellow, blonde etc. This in any way shape or form does not cause a new species to come into existance. It is a theory based on an observation that lacks any data, fossil evidence and the such. According to evolution, dinosaurs became birds. How logical is that? Micro is only changes within the same speciment.

No transitional states?

triften wrote:
Dinos to birds: Sinosauropteryx prima, Ornithomimosaurs, Sapeornis, Hesperornis. All show qualities found in modern birds, not their fellow dinosaurs (feathers, bird-like tailbones, lack of teeth)

 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:

‘…we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of Archaeopteryx (another dino-bird that you left out) as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanism of transition remains unknown.’

triften wrote:
  Land mammals to whales: Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, Indocetus ramani, Basilosaurus (show various stages of functional legs)

 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.

triften wrote:
Fish to Tetrapods: Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Tulerpeton (also show various stages of functional legs)

look up the coelecanth to understand why this reasoning is wrong. 

triften wrote:
Actually, you were using the term "evolution" to mean "origin". Also, "Chemical Evolution" has multiple definitions and I chose the one I thought you were referring to based on the list you presented.

all evolution has a beginning.  That is the point I'm making. 

 

triften wrote:
A guy who supresses his original PhD thesis then "updates" it seems a little sketchy to me. (And that claim is from someone who has actually corresponded with someone.) You seem to be claiming that we can't trust anyone in this world and should only rely EVER on first-hand experience.

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.   

triften wrote:
What college do you attend anyway? Are you in dentistry school and collecting degrees from the Patriot Bible University?

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.   

triften wrote:
Besides, my statements were to back up Bob's theory: "Kent Hovind is a creep." I think it works rather well. He owns land, then claims to own no land, receives income, claims to get none, owes the U.S. gov't over $400k, enjoys the same protections that the rest of us pay for, was actively helping other people set up tax evasion scams, and threatened investigators. Yup, I think the theory holds.
 

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.  


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: <snip

BobSpence1 wrote:
<snip snip>

Therefore it is a function of their temperature - the temperature of a gas molecule is a measure of its kinetic energy of motion. Also its mass, lighter molecules move proportionally faster for the same kinetic energy.

Temperature of mixed gasses tend to the same value as their molecules bounce off each other. The lighter the gas, the higher the average velocity of its molecules, so the higher the probability they will reach escape velocity and permanently leave the atmosphere.

refer to my last statement. 

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is another way which affects the rate at which light gasses escape from the atmosphere - they will diffuse toward the upper atmoshere faster than heavier gasses, partly due to the effect of gravity, but mostly simply because their molecules are moving faster. And the presence of other gas molecules will slow the rate at which the light gas diffuses, so in that sense, all the heavier molecules (O2, N2,, CO2, H2O, etc), not just ozone, will slow the rate at which light gasses in the lower atmosphere get to the fringes.
 

No sh!t.  But that's not what the earth started with for elements in the atmosphere.  Stop giving me cut and paste bs you pull from news articles.

BobSpence1 wrote:
And O3 is not primarily a 'greenhouse gas', altho it contributes to that effect about 3-7%. The primary concern with ozone in the upper atmosphere is its ability to absorb and reflect UV light, hence the concern about the 'ozone hole'.

do you have a problem reading?  I never said it was a greenhouse gas.  It is the reason why we have greenhouse gasses trapped in our atmosphere. 

BobSpence1 wrote:
You actually seem to be so ignorant in science that you make the popular mistake of confusing the Greenhouse Effect with the Ozone Hole. Your comment about ozone 'keeping hydrogen in' seems to confirm this degree of ignorance.

shows your failure to read still.  Ozone hole allows for more radiation to enter into the atmosphere.  CO2 build up around the ozone prevents the radiation from escaping the same way your car heats up.  It's just common sense.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Regarding the 'slowing of light', your comment further reveals you are just 'cherry-picking' stuff you come across in science journals that looks like it might be usable in your shot-gun attack on the credibility of major scientific theories that seem to be incompatible with your beliefs.

Those experiments involve:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

An entirely new state of matter, first observed four years ago, has made this possible. When atoms become packed super-closely together at super-low temperatures and super-high vacuum, they lose their identity as individual particles and act like a single super- atom with characteristics similar to a laser.

Such an exotic medium can be engineered to slow a light beam 20 million-fold from 186,282 miles a second to a pokey 38 miles an hour.

So this is a more complex interaction between light and matter than we get when it passes thru a transparent medium like water or glass, where it only slows by 25-45% (60% for diamond). You could just as legitimately have referred to this everyday phenomena if you wanted to assert the common-place fact that the speed of light changes when it interacts with matter.

It is its speed in a vacuum which is the fundamental constant, altho there are speculations that it may have changed slightly as the universe expanded from the singularity.

The misconceptions revealed in those two comments alone show that you know little, and understand less, of physics, at least. Your comments on evolution reveal your ignorance of much of biology, and your comments in general reveal a shallow grasp of logic itself.

 

Thats completely disregarind that space is full of crap and junk that defracts light and light penetrates.  You think this doesn't happen?  That the light from a star happily zooms through space without going through any gas, ice, or other stuff?  Give me a break.  Also genius, this isn't biology now is it?  No.  How do you like sarcasm?


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: Those

BobSpence1 wrote:

Those experiments involve:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

An entirely new state of matter, first observed four years ago, has made this possible. When atoms become packed super-closely together at super-low temperatures and super-high vacuum, they lose their identity as individual particles and act like a single super- atom with characteristics similar to a laser.

Such an exotic medium can be engineered to slow a light beam 20 million-fold from 186,282 miles a second to a pokey 38 miles an hour.

Also, thank you for references the gazette at Harvard and not the actual science journal written for this project.  That really shows its credibility now does it?  


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: Just a

triften wrote:

Just a mention of the definition of species: a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding.

Why can't two geographically separated populations of an animal undergo different small genetic changes from each other until that adds up to an inability to produce viable offspring with each other?

We cannot produce viable offspring with chimps, thus, by definition we are spearate species. However, we share over 95% of our genome with chimps. (Some sources say put this number as high as 98%.) We have an estimated 25k genes (this is the current high estimate). So that means only about 1250 are different from chimps. So, in this case, 1250 small differences add up to a big enough gap to make a new species. TADA!

"My destination is a mile away. And a mile is about 1760 steps... and I'll get there 1 step at a time."

-Triften

 

Refer to the bobspence argument of genes. 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote:

[MOD EDIT - Removed duplicate post]


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: This

BobSpence1 wrote:

This site seems to analyse the 'London Artifact' pretty well:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

(Edit) From that site (sums it up pretty well - I agree):

Conclusions

As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.

Heh Eggplant, my edit puts you first....

 

give me a week both you and eggplant for me to further study this.  Do you realize that you quoted a creationist - he wrote the journal. 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I like

Vastet wrote:
I like sparkly things

 

Okay dude, you have continued to prove yourself either really dumb or really ignorant.  I haven't figured out which one but we'll hope for the latter.  you still fail to 1.Understand what macroevolution is 2.know how many evolutionists believe in it....this is how they came about with origin of life 3.at least some evidence of a bacterial strain that can do all the conditions of panspermia that I have listed above. Listing links to sites of one or two bacteria that can do one or two but not all of the conditions isn't credible. 4.evidence of fossils that I haven't debunked.

You have said that you don't believe in macro, given a definition not accurate and said you believe in it and that most evolutionists don't believe in it.  

The bacterial strains you give me don't fit the conditions.  You give me a strain that can obviously freeze but die at high temperatures above body temp hence why a fever kills it.  You have given me an archaea that has the ability to live in super hot hydrovents but dies when cooled down to room temperature, another that enjoys super cold but also dies when it reaches near boiling temperatures, and maybe one or two inbetween.  Anyone understands this that has read up on it.  what you don't understand that none do all of the above therefore you can't support panspermia according to the obvious conditions that would be faced in space.

Don't even bother talking to me about the frog, I used that model for my independent research assignment as an undergrad, and yes I got 100 percent on it.  The conditions the frog needs are precise.  Throwing a frog in space will cause it to suffer under the vaccuum and kill it because the freezing isn't instantaneous and is due to weather pattern changes as the temperature gradually goes from fall to winter.  It is based on the level of glucose in its body acting as a cryoprotectant. 

 and you fail to give me any evidence of missing links.

 You're swearing at me and saying that you have already proved yourself right without giving one once of evidence is ludicris.


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: drdoubleu

KSMB wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

#3: We can look into the sky and see stars at various stages in their life cycles. Some activities take millions of years and some take milliseconds.

How do you base the time frame on millions of years? because of a theory? You do realize what you are saying is spoon fed information to you since the time of a kid that has caused you to believe a theory to be a fact. Because a book told you that it's millions of years old without any proof doesn't make it millions of years old. They base things on the speed of light. But there's a problem with this, they have recently found that (c) the velocity of light is not a constant. In fact cambridge, yale and harvard have taken light and slowed it down to 38 mph and now completely stand still. So the distance of a star is measured in light years, or the distance traveled in a yeaqr for light....but how can you measure it based on a changing system? However, that is not what stellar and planetary evolution is: formation of a star and planets. Do you know there has never been one person who has ever seen a star form? We have observed stars getting lighter and dimmer but not form. Every 30 years or so we see a star blow up but that's opposite to what is trying to be acheived through evolution. It is PURELY THEORETICAL therefore not science.

Could you please give links to the studies regarding the supposed change in the speed of light? 38 mph sounds very slow, exceptionally high refractive index? As for light completely standing still, how would that work, since the photon has no rest mass?


I don't have a link because it was from a research journal that I think charges for membership so I took it from the hard copy at the library.  Search for it, I think you'll find it though for free, I don't have time though sorry! 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: <other

BobSpence1 wrote:
<other stuff covered today>

This on top of basic misunderstanding of radiometric dating, and all the other things we keep pointing out to him.

Radiometric dating actually supports a young earth scenario.  When Uranim decays to lead it gives off Helium .  Helium as a gas is able to escape.  Drilling into this reveals crystals called zercons(sp?) expected to be millions of years old.  But also had a lot more helium than expected.  these zercons were sent to a secular specialist on helium diffusion.  based on the amount of helium in the zercons he said the age couldn't be more than 14000 years old and later tweeked to a lot sooner than the creationist view.  This is based on rock however, but used the same methods showing you that this does pose inconsistancies and inaccuracies when measuring ice cores even to your standards.

Quote:
This constant dismissal of mountains of evidence for the Big Bang, synthesis of the heavier elements in stars, anything to do with evolution, including many, many intermediate forms, and so on is really breath-taking.

Why do we lack any intermediate forms?  covered this already with the evolution of dinosaurs into chickers er I mean birds.  synthesis is based on assumptions that they are created when the star blows up and not already there although they will agree that is as plausable and that their measures disregarding buring elements hit by the radiation once the star bursts giving the appearance of new elements being formed and guessing that the same spectrums on earth can be applied through space at distant galaxies that don't even obey our own ideas of planetary laws. 

Quote:
Shows no appreciation that there is massive extra evidence supporting evolutionary history from DNA studies, which is at least as important, if not more so, than evidence from fossil finds. Combined, they make the case for evolution really overwhelming.

already covered, chickens are DNA speaking, closer relatives to us than chimps....so does that mean since chickens came from dinos that we are dino descendants?  I'm a stegasaur! 

Quote:
Has anyone brought up the recent discovery of a fossil link between aquatic animals and land tetrapods, the Tiktaalik? One of the best 'missing links' found so far.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A040D-36A2-1434-B6A283414B7F0000

 

No but I like this one.  First of all since it is a new species....if it even is a new species, there is little to no information on it other than a little discritption of where it was found and how it fits into the missing links....Since there isn't much information on it and I have studied it at all I can't really say much with confidence on it. 

‘There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning. …
‘Of course, there are still major gaps in the fossil record. In particular we have almost no information about the step between Tiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods, when the anatomy underwent the most drastic changes, or about what happened in the following Early Carboniferous period, after the end of the Devonian, when tetrapods became fully terrestrial. 
From:  http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250 
‘[T]here are functional challenges to Darwinian interpretations. For instance, in fish the head, shoulder girdle, and circulatory systems constitute a single mechanical unit. The shoulder girdle is firmly connected to the vertebral column and is an anchor for the muscles involved in lateral undulation of the body, mouth opening, heart contractions, and timing of the blood circulation through the gills.6 However, in amphibians the head is not connected to the shoulder girdle, in order to allow effective terrestrial feeding and locomotion. Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage. However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given.’

Indeed, Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom,3 but evolutionists had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manœuvering when swimming and the Coelacanth is millions of years younger.  So how does so many specimens survive 360 million years unaltered?  


Cladogram of the pectoral fins on the tetrapod stem
Fig. 2: Cladogram of the pectoral fins on the tetrapod stem, from Ref. 3.
Click to see larger image.
Quite aside from the huge problems explaining the origin of locomotion, there are other problems. The series of corresponding limbs (Fig. 2, right) does not appear to show the clear progression. Even from looking at it, it is not obvious that the Panderichthys limb belongs in between the adjacent ones in the series. It has fewer small bones. The authors themselves appear to recognize this: ‘In some features, Tiktaalik is similar to rhizodontids such as

 

Give it a few years, we'll probably think totally differently of this guy just like the coelacanth. 

 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote:

hello wrote:

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.

 

 

This is the point, sofar, all scientific materials that have been used as evidence against the christian God has been shown to be: inaccurate, lies, out of date or so ambiguous that anyone can interpret them how they see fit. My point of doing this is to show that continual arguments that slowly break down the 'evidence' against christianity and the inconsistancies this evidence has should reveal that science isn't telling the whole story and the story it is telling is based on their own beliefs and not necessarily accurate science. If a person believes that there isn't an existance of a god or God because someone told him so and this same someone shows you a world of things that shows why they are right....if you attack the things that make them right and show that they are wrong then the atheist should question if this person who supposedly knows more than them is actually being truthfull to them when saying there is no god in the first place.

Science doesn't contradict the bible, when the science is correct. If this is so then the bible should be considered true. Since we don't see contradictions such as if you buff gold silver monekies will greet you, or lions living in the jungle when they live in grassy plains, then it should be obvious that the people that wrote the bible were inspired by God and is God's word through man written in such a way that regardless of new discoveries -that are actual discoveries and not assumped to be something based on a personal agenda - the bible remains true and non contradictory that they should see it as truth and believable. A person who reads the bible through or reads sections often sees things that through their lack of understanding is viewed as contradictory. I have studied the bible for 20 years now and find no contradictions in it based on my knowledge and understanding of the writing style and how it is written. To say that it contradicts itself is saying that you actually don't know what is written and the differences based on a few word choices. This is why Sapient thought that the story of the tower of babel was reaching the sky and not about pride, self glorification and one world government.  Or that a circle in the bible means a sphere if you ujnderstand hebrew, or that the verses used to show that the world was flat as he did was way out of context, incomplete and not even close to their actual meaning.


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: Thanks Dr.,

triften wrote:

Thanks Dr., another copy and paste.

drdoubleu wrote:

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.

Lie.

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

You can even browse the chimp genome.

drdoubleu wrote:

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:

There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.

triften wrote:
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.

before trying to say something is a lie, maybe you should read the whole thing and understand it first.  They were saying that originally evolutionists believed that we were 98-99% related to chimps, but based on the study you sent on the link and others this basis is actually 95-96%

From the link I posted:

HumanGenome wrote:

The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence.

There are qualifications to these numbers.

Personally, I'll no longer respond to anything you blatantly copy and paste. Please post a link.

-Triften

 

then don't respond to anything I'm trying to respond to everyone, balance my school work, job, life, girlfriend friends etc.  I don't enjoy being on a computer like a lot of you and want to get it done as fast as I can. 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: Hello

triften wrote:

Hello hello... um, hello. Smiling

Here's the problem:

A lot of Dr. W's "evidence" is either based on lies or is unverifiable.

which is what? 

triften wrote:
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.

I dont know what you aret talking about there seeing how I haven't based anything off of what Dr. Hovind said.  Dr. Hovind using the same materials as me if he does...I don't know because I've only seen one of his videos, which agreed with what I believe...then that is merely based off of two people coming with the same conclusions. 

triften wrote:
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.

what artifact is that?  If you mean the hammer, I based that off of a quick glance of a website and already said I didn't know anything about it so I needed more time to study it.  If I did just that and found it to be fake then I wouldn't have mentioned it.  I am unaware of whether or not Hovind used that item.  Regardless of him going to jail or not that doesn't drop my credibitliy nor put a damper on what I say since I only used his links once or twice and because it was easier to do that then write it out. 

triften wrote:
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.

if you mean by definitions of evolution, no.  I am just taking it back.  You see planetary evolution can mean changes of planets but also more broad explains the origin of planets.  We are both using the same things....if you actually use them right, which before you weren't....then we have the same understanding but I am putting it in the overall broad sense and you are concentrating on the little. 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: drdoubleu

triften wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:

Also, why is there no proof for

1.Cosmic Evolution

2.Chemical Evolution

3.Stellar and planetary evolution

4.Organic Evolution

5.Marcroevolution

I found where you got this list from and it basically makes a massive straw-man definition of "evolution". If you could use the actual accepted definition of evolution, you'd see that the actual Theory of Evolution makes no claims to say anything about a number of items on this list, so asking evolution to explain it is like "looking for a cake recipe in a phone book."

"Gravity doesn't explain why an electric motor turns so it must be false!"

-Triften


 

This list can be found anywhere.  I took it from my textbooks by Cambell/reece, a few other books and professors.  And no.  I don't go to a christian college. 


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: triften

drdoubleu wrote:
triften wrote:

My apologies, I missed your previous reply. What sources are you using for definitions to these terms?

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.

As I said in one of my other posts, your "definitions" are Hovind straw-men. Again, the "Theory of Evolution" does not claim to know how life or the universe began. If you want to discuss the Origins of Life, then says so.

drdoubleu wrote:

trifen wrote:
"Evolution, you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." Evolution is usually (as far as Noah Webster is concerned) referring to how things change, not origins. Your statement would have been more clear had you not used the word "evolution" in that way.

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.

The Theory of Evolutution does not cover "the whole picture". It covers from just after the start of the picture to the present.

drdoubleu wrote:
triften wrote:
Yes, a theory about the _origin_ of the universe is indeed the big bang. It's partly based on the observation that the universe is expanding. Also, it's based on direct observeable evidence that the forces (gravity, weak atomic, strong atomic, and EM) will combine at higher and higher energies. If the Universe is expanding, what if it was alot smaller? Hmmm... (physicist with more brains than I calculates a bunch of stuff) "Well, according to what we know so far, the various forces would start combining and things would get strange" How strange? "Pretty darn strange, like a singularity" Wow, that's pretty weird. Any idea where the singularity came from? "Not a clue. I could give some guesses that are mostly speculation." (FACT: In a vacuum, particle/antiparticle pairs can spontaneously pop into existence. THEORY based on this fact: A "big bang" particle and an "anti-big bang" particle could have just appeared in a vacuum of nothingness and they just haven't collided yet.)

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.

Theories predict behavior. Experiments can be run and observations can be made to see if the theory predicts correctly.

There are known issues with the big-bang theory based on our understanding of the universe at the time it was postulated. Current research on the structure of dark matter may lead to changes. Perhaps you should argue this with a theoretical physicist. I think Pikachu (of the board, not the anime) is studying some high-level physics.

When is Conservation of Angular Momentum not observed?

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
The theory that the universe was once a singularity has evidence backing it up. Then again, the universe might have always existed.

Evidence?

Red shift of light from distant galaxies (which is stronger for galaxies farther away) suggests that space is expanding. If space is expanding, then if you run back in time, it could have been a singularity. Based on the big bang theory, in 1948, George Gamow predicted that we would see cosmic microwave background radiation. In 1964, we had radio telescopes sensitive enough to detect the CMB providing evidence to support the theory. Tada! The theory made a predication which turned out to be correct.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
Chemistry deals with interactions of atoms and molecules, not changes of the atoms themselves. Perhaps you should have talked to a physicist who could tell you about a fusion reactor (where we have turned H and He into heavier things)... or stars. So, a star appears to be a large ball of gas whose own gravity is crushing it, the crushing forces are so strong (it's a lot of gas) that hydrogen atoms get squeezed together to form helium. The heat released from this keeps the star from collapsing entirely. Eventually, this converts all available hydrogen to helium, then for a moment, gravity starts to win, until the force becomes strong enough to begin fusing helium together! Each transition can result in massive releases of gas. Eventually, all that's left (in any quantity anyway) is nickel. The fusion of nickel releases no extra energy, the nuclear furnace dies out and there is no heat released to create outward pressure to counter gravity. So the star collapses to one of a number of states (brown dwarf, black hole, brown dwarf) and possibly has one last massive explosion as its energy level spikes. This results in lots more outgassing and possibly having iron fused together into large elements. Eventually, some of this dust may get mixed up in another cloud of hydrogen that is forming into another star and the cycle begins anew. Thus, hydrogen turns into heavier things and we are made of stardust.

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.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for doing some investigting.

I never said that the elements in stars collapse back to H and He. That's a strawman.

Here, on Earth, we have combined deterium (H w/extra neutron) and tritium (H w/2 extra neutrons) to form Helium (plain old regular stable helium) and an extra neutron plus extra energy. This fusion reaction gives off extra energy when finished. We (humans) have done and observed this.

The experiments you may be thinking of are the ones where they search for heavier elements. The half-life of those ranges from milliseconds to hours.

(As a sidenote, the fact that you say "105+ elements" is somewhat amusing because only the first 94 elements have been found in nature.)

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
BTW, the determination of the composition of stars is based on observation of spectra lines. In case you haven't done it, I highly recommend looking at various gas tubes excited by electric current through a refractor to view the spectra lines. You can then look at defracted star light and determine what elements are currently radiating light in that star.

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.

Please note: Refraction does not change the frequency of light. If I view a neon lamp through water, it will still show the same spectral lines.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
Without ozone, gas escapes? Actually, the Earth's gravity does a pretty good job of that. Could I see a source on that claim? Ozone actually absorbs and shields the planet from some of the more harmful wavelengths of UV light.

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.

Interesting. The Earth recieves about one half the solar radiation that Venus does (1 AU vs. .71 AU, the amount of energy we recieve is based on the square of the distance: 1 vs .51.) So this effect may not be nearly as strong. Additionally, Venus' gravity is 90% Earth's.

BTW, that site has great big giant warnings about its copyrights, be careful about copying images.

Despite the possibility you presented, a lack of atmospheric Hydrogen does not remove all hydrogen from the equation. What about the methane?

drdoubleu wrote:

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.

Where are you getting the idea that plants make ozone? Could you provide some logic steps? Ah, the response from Ask A Scientist. That appears to be an over-simplified response. Instead of "plant", he should have simply used the word "organism" or perhaps "biological process".

Free-roaming hydrogen is not a necessity for life to form or continue existing, therefore, a lack of ozone does not debunk any claims of abiogenesis.

First off, how could this guy you were talking to have known the "charge level" of the Earth at that time? If it was so wrong and some scientists are so sure of themselves, why haven't they re-run the experiment with the proper "charge levels"?

drdoubleu wrote:

The step between amino acids to the next is miles apart from each other on a micro scale.

Assertion. Proof by personal incredulity.

Please see my previous post regarding the actual probabilities of self-replicating molecules being assembled.


drdoubleu wrote:

Actually recently we have even observed in a vaccuum that light has changed from the originally conceived constant notion.

Please provide a link to work that supports this. If you are going to bring up 38mph, I will kindly remind you that that was not through a vaccuum.

drdoubleu wrote:

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.

Lasers are light.

drdoubleu wrote:
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 are venturing in philosophical territory now: "How do we know there isn't some barrier around the Earth that makes the stars seem millions of miles away?" You may as well claim that "God made fossils so the Earth would only seem old." Yes, we all make assumptions. If you see a fruit that looks like, smells like, feels like, and tastes like an apple, are you going to think it is in fact an apple, or are you going to assume it is some elaborate ruse set forth by some unknown entity to only appear to be an apple?

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
Regarding the actual birth of stars, we have observed a nebula's ( the nebula is called B335) densest regions emitting shortwave radiation that is evidence of inward collapse leading to the start of fusion. ( http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM7SVRMD6E_index_0.html ) The radiation is caused by hydron atoms rubbing together in intense gravity.

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.

See my apple statement earlier.

Yes, previous solar system formation theories have been bandied about and many are less than complete. Theories change, it's true. Please read up on the scientific method and the meaning of "theory", "hypothesis", and "law" in the context of science.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
And again, you use "evolution" instead of "origin". It's okay, it's a common mistake of creationists.

origin is part of the theory, piss off.

"Origin" is part of the title of Darwin's book "Origin of the species". The Theory of Evolution is that natural selection allows a population of creatures to change over time based on their environment. Nothing, I repeat, nothing claiming how life started.

Ad Hominem.


drdoubleu wrote:


triften wrote:
Dinos to birds: Sinosauropteryx prima, Ornithomimosaurs, Sapeornis, Hesperornis. All show qualities found in modern birds, not their fellow dinosaurs (feathers, bird-like tailbones, lack of teeth)

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.

If you like we can throw out that one (even though the simple feathers were similar to that of the illustrious kiwi), there are still three others on the list I gave you and many more, including archaeopteryx

I'm ignoring your copy-and-pasted info.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
Land mammals to whales: Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, Indocetus ramani, Basilosaurus (show various stages of functional legs)

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 pelvis would not shrink away until the creature no longer had to be on land. Also, if the creature lives in the water, the shrinking pelvis need not support so much weight.

Why would a creature with legs in the sea be extremely vulnerable? Or a creature with vestigal legs be so excessively vulnerable on land? Seals and walruses spend plenty of time on land.

What? Why does anything on the body have to turn sideways? A mammals spine does a fine job with up-down motion.

When did I bring up seals in my previous post? Straw-man.

That section on the "incomplete whale fossil record" and the "dolphin's melon" is copy-and-paste (plagarised) from answersgenesis.org so I am ignoring it.

BTW, This stance that complex = designed is entirely based off of personal incredulity.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
Fish to Tetrapods: Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Tulerpeton (also show various stages of functional legs)

look up the coelecanth to understand why this reasoning is wrong.

The Coelacanth, a jawed, lobe-finned fish... yeah. I see nothing wrong here. Please explain what it is you see.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
Actually, you were using the term "evolution" to mean "origin". Also, "Chemical Evolution" has multiple definitions and I chose the one I thought you were referring to based on the list you presented.

all evolution has a beginning. That is the point I'm making.

And the point I'm making is that evolution doesn't talk about how life started. If you have a problem with the origins of life, then start a discussion with "I don't think life began by seemingly random assembly of amino acids" not "I don't think evolution could go from simple life to us."

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
A guy who supresses his original PhD thesis then "updates" it seems a little sketchy to me. (And that claim is from someone who has actually corresponded with someone.) You seem to be claiming that we can't trust anyone in this world and should only rely EVER on first-hand experience.

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.

Actually, you've been quoting and/or plagarising a lot of his work.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
What college do you attend anyway? Are you in dentistry school and collecting degrees from the Patriot Bible University?

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.

Accredited by the AAATI (which is an acreditation mill)?

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
Besides, my statements were to back up Bob's theory: "Kent Hovind is a creep." I think it works rather well. He owns land, then claims to own no land, receives income, claims to get none, owes the U.S. gov't over $400k, enjoys the same protections that the rest of us pay for, was actively helping other people set up tax evasion scams, and threatened investigators. Yup, I think the theory holds.

based on opinionated third hand quotes....still irrelevant to this discussion so lets get off of it.

It was relevant since you were quoting/plagarising his work as a reliable source.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

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.

The long discussions are necessary sometimes because these are some complex things we are discussing. Keep in mind, that you don't need to answer everything within the hour or on any particular timescale. Take as long as you like to read and research.

(From your response to hello: )

drdoubleu wrote:

A person who reads the bible through or reads sections often sees things that through their lack of understanding is viewed as contradictory. I have studied the bible for 20 years now and find no contradictions in it based on my knowledge and understanding of the writing style and how it is written. To say that it contradicts itself is saying that you actually don't know what is written and the differences based on a few word choices.

You should check out http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/a_small_compilation_of_contradictions

So, if you read it in sections or all the way through, one can see contradictions. What other ways are there to read it other than in sections or all the way through?

drdoubleu wrote:

before trying to say something is a lie, maybe you should read the whole thing and understand it first. They were saying that originally evolutionists believed that we were 98-99% related to chimps, but based on the study you sent on the link and others this basis is actually 95-96%

And 95% is still not very similar? Yes, scientists were wrong about one number, then discovered a more accurate value and are now reporting on that. What's the big deal? Science does that, it becomes more accurate and is willing to throw out information and theories proven incorrect.

The possibility of small changes in genes building up to massive difference still holds.

drdoubleu wrote:

then don't respond to anything I'm trying to respond to everyone, balance my school work, job, life, girlfriend friends etc. I don't enjoy being on a computer like a lot of you and want to get it done as fast as I can.

What is wrong with posting a link? It's easier than copying and pasting a whole article. It's less text. Just single click the address bar and most browsers highlight the whole link.

 

-Triften


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13208
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: I believe

drdoubleu wrote:

I believe in Santa Claus!

Yes child, you do. And I'm about done arguing science with a pretender whos not really arguing science at all. If you ever happen to take a real science course, and actually learn enough to discuss the subject matter you're trying to cover, I may take up the debate again. But it's quite obvious that you're completely out of your league, and that 99% of your fiction is pre-written by creationists who have already been proven wrong mutiple times.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: KSMB

drdoubleu wrote:
KSMB wrote:

Could you please give links to the studies regarding the supposed change in the speed of light? 38 mph sounds very slow, exceptionally high refractive index? As for light completely standing still, how would that work, since the photon has no rest mass?

I don't have a link because it was from a research journal that I think charges for membership so I took it from the hard copy at the library. Search for it, I think you'll find it though for free, I don't have time though sorry!

Well, mind telling me which journal at least?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
KSMB, did you check out tis

KSMB, did you check out this link discussing the 'slow light' experiments I posted in my reply to drdoubleu?

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

The point remains of course is that it is still light passing thru a form of matter, albeit an exotic form. Not relevant to its vacuum velocity.

Not quite sure what his point is when he talks about it interacting with matter in interstellar and inter-galactic space. The density of atoms and molecules there is extremely small, and almost entirely hydrogen, so of course it has an very small effect, but only to the extent that it is not a perfect vacuum. Scientist are naturally fully aware of this, and allow for it in all observations.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote:Brian37

drdoubleu wrote:
Brian37 wrote:


Christians did not invent science so give it up.

This statement once again shows your ignorance and lack of knowledge of science. First off, I doubt most people on this site have a degree of biology. I will state that I know some do, but most don't.

Second you aparently don't know the history of science, its origins and the people involved. Little do you know that a majority of your biology learnings were contributed and discovered by Christians and followers of Christ.

Red hering. What matters is whether their christianity had anything to do with their discoveries, or whether it was their adherence to the scientific method that was responsible.

 

Quote:

Just to put a little list down, here are a few of the many (these are the ones you'd know the most) who are creationists,

They were 'creationists' in the sense that they accepted the bible perhaps, but to lump them in with today's creationists (if this is your intent) is simply deceitful. They lived before modern sciences of cosmology and evolution.

Quote:

Christians and some of the greatest minds of their time and ours. Without them, science would be nothing.

Not really. The foundations of critical thinking came from the Greeks. They were polytheists.... I'm sure you wouldn't want to credit polytheism....

The men you are about to list apparently were christians. They were also men. They also wore pants.

So without pants wearers, science would be nothing.

See the error yet?

Unless you can demonstrate that their christianity was instrumental in their scientific work, your claim is a red herring.

Quote:

Keep in mind, before Darwin, atheists still existed and had their ideas that these people were well aware of.

  • Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
  • Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
  • Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
  • Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
  • David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
  • Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
  • Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
  • Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
  • Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
  • Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
  • John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
  • Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
  • William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
  • James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
  • Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
  • Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
  • Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
  • Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
  • Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
  • James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
  • Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
  • Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
  • Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
  • Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
  • Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
  • William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
  • John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
  • Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
  • Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
  • James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
  • Don't you find that person an odd choice?
  • Quote:

  • Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
  • George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
  • Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
  • John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)
  • I hope you do note that they all died quite a long time ago... well before modern sciences like modern physics and evolution and cosmology came about....

    Quote:


    Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, and Fleming were strong opponents of evolution.

    Any of them live well into the 20th century? What you hve there is a lot of 19th century people, and many at that time oppposed evolution. But what matters is WHY they opposed it.

    And more important: are their contentions relevant today?

     

    Quote:

    So once again, you base your statements on the hatred of a religion rather than facts and knowledge.

    actually, the facts demonstrate that your argument is a red herring....

    Quote:

    It's funny when an atheist says that religion is the cause of war because few wars are religious.

    Tell that the Sunnis and the Shiite.

    And before you say "their struggle is over land, or power, etc..." of course it is... but religion is used as the justification for the hatred and the killing, and that's the very point in implicating religion for bloodshed: because it provides the grounds for hatred and for killing.

     

    Quote:

    We don't stereotype people saying atheists cause Shootings at school....because the recent shootings including the people at columbine were atheists and members of clubs similar to this. I think one of them even had a shirt on that said survival of the fittest.

    Do you see me do that? No. Because I'm better than that. When it comes to me vs. you, I'm the rational one here.

    Oh stop it. If you were really taking the high road, you'd not go on and on about it, while holding it over someone else's head!

    Religion is the cause of many deaths through history... people kill in the name of god. This is hardly controversial, and it demonstrates the dangers of dogmatic acceptance of ideology or religion.

     

    Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

    Books on atheism.


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    drdoubleu,  regarding your

    drdoubleu,

     regarding your idea of ozone preventing the loss of hydrogen, I think I see what you are basing this on:

    Short wavelength UV will split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, yes. So the hydrogen will tend to escape from the atmosphere because it is light, yes. So I assume you mean that the presence of ozone, by blocking this UV, will stop this process from occurring. So with no free oxygen in the atmosphere, you seem to imply that hydrogen will escape (from water molecules).

    But of course that very action of the UV on water vapour will liberate oxygen which will then be avaiable for forming ozone, so it should tend to be self-limiting.

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    todangst
    atheistRational VIP!
    todangst's picture
    Posts: 2830
    Joined: 2006-03-10
    User is offlineOffline
    drdoubleu wrote: This is

    drdoubleu wrote:

    This is the point, sofar, all scientific materials that have been used as evidence against the christian God has been shown to be: inaccurate, lies, out of date or so ambiguous that anyone can interpret them how they see fit.

    This is the sort of thing you need to keep repeating to yourself. There's no need to post it here for us. 

    Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

    Books on atheism.


    todangst
    atheistRational VIP!
    todangst's picture
    Posts: 2830
    Joined: 2006-03-10
    User is offlineOffline
    drdoubleu wrote: . Also,

    drdoubleu wrote:

    . Also, the bible has strong points, such as when it was written if by man for man,

    And that's precisely what we see: sixth century BC cosmology, medicine, (i.e. the heart is the seat of intellectual activity) and so on... a host of errors accepted by our ancient ancestors.

    Quote:
     

     then it would have used the scientific findings at that time and not those that we are discovering thousands of years later.

    Actually, no one used your list of quotes as evidence for the things you claim they predict.  It wasn't until after science made these discoveries that theists such as yourself retroactively retrofitted these passages to match modern science.

    For example, passage like those of Jeremiah's refering to 'stars' are actually his hope that David will have many decendents... so even if the passage were accurate, it's hyperbole, poetry, not an astronomological claim!

     

    At any rate, since you are just cutting and pasting something you've clearly not critically examined, I'll just paste this series of refutations for you to ignore:

    http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2006/12/bad-bible-science.html 

     

    Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

    Books on atheism.


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    drdoubleu

    drdoubleu wrote:

    Radiometric dating actually supports a young earth scenario. When Uranim decays to lead it gives off Helium . Helium as a gas is able to escape. Drilling into this reveals crystals called zercons(sp?) expected to be millions of years old. But also had a lot more helium than expected. these zercons were sent to a secular specialist on helium diffusion. based on the amount of helium in the zercons he said the age couldn't be more than 14000 years old and later tweeked to a lot sooner than the creationist view. This is based on rock however, but used the same methods showing you that this does pose inconsistancies and inaccuracies when measuring ice cores even to your standards.

    You should read this link:

    http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/4180_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp

    In case your apparently unreliable internet connection can't access it, here are some extracts:

    Radiometeric Dating Does Work!
    by G. Brent Dalrymple

    Originally published in RNCSE 20 (3): 14-19. The version on the web might differ slightly from the print publication.

    Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life. Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds (for example, Arndts and Overn 1981; Gill 1996) but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws (see Dalrymple 1984; York and Dalrymple 2000). Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to yield incorrect results. In most instances, these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze (for example, Woodmorappe 1979; Morris HM 1985; Morris JD 1994). Only rarely does a creationist actually find an incorrect radiometric result (Austin 1996; Rugg and Austin 1998) that has not already been revealed and discussed in the scientific literature.

    The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young. If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far. Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Glaringly absent, it seems.

    Second, it is an approach doomed to failure at the outset. Creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical. Even things that work well do not work well all of the time and under all circumstances. Try, for example, wearing a watch that is not waterproof while swimming. It will probably fail, but what would a reasonable person conclude from that? That watches do not work? Hardly.

    This paragraph addresses the Uranium-Helium method you used:

    A few verified examples of incorrect radiometric ages are simply insufficient to prove that radiometric dating is invalid. All they indicate is that the methods are not infallible. Those of us who have developed and used dating techniques to solve scientific problems are well aware that the systems are not perfect; we ourselves have provided numerous examples of instances in which the techniques fail. We often test them under controlled conditions to learn when and why they fail so we will not use them incorrectly. We have even discredited entire techniques. For example, after extensive testing over many years, it was concluded that uranium-helium dating is highly unreliable because the small helium atom diffuses easily out of minerals over geologic time. As a result, this method is not used except in rare and highly specialized applications. Other dating techniques, like K-Ar (potassium-argon and its more recent variant 40Ar/39Ar), Rb-Sr (rubidium-strontium), Sm-Nd (samarium-neodynium), Lu-Hf (lutetium-hafnium), and U-Pb (uranium-lead and its variant Pb-Pb), have all stood the test of time.

    The uncertainty in determing just much to adjust the measurement of He due to diffusion is the reason why it isn't used much. You would have to make assumptions about the conditions the sample were exposed to over their entire lifetime, and we know temperatur has a very strong influence on rates of diffusion. So why didn't they check them by the much more reliable Uranium-Lead method? Bear in mind that excessive Helium would point to an older date than expected, so I don't see how any adjustment due to correcting the diffusion estimates could lead to a very young date.

    The idea here appears to be that a separate estimate of age based on assumed rates of diffusion points to a very young age, but you would need to estimate how much helium was there originally, yet another uncertainty on top of the uncertainty of just what was the average rate of diffusion from the samples. If you assume it only came from Uranium decay, that implies a very old age, so to come up with a very young age you also have to assume that under some conditions, it decayed very much faster than we observe today, and I know this a theory pushed by some 'creation science' people, but does seem to be a very ad hoc attempt to explain away the dates we get from radiometric techniques.

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    drdoubleu
    Theist
    Posts: 78
    Joined: 2007-01-09
    User is offlineOffline
    BobSpence1

    BobSpence1 wrote:

    drdoubleu wrote:

    Radiometric dating actually supports a young earth scenario. When Uranim decays to lead it gives off Helium . Helium as a gas is able to escape. Drilling into this reveals crystals called zercons(sp?) expected to be millions of years old. But also had a lot more helium than expected. these zercons were sent to a secular specialist on helium diffusion. based on the amount of helium in the zercons he said the age couldn't be more than 14000 years old and later tweeked to a lot sooner than the creationist view. This is based on rock however, but used the same methods showing you that this does pose inconsistancies and inaccuracies when measuring ice cores even to your standards.

    You should read this link:

    http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/4180_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp

    In case your apparently unreliable internet connection can't access it, here are some extracts:

    Radiometeric Dating Does Work!
    by G. Brent Dalrymple

    Originally published in RNCSE 20 (3): 14-19. The version on the web might differ slightly from the print publication.

    Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life. Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds (for example, Arndts and Overn 1981; Gill 1996) but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws (see Dalrymple 1984; York and Dalrymple 2000). Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to yield incorrect results. In most instances, these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze (for example, Woodmorappe 1979; Morris HM 1985; Morris JD 1994). Only rarely does a creationist actually find an incorrect radiometric result (Austin 1996; Rugg and Austin 1998) that has not already been revealed and discussed in the scientific literature.

    The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young. If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far. Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Glaringly absent, it seems.

    Second, it is an approach doomed to failure at the outset. Creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical. Even things that work well do not work well all of the time and under all circumstances. Try, for example, wearing a watch that is not waterproof while swimming. It will probably fail, but what would a reasonable person conclude from that? That watches do not work? Hardly.

    This paragraph addresses the Uranium-Helium method you used:

    A few verified examples of incorrect radiometric ages are simply insufficient to prove that radiometric dating is invalid. All they indicate is that the methods are not infallible. Those of us who have developed and used dating techniques to solve scientific problems are well aware that the systems are not perfect; we ourselves have provided numerous examples of instances in which the techniques fail. We often test them under controlled conditions to learn when and why they fail so we will not use them incorrectly. We have even discredited entire techniques. For example, after extensive testing over many years, it was concluded that uranium-helium dating is highly unreliable because the small helium atom diffuses easily out of minerals over geologic time. As a result, this method is not used except in rare and highly specialized applications. Other dating techniques, like K-Ar (potassium-argon and its more recent variant 40Ar/39Ar), Rb-Sr (rubidium-strontium), Sm-Nd (samarium-neodynium), Lu-Hf (lutetium-hafnium), and U-Pb (uranium-lead and its variant Pb-Pb), have all stood the test of time.

     

    Why is it that you don't seem to read half of the information I present you.  I was clearly talking about Uranium to Lead....Not uranium helium.  Helium is involved in Uranium-lead measurements.  besides when was this article done?  the information I am basing my argument on are from 2006. 


    drdoubleu
    Theist
    Posts: 78
    Joined: 2007-01-09
    User is offlineOffline
    BobSpence1

    BobSpence1 wrote:

    drdoubleu,

    regarding your idea of ozone preventing the loss of hydrogen, I think I see what you are basing this on:

    Short wavelength UV will split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, yes. So the hydrogen will tend to escape from the atmosphere because it is light, yes. So I assume you mean that the presence of ozone, by blocking this UV, will stop this process from occurring. So with no free oxygen in the atmosphere, you seem to imply that hydrogen will escape (from water molecules).

    But of course that very action of the UV on water vapour will liberate oxygen which will then be avaiable for forming ozone, so it should tend to be self-limiting.

     The problem with this is that the time it would take for ozone to form over the entire earth that the hydrogen would already be depleted.  The only way for sufficient ozone to form is to have plants to continually produce oxygen.  remember the planet was not oxidated.  Oxigen would destroy any form of early life.  Orignally oxygen dispersal was thought to be a primitive type of weapon against other oragnisms trying to consume them.  Still this doesn't help with the ideas that right amino acids destroy left and the electrical currents were not based on primitive lightening nor would we observe a constant current of lightening.  And still anything beyond amino acids to anything else has not been observed.


    KSMB
    Scientist
    KSMB's picture
    Posts: 702
    Joined: 2006-08-03
    User is offlineOffline
    BobSpence1 wrote: KSMB,

    BobSpence1 wrote:

    KSMB, did you check out this link discussing the 'slow light' experiments I posted in my reply to drdoubleu?

    http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

    The point remains of course is that it is still light passing thru a form of matter, albeit an exotic form. Not relevant to its vacuum velocity.

    Not quite sure what his point is when he talks about it interacting with matter in interstellar and inter-galactic space. The density of atoms and molecules there is extremely small, and almost entirely hydrogen, so of course it has an very small effect, but only to the extent that it is not a perfect vacuum. Scientist are naturally fully aware of this, and allow for it in all observations.

     

    Yeah I missed that the first time, thanks for reposting. Now what puzzles me is what the properties of Bose-Einstein condensates have to do with the point in question regarding the speed of light in space.


    drdoubleu
    Theist
    Posts: 78
    Joined: 2007-01-09
    User is offlineOffline
    KSMB wrote: BobSpence1

    KSMB wrote:
    BobSpence1 wrote:

    KSMB, did you check out this link discussing the 'slow light' experiments I posted in my reply to drdoubleu?

    http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

    The point remains of course is that it is still light passing thru a form of matter, albeit an exotic form. Not relevant to its vacuum velocity.

    Not quite sure what his point is when he talks about it interacting with matter in interstellar and inter-galactic space. The density of atoms and molecules there is extremely small, and almost entirely hydrogen, so of course it has an very small effect, but only to the extent that it is not a perfect vacuum. Scientist are naturally fully aware of this, and allow for it in all observations.

     

    Yeah I missed that the first time, thanks for reposting. Now what puzzles me is what the properties of Bose-Einstein condensates have to do with the point in question regarding the speed of light in space.

     

    the fact that we heavily base what we know on space on what we know in the lab and on earth.  Because we are able to show that light is not a constant anymore, that it produces uncertainties as what happens in space as it travels to us.   


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    drdoubleu wrote:

    drdoubleu wrote:
    KSMB wrote:
    BobSpence1 wrote:

    KSMB, did you check out this link discussing the 'slow light' experiments I posted in my reply to drdoubleu?

    http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

    The point remains of course is that it is still light passing thru a form of matter, albeit an exotic form. Not relevant to its vacuum velocity.

    Not quite sure what his point is when he talks about it interacting with matter in interstellar and inter-galactic space. The density of atoms and molecules there is extremely small, and almost entirely hydrogen, so of course it has an very small effect, but only to the extent that it is not a perfect vacuum. Scientist are naturally fully aware of this, and allow for it in all observations.

     

    Yeah I missed that the first time, thanks for reposting. Now what puzzles me is what the properties of Bose-Einstein condensates have to do with the point in question regarding the speed of light in space.

     

    the fact that we heavily base what we know on space on what we know in the lab and on earth. Because we are able to show that light is not a constant anymore, that it produces uncertainties as what happens in space as it travels to us.

    My original point still stands. That light slows down when it passes thru ordinary transparent 'substances', such as air, water, and glass, has been known for a long time. For any given material or gas, of known composition, density and temperature, the effective velocity is still a precisely measurable thing. No uncertainty involved. It also agrees very precisely with the equation relating the electrical 'permitivity' of a medium and its magnetic 'permeability'' to the velocity of propogation of an electromagnetic wave (ie light, radio waves, gamma waves etc) thru that medium.

    I do have an honors degree in elecrical/electronics engineering, in case you are interested....

    Note that those two properties can be measured quite independently of the actual velocity of light.

    We have ways to estimate the amount of matter in space, so the 'uncertainty' in the velocity thru space is rather small, especially when we know that the density is extremely small , so the slow-down will be also very small. The chances of something resembling the state of matter in that experiment being encountered in interstellar space at all, let alone in quantities sufficient to affect our astronomical observations significantly, without us having noticed anything odd, is all but zero.

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    darth_josh
    High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
    darth_josh's picture
    Posts: 2650
    Joined: 2006-02-27
    User is offlineOffline
    Ok. I'm caught up with the

    Ok. I'm caught up with the reading in this thread.

     

    One important piece of the discussion that triften touched upon but did not expound was 'natural selection'.

    With regard to the reference to Tiktaalik rosea, no evolutionary biologist, that I have read, has gone so far as to make an assertion that that species is a direct link from fish to amphibians or reptiles. If any did then I would summarily disregard their work as lacking work. Although rosea hasn't been shown to be a direct descendant (virtually impossible), it has still been shown to possess qualities of both fish and amphibian/reptile. The structure of the fossil came first and the hypotheses as to why it looked like it did came after. So far, the model that fits is that it was a creature with arm bones that gave it a decided advantage in its particular environment. Thus it is a fact that such a creature would fit within the criteria of a speciation that gave it an advantage OR yet another smoking gun concerning natural selection AND evolution as mechanisms for the continuing complexity through adaptation of life.

    Obviously, since we have not seen any Tiktaaliks then we must assume that something better came along that made survival difficult or impossible for Tiktaalik rosea. Another example of natural selection whether divinely instigated or NOT.

    It is extremely odd that some people still cling to the Paluxy creek bed myth that caused me to disregard creationism. I've encountered it, but never from someone with a degree in anything other than 'creation science'. The type of 'rock' that the creekbed is made up of gives us the clue as to what has gone on there. Lots of carving and lying. Lots of bad paleontology.

    I'm not going to address ALL of the problems with cosmology and geology that you have since you have expressly stated that it isn't your field. I will address the 'angular momentum' issue with a simple easy answer that leads us to a huge math problem that cannot even begin to be calculated yet. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. The 'outside force' in this equation is gravity and centripetal force. Both affect the objects that are interrelated and thus cause a change in both rates of motion and vector.

    It's important to try and think 'four dimensionally' because the motion of an object through even something as devoid of major masses as space will still affect things in its wake. Think of a comet's tail and how solar radiation affects its direction.

    The earth's magnetic field channels the harmful solar radiation to the magnetic poles because the particles are charged. Think of blowing up a semi-permeable balloon from top and bottom and tell me how quickly it fills up. Now fill up a semi-permeable ballon the size of the earth with the earth's gravity helping you to hold in the air. It would still take 1,000s of millenia to fill up an entire atmosphere. Meanwhile, the water that has collected on the surface of the planet blocks the harmful radiation to an extent, allowing the settling of other chemicals into the pools of primordial ooze that creationists can't stand to think about.

    Without a molten iron core for extra mass and magnetism, the earth would be just another hulk of an asteroid incapable of giving rise to any type of life. Let alone life in an instant 6,000 or even 100,000 years. The formation of the earth as we know it required an influence but not a sentient one because that influence is happening elsewhere in our galaxy right now and we're watching it happen except billions of years in the future relative to the 'new' place.

    Perhaps in the new bible that creation scientists wish to write we'll have a reference to god placing the iron first and starting its spinning motion instead of centripetal force driving its motion. Perhaps the ignition of new stars will also be addressed as well as the dying of old ones. Until said book is written, the old one doesn't fit so why force it to do so?

    Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


    memesinconflict
    Posts: 11
    Joined: 2006-09-15
    User is offlineOffline
    Scientist?

    First, here are the exact credentials our messenger offers:

    "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."

     I am calling this for what it is: a lie. This is not a true Biology major. For reasons that will soon be clarified, it is unthinkable that this person received a BS in molecular biology and chemistry.

    So why is it so hard to think that 8 people
    formed the 9 distinct geographical races of the world? 

    This is a completely irrelevant point, he is right now saying that the entire concept of the "molecular clock" is falsified. Scientists use genetic mutations (silent mutations especially) to trace heredity and migration patterns. The molecular clock, more importantly, is used to date when certain geographical events occured. Modern anthropology says homo sapiens appeared approx 100 thousand years.

     

    [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.]

     Here is the evidence that this is not a true scientists. Note his second source "C. Wieland." That happens to be Carl Wieland, a head of the Creationist website answersingenesis. I noticed the name because I happened to have read that particular article as well as the 500 page book Power, Sex, and Suicide which focused on the role of mitochondria. 

     What Wieland leaves out is that the reason the Mitochondrial Eve date "shrank" is not because the estimates were revised but because basic premises of how mtDNA was dated were shown flawed. Selection pressures do effect mtDNA. Also, there is sometimes forms of recombination occuring. Both of these violate the necessary premises for the current mtDNA dating method.

     The point of the first article is that by using the NOTABLY FLAWED method of mtDNA dating, one can arrive at 12,000 years. The article is about why the method doesn't work right now.

     

    You don't get a BS in molecular biology and then not understand the basis of molecular dating for both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA.


    profchaos
    Posts: 1
    Joined: 2007-01-17
    User is offlineOffline
    amazing how dumb you guys are.

    Hey guys, I finally have caught up with all the reading for this topic and finally figured out how to respond on this site.  I am a doctor at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in Bethesda, MD.  I received my Undergraduate degree in Biomedical Science at U of M, my masters at U of IL, Chicago in microbiology and my Ph D.in health sciences at U of MD.  Just to make some observations between this back and forth argument is that a lot of you fail to either read what is written or fail to understand the material that is in front of you.

     

    To clarify to everyone on here this is what I have seen and this is what I agree with:

    Dr. W is correct on the errors in measuring trees and that the current age of the oldest living organism on the earth is no older than 4500-4600 years. 

     

    Triften:

    Your argument on the definitions of each of the listed categories of evolutionary theory shows that you do not know much if anything about the subject.  The definitions that Dr. W provided are correct.  The evolutionary standpoint for each one starts from the time that they originated whether it be through abiogenesis or the big bang theory.  Seeing how you based your seriously stupid accusations that he didn’t know what he knew what he was talking about based on a Webster definition shows you know little to nothing of evolution past a 9th grade level at best.  To clarify the reason why it is considered a theory, such as planetary evolution is based on the fact that we see planets at different stages of formation.  This doesn’t necessarily mean that they progress in this order believed by the scientists nor do they progress at all based on the lack of any evidence beyond visible observation and assumptions.  The theory of the origin of life is only based on microevolution believed to go as far as extending to a new animal formation from a preexisting one.  We haven’t observed this and once again believed to be from an assumption. 

     

    To say that amino acids evolve to the next step based on your opinion is absurd.  I heavily encourage you to learn about micro and macro biology from an accredited university and not wikipedia.org and Webster.com.  To see you try to argue against a scientist using definition sites is nauseating to say the least.

     

    Trying to insult him and saying that he must be getting his degree in dentistry from a degree mill is fucking retarded.  For one, I know for a fact that in order to even be considered for dental school competition you must be at an accredited state college that is not community based, must be in the top 10% of the nation in dental scores as well as overall college GPA-dental school is harder to get into than medical school FYI, and attend an accredited dental school supported by the American Dental Association.  From this it is safe to assume that he is highly educated and knows what he is talking about.  Being a scientist myself I can confirm this.

     

    Dr. W is correct that evolutionists heavily pushed the idea that chimps and humans were 99% genetically related until relatively recently.  Our closest genetic relatives are in fact chickens and other birds as well as crocodiles before chimps even come into the picture.  This does through I huge wrench in the evolutionary theory gears.

     

    BobSpence1:

    You seem to fail to read the ‘journals’ you provide let alone the responses sent back to you by Dr. W.  To clarify he is correct; the journal you stated about the ice growth/snow fall in Greenland was based on most of the country and did not differentiate between local points in the country and their own average snowfall/ice formation.

     

    Ice core sample readings have been grossly inaccurate since the beginning.  Unfortunately, since this time most readings and measurements are based on the original mathematical and poorly estimated presumptions that the rings are annual and not based on routine heating and cooling periods.  This obscures the data greatly.

     

    The Zircon crystals from helium formation due to Uranium decaying to lead is also correct.  These findings are relatively recent, December 2006, providing sufficient evidence to show that the dating methods currently used are grossly unreliable and heavily based on inaccurate methods disregarding the obvious problems involved.

     

    Ozone is in fact formed by oxygenation of our planet.  The level of oxygen at the original theory of our planetary formation and start of abiogenesis shows that the lack of ozone would allow for light molecules to escape into outer space and prevent amino acids from forming.  Continued arguments about ozone formation, greenhouse gas and the like clearly show you can’t read what is written, don’t understand the materials and don’t understand how the ozone is the main contributor to keeping hydrogen in our atmosphere.

     

    Still, the Miller Urey experiment was heavily flawed and because of inaccuracy of electrical charge, the inability to form left and right amino acids separately, and forgetting that methane disassociation to nitrogen and hydrogen will cause the hydrogen to raise in the air, become heated by UV radiation and leave our atmosphere thus removing the main chemical in our genetic makeup.  Because of these contributions it clearly shows that abiogenesis is still an impossible and unrepeatable experiment given the correct theorized conditions of earth.

     

    Offering the Tiktaalik roseae representation as solid evidence for macro evolution is something to laugh at.  Dr. W is correct, you base most of your assertions on news articles and stuff from internet press based on the title of the article.  Tiktaalik roseae is older than the coelacanth and holds many of the same properties.  Since they are classified in the same family, why would Tiktaalik roseae be a link between amphibians and fish when the coelacanth isn’t.  They are taking the same assertions based on the latter and applying them to the younger even when living specimens found of the coelacanth proved all assumptions on its body functions to be incorrect.  So why the hell would they be applicable to a species that lived 25 million years before it? 

     

    Vastet:

    You by far are the biggest idiot on this site.  Dr. W is correct, this is not a single organism alive or fossilized that has the ability to go from one planet, travel in space, go through the earths atmosphere and spawn the planet.  The hypothesis is heavily flawed and thrown out by the biology community years ago. 

     

    Claiming you debunked his theory based on name calling and weak straw men shows that you know absolutely nothing of the subject materials.  You still fail to comply and provide evidence for the questions he originally provided for you.  As far as I can see, you dug yourself into a hole that you can’t climb out of.

     

    darth_josh

    Just to save time and argument, all I’ll say is you’re full of shit!

     

    memesinconflict

    you are also full of shit.  What Dr. W said in his initial argument is 100% correct.  It only takes up to 100 years for us to observe a completely phenotypically diverse group of individuals from the main population due to geographical barriers.  The 9 major geographically distinct groups did in fact come from each other and the rate of time being only 1000 years is extremely plausible.  Your oversimplification and misunderstanding of mitochondria DNA and its relevance to the original argument provides enough information to show that you’re a complete idiot and liar.  By the way, the book you are talking about is sitting right in my office, and it’s 368 pages, not 500.  You are also a prime example of someone who can’t read.  Dr. W stated that he has a BS in biology with a high concentration in molecular biology and chemistry NOT a degree in molecular biology.  Molecular biology hardly covers anything pertaining to mitochondria and is heavily based on forensics, DNA fingerprinting, plasmid cloning, phage cloning, genetic manipulation and the like.  But you would have known that if you initially knew what you were talking about in the first place and read the book correctly as well as the arguments at hand.

     

    Dr. W for yourself, you should probably look more into the London Artifact, there is a lot of information mission from the original claims that supposedly debunk it as a pre-flood article.  It doesn’t necessarily make it credible but it’s interesting how even those arguing against it missed some obvious things about it.  Next time leave that shit out and just stick with the biology like you mostly have.  I am quite impressed with your knowledge of the materials and can assure you are on the right path to changing the scientific community and getting rid of many out of date and inaccurate studies if you feel that is your cup of tea.  Seriously though, to talk doctor to doctor, don’t waste your time on these fucking morons.  Concentrate on your studies, that is the most important thing to do for yourself right now.  Obviously this site is full of morons and ignoramuses.  Now that I have gotten this off my chest I am going back to my research to leave you fuck tards to your internet reality. 


    triften
    atheist
    triften's picture
    Posts: 591
    Joined: 2007-01-01
    User is offlineOffline
    profchaos

    profchaos wrote:

    Triften:

    Your argument on the definitions of each of the listed categories of evolutionary theory shows that you do not know much if anything about the subject. The definitions that Dr. W provided are correct.

    The only place I've been able to find his definitions repeated are on creationist websites. That list is a creationism strawman.

    The theory of evolution applies to biology and living creatures. It has nothing to do with atoms, stars, and the origin of the universe. Again, we are looking for a cake recipie in a phone book.

    profchaos wrote:
    Seeing how you based your seriously stupid accusations that he didn’t know what he knew what he was talking about based on a Webster definition shows you know little to nothing of evolution past a 9th grade level at best.

    Killing with kindness? Mods?

    profchaos wrote:

    To say that amino acids evolve to the next step based on your opinion is absurd.

    Assertion.

    profchaos wrote:

    Trying to insult him and saying that he must be getting his degree in dentistry from a degree mill is fucking retarded.

    I was more asking about his biology degree. Watch the language. Please read the rules of the forum again.

    profchaos wrote:

    Dr. W is correct that evolutionists heavily pushed the idea that chimps and humans were 99% genetically related until relatively recently. Our closest genetic relatives are in fact chickens and other birds as well as crocodiles before chimps even come into the picture. This does through I huge wrench in the evolutionary theory gears.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB144.html

    Please provide evidence regarding your claim regarding chickens. If this is true, then why do we share so much retroviral material with chimps and not with birds.


    profchaos wrote:

    Vastet:

    You by far are the biggest idiot on this site.

    Killing with kindness?

    profchaos wrote:

    darth_josh

    Just to save time and argument, all I’ll say is you’re full of shit!

    Killing with kindness?

    profchaos wrote:

    memesinconflict

    you are also full of shit.

    Killing with kindness?

    Didn't he accuse Vastet of namecalling?

     

    profchaos wrote:
    Seriously though, to talk doctor to doctor, don’t waste your time on these fucking morons. Concentrate on your studies, that is the most important thing to do for yourself right now. Obviously this site is full of morons and ignoramuses. Now that I have gotten this off my chest I am going back to my research to leave you fuck tards to your internet reality.

    I recommend the above post be either heavily edited or deleted entirely. If profchaos really wants to post in the "kill em with Kindness" forum, he can repost an edited version.


    Brian37
    atheistSuperfan
    Brian37's picture
    Posts: 15682
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    "Science is lying" says the

    "Science is lying" says the IDer/Crapyist.

    "Science" is a process, not a end result.

    I am proud of the deconstructionists in this thread taking on the Jesus Cheerleaders, but this is endless and just shows me that these brainwashed people are merely attempting to protect the thoughts they have. I have repeatedly ask these morons to cut to the chase and adress the core claims of their religion.

    Insted, they do what what apologists do. "I dont give a shit that it doesnt make sense, I'll basterdize science to make a square peg fit into a round hole"

    I am not the least impressed. Attacking secular, neutral unverisal science processes wil never support "spirits" or "spirit sperm", nore will it support surviving rigior mortis after 3 days.

    IT IS JUNK GARBAGE! YOU IDIOTS MIGHT AS WELL BELIEVE THAT "THE FORCE" LUKE SKYWAKER BELIEVED IN, WAS REAL!

    So, could one of you skip all the crap, be brave, step up to the plate and adress my direct questions without all the Weekly World News junk science?

    NO, thought not. To insecure to face reality?

    Ok, I'll tell you what your ultimate answer for everything is

    "God did it"

    SO THE FUCK WHAT!

    You are one of over 8,000 different sects of different religions around the world and your claims are just as rediculous and hokie as any other.

    Would one of you grow some balls and adress the birth and death of your super hero? 

     

    "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
    Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


    triften
    atheist
    triften's picture
    Posts: 591
    Joined: 2007-01-01
    User is offlineOffline
    I just thought of a

    I just thought of a potential problem with the "no hydrogen" claim:

    ("Dr." , "prof", if something is wrong with this idea, I'd love to hear it.)

    The UV light cracks water into H2 and O... so you have loose hydrogen and loose oxygen... wouldn't the oxygen want to combine (much like when you crack water using electricity) into O2. So now you have oxygen in the atmosphere. The oxygen will be thwacked by UV light to form ozone, thus blocking UV. Thus reducing the loss of hydrogen.

     

    Also, UV doesn't get too far in water, so early amino acids would have been protected from the worst in the oceans.

    -Triften


    darth_josh
    High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
    darth_josh's picture
    Posts: 2650
    Joined: 2006-02-27
    User is offlineOffline
    I believe that I explicitly

    I believe that I explicitly stated that no evolutionary biologist's thoughts on Tiktaalik rosea(that I have read) has 'declared' that it is a 'link'. It is an example of natural selection by virtue of it once having existed and no longer existing.

     If I am so full of shit then let's discuss an earth without an iron core or magnetic field.  For a resource to discuss:

    http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/NEWS01/701110332/1006

    This is a recent article, not the old one that I learned from in fucking high school.

    To see 'full of shit' look in a mirror.

    Let's both read more concerning ancient bacteria. 

    Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    From:

    From:

    • 09 September 2006
    • NewScientist.com news service

    Other experts are ranking Tiktaalik roseae with some august company. "Everybody points to Archaeopteryx as a link between reptiles and birds," says Jennifer Clack, a palaeontologist at the University of Cambridge, referring to the iconic fossil found in all the textbooks. "This creature does the same thing for the origin of tetrapods, in that it's got a combination of fish-like features with some clearly tetrapod-like features. It's one of those things you can point to and say, I told you this would exist - and there it is."

    “It is one of those things you can point to and say, I told you this would exist and there it is” 
    Whether you want to call it an actual 'link' or not - it's particular line may have died out, it is true - it shows that a creature meeting most of the criteria for such a link did exist, so making a probable evolutionary pathway between water-dwelling and land-dwelling tetrapods that much clearer.  Note they said 'fish-like', not amphibian. 

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    Ice core dating is not based

    Ice core dating is not based on simple counting of visible layers, rather they measure other thingls like chemical 'signatures' and other factors that are more clearly known to vary seasonally. There is no indication that any such analysis was done on the aircraft recovery expedition. There would have been no reason for them to do a scientific ice-core drill, that wasn't what the expedition was for - it was to recover the planes.

    Regarding the snow accumulation data, there were two separate surveys, one by laser measurements from aircraft, I think combined with some ground-based surveys, the other by radar altimetry from an ESA satellite, which covered the country more uniformly. Particularly in the latter case they had a lot of data points over the area and the period in question, tens of millions, in fact. Sure they could have missed very local areas of higher accumulation, but that amount of data represents a pretty good coverage.

    In any case I already conceded the point that drdoubleu didn't pick up, that the issue here was actually not the nett accumulation so much as the total snowfall combined with the amount of subsidence due to ice flow away from the area and melting. This is obviously the relevant issue governing the plausibility of the planes being found under that much ice formed purely from snowfall over the whole period since they landed. I have had difficulty finding info just on the annual snowfall, but at least one report suggested that it could be possibly high enough in some places to generate that much ice.

    That's why I changed my emphasis to seeing just what observations at the recovery site had been made that corresponded in a serious way with standard ice-core dating techniques, and so far I see only indications of counting of visible layering in the walls of the recovery shaft, which would be subject to just the sort of errors suggested. But not relevant as a criticism of the more detailed and careful process of ice-core drilling and analysis for scientific purposes.

    EDIT: ice-core dating IS NOT based on some simple 'counting the rings'. It is based on measuring various properties, including those which correspond to those visible bands, at closely spaced positions along the core, and analysing the profiles for each property, to identify the best estimate of the actual annual pattern. They also use local snowfall records, if available to help check the readings, as well as any other independent evidence available.

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    triften wrote:

    triften wrote:

    I just thought of a potential problem with the "no hydrogen" claim:

    ("Dr." , "prof", if something is wrong with this idea, I'd love to hear it.)

    The UV light cracks water into H2 and O... so you have loose hydrogen and loose oxygen... wouldn't the oxygen want to combine (much like when you crack water using electricity) into O2. So now you have oxygen in the atmosphere. The oxygen will be thwacked by UV light to form ozone, thus blocking UV. Thus reducing the loss of hydrogen.

     

    Also, UV doesn't get too far in water, so early amino acids would have been protected from the worst in the oceans.

    -Triften

    I agree - I had raised the point of oxygen liberated from the water splitting providing a source for ozone generation back on Tuesday.

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    Vastet
    atheistBloggerSuperfan
    Vastet's picture
    Posts: 13208
    Joined: 2006-12-25
    User is offlineOffline
    profchaos wrote: Hey guys,

    profchaos wrote:

    Hey guys, I finally have caught up with all the reading for this topic and finally figured out how to respond on this site.  I am a doctor at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in Bethesda, MD.  I received my Undergraduate degree in Biomedical Science at U of M, my masters at U of IL, Chicago in microbiology and my Ph D.in health sciences at U of MD.  Just to make some observations between this back and forth argument is that a lot of you fail to either read what is written or fail to understand the material that is in front of you.

     

    To clarify to everyone on here this is what I have seen and this is what I agree with:

    Dr. W is correct on the errors in measuring trees and that the current age of the oldest living organism on the earth is no older than 4500-4600 years. 

     

    Triften:

    Your argument on the definitions of each of the listed categories of evolutionary theory shows that you do not know much if anything about the subject.  The definitions that Dr. W provided are correct.  The evolutionary standpoint for each one starts from the time that they originated whether it be through abiogenesis or the big bang theory.  Seeing how you based your seriously stupid accusations that he didn’t know what he knew what he was talking about based on a Webster definition shows you know little to nothing of evolution past a 9th grade level at best.  To clarify the reason why it is considered a theory, such as planetary evolution is based on the fact that we see planets at different stages of formation.  This doesn’t necessarily mean that they progress in this order believed by the scientists nor do they progress at all based on the lack of any evidence beyond visible observation and assumptions.  The theory of the origin of life is only based on microevolution believed to go as far as extending to a new animal formation from a preexisting one.  We haven’t observed this and once again believed to be from an assumption. 

     

    To say that amino acids evolve to the next step based on your opinion is absurd.  I heavily encourage you to learn about micro and macro biology from an accredited university and not wikipedia.org and Webster.com.  To see you try to argue against a scientist using definition sites is nauseating to say the least.

     

    Trying to insult him and saying that he must be getting his degree in dentistry from a degree mill is fucking retarded.  For one, I know for a fact that in order to even be considered for dental school competition you must be at an accredited state college that is not community based, must be in the top 10% of the nation in dental scores as well as overall college GPA-dental school is harder to get into than medical school FYI, and attend an accredited dental school supported by the American Dental Association.  From this it is safe to assume that he is highly educated and knows what he is talking about.  Being a scientist myself I can confirm this.

     

    Dr. W is correct that evolutionists heavily pushed the idea that chimps and humans were 99% genetically related until relatively recently.  Our closest genetic relatives are in fact chickens and other birds as well as crocodiles before chimps even come into the picture.  This does through I huge wrench in the evolutionary theory gears.

     

    BobSpence1:

    You seem to fail to read the ‘journals’ you provide let alone the responses sent back to you by Dr. W.  To clarify he is correct; the journal you stated about the ice growth/snow fall in Greenland was based on most of the country and did not differentiate between local points in the country and their own average snowfall/ice formation.

     

    Ice core sample readings have been grossly inaccurate since the beginning.  Unfortunately, since this time most readings and measurements are based on the original mathematical and poorly estimated presumptions that the rings are annual and not based on routine heating and cooling periods.  This obscures the data greatly.

     

    The Zircon crystals from helium formation due to Uranium decaying to lead is also correct.  These findings are relatively recent, December 2006, providing sufficient evidence to show that the dating methods currently used are grossly unreliable and heavily based on inaccurate methods disregarding the obvious problems involved.

     

    Ozone is in fact formed by oxygenation of our planet.  The level of oxygen at the original theory of our planetary formation and start of abiogenesis shows that the lack of ozone would allow for light molecules to escape into outer space and prevent amino acids from forming.  Continued arguments about ozone formation, greenhouse gas and the like clearly show you can’t read what is written, don’t understand the materials and don’t understand how the ozone is the main contributor to keeping hydrogen in our atmosphere.

     

    Still, the Miller Urey experiment was heavily flawed and because of inaccuracy of electrical charge, the inability to form left and right amino acids separately, and forgetting that methane disassociation to nitrogen and hydrogen will cause the hydrogen to raise in the air, become heated by UV radiation and leave our atmosphere thus removing the main chemical in our genetic makeup.  Because of these contributions it clearly shows that abiogenesis is still an impossible and unrepeatable experiment given the correct theorized conditions of earth.

     

    Offering the Tiktaalik roseae representation as solid evidence for macro evolution is something to laugh at.  Dr. W is correct, you base most of your assertions on news articles and stuff from internet press based on the title of the article.  Tiktaalik roseae is older than the coelacanth and holds many of the same properties.  Since they are classified in the same family, why would Tiktaalik roseae be a link between amphibians and fish when the coelacanth isn’t.  They are taking the same assertions based on the latter and applying them to the younger even when living specimens found of the coelacanth proved all assumptions on its body functions to be incorrect.  So why the hell would they be applicable to a species that lived 25 million years before it? 

     

    Vastet:

    You by far are the biggest idiot on this site.  Dr. W is correct, this is not a single organism alive or fossilized that has the ability to go from one planet, travel in space, go through the earths atmosphere and spawn the planet.  The hypothesis is heavily flawed and thrown out by the biology community years ago. 

     

    Claiming you debunked his theory based on name calling and weak straw men shows that you know absolutely nothing of the subject materials.  You still fail to comply and provide evidence for the questions he originally provided for you.  As far as I can see, you dug yourself into a hole that you can’t climb out of.

     

    darth_josh

    Just to save time and argument, all I’ll say is you’re full of shit!

     

    memesinconflict

    you are also full of shit.  What Dr. W said in his initial argument is 100% correct.  It only takes up to 100 years for us to observe a completely phenotypically diverse group of individuals from the main population due to geographical barriers.  The 9 major geographically distinct groups did in fact come from each other and the rate of time being only 1000 years is extremely plausible.  Your oversimplification and misunderstanding of mitochondria DNA and its relevance to the original argument provides enough information to show that you’re a complete idiot and liar.  By the way, the book you are talking about is sitting right in my office, and it’s 368 pages, not 500.  You are also a prime example of someone who can’t read.  Dr. W stated that he has a BS in biology with a high concentration in molecular biology and chemistry NOT a degree in molecular biology.  Molecular biology hardly covers anything pertaining to mitochondria and is heavily based on forensics, DNA fingerprinting, plasmid cloning, phage cloning, genetic manipulation and the like.  But you would have known that if you initially knew what you were talking about in the first place and read the book correctly as well as the arguments at hand.

     

    Dr. W for yourself, you should probably look more into the London Artifact, there is a lot of information mission from the original claims that supposedly debunk it as a pre-flood article.  It doesn’t necessarily make it credible but it’s interesting how even those arguing against it missed some obvious things about it.  Next time leave that shit out and just stick with the biology like you mostly have.  I am quite impressed with your knowledge of the materials and can assure you are on the right path to changing the scientific community and getting rid of many out of date and inaccurate studies if you feel that is your cup of tea.  Seriously though, to talk doctor to doctor, don’t waste your time on these fucking morons.  Concentrate on your studies, that is the most important thing to do for yourself right now.  Obviously this site is full of morons and ignoramuses.  Now that I have gotten this off my chest I am going back to my research to leave you fuck tards to your internet reality. 

    Thanks for coming and proving you're a bigger liar and moron than the first idiot. Now go away. Smiling

    Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.