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

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
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.


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

BobSpence1 wrote:
You do realize that 200+ feet of solid ice is way more than what we would have if it was simply the result of the local snowfall over the period since the planes crashed, even if it was 50 years. 200 feet over even 50 years would be 4 feet per year, wheras high snowfall in Greenland is in the range of less than 3 inches per year.
So 200 feet of solid ice over the planes has to be old ice, that had covered the planes due to an ice slide or glacier movement of some kind.

 

Give me a reference to your claim.  I can't find anything on this online.  Refer to Dr. Kent Hovinds videos on google for the iced planes.  

 

Also, why is there no proof for

1.Cosmic Evolution

2.Chemical Evolution

3.Stellar and planetary evolution

4.Organic Evolution

5.Marcroevolution

 

when there isn't one once of evidence for any.  Note, anything stated on these you will realize is just theory and speculation...not proof or evidence. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
From http://eesc.columbia.ed

From

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/labs/vostok/ 

Snow falling in the polar regions of the earth (e.g. Greenland and Antarctica) sometimes is preserved as annual layers within the Ice Sheets, provided that they are not destroyed by flow of the ice. These annual layers provide a record of the earth's climate that reaches back as much as 200,000 years.

 

Several different climate indicators can be measured from samples of the ice:

 

    * The amount of dust in each annual layer is indicative of the environment at the time that the dust was deposited. Various kinds of fallout from the atmosphere, including airborne continental dust and biological material, volcanic debris, sea salts, cosmic particles, and isotopes produced by cosmic radiation, are deposited on the ice sheet surface along with the snow, thus mixing with the snow and also acting as a distinctive barrier between different ice layers.

    * The composition of bubbles of air trapped in the ice is a measure of the composition of the atmosphere in ancient times. With increasing pressure from subsequent snow deposition on an ice cap or glacier, the snow becomes compacted and, consequently, air is trapped within the deposited layer. This entrapment of air occurs essentially with no differentiation of the atmospheric gas components. However, carbon dioxide has different chemical properties from other atmospheric gases, thus, the carbon dioxide concentration in the air-filled spaces might be affected by interaction with the ice itself or with trapped impurities.

    * The isotopic composition of water, and in particular the concentration of the heavy isotope of oxygen, 18O, relative to 16O, as well as 2H (deuterium) relative to 1H, is indicative of the temperatures of the environment. During cold periods, the concentration of less volatile 2H (18O) in the ice is lower than during warm periods. The reason for this is that at lower temperature, the moisture has been removed from the atmosphere to a larger degree resulting in an increased depletion of the heavier isotopes. 

The Vostok core was drilled in East Antarctica, at the Soviet station Vostok from an altitude of 3488 m, and has a total length of 2083 m. Ice samples have been analyzed with respect to isotopic content in 2H, dust, and methane and carbon dioxide trapped in air bubbles. The profiles of 2H, methane, and carbon dioxide concentrations behave in a similar way with respect to depth in the core, showing a short interglacial stage, the Holocene, at the top, a long glacial stage below, and the last interglacial stage near the bottom of the core. The record goes back in time about 160,000 years.  

from here 

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/datation.htm 

A novel method of dating ice cores helps us to understand deglaciation that occurred 250,000 years ago

 

Paris, March 14, 2003 

Working with American, Russian, and Chinese scientists, researchers from the "Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de ''environnement" (Laboratory for Climate and Environment Sciences) in Saclay (a research unit run jointly by the CEA [French Atomic Energy Authority] and by the CNRS - Institut Pierre Simon Laplace)(1), and from the "Laboratoire de glaciologie et géophysique de ''environnement" (Laboratory for Glaciology and Environment Geophysics) in Grenoble (a research unit run jointly by the CNRS and by the Université Joseph Fourier) (2) have developed a new and more accurate method of dating ice core samples. The measurements they have taken on the Vostok Antarctic ice core have made it possible to reconstruct with great precision the sequence of events of the deglaciation that occurred 250,000 years ago.

 

 

from http://www.pages2005.org/mediaroom/masson.html 

Abstract:

 

Dynamics of climate and water cycle changes: interest of quantitative climate reconstructions

 

The awareness that climate has changed in the past has emerged from our capability to date past environmental changes and quantify the magnitude of climate change together with its consequences on local ecosystems. Instrumental records are too short—at best a few centuries—to capture the full spectrum of climate variability. They have to be complemented by a variety of proxies in a variety of archives. These indirect climate indicators have to be calibrated against climatic parameters and the various sources of biases have to be identified and quantified.

 

Most quantitative efforts have been dedicated to the reconstruction of past temperatures. Quantitative temperature reconstructions enable us to estimate not only local climatic changes but the aggregation of local records, to provide regional to hemispheric estimates that are critical for the comparison between observed and modeled past climate changes, and to understand the mechanisms of climatic changes. Water cycle changes are deeply involved in many feedback processes within the climate system, ranging from short spatial and temporal scales associated with cloud radiative properties, to large scales associated with snow and ice albedo feedbacks.

 

Polar regions represent the cold point of the climate system. They are both sensitive to climate change and actors of climate change due to polar amplification processes, contributions to sea level changes, and interactions with atmospheric and ocean circulations. Several methods enable us to reconstruct past temperature changes from polar ice cores. I will show the state-of-the-art to quantify polar temperature changes at various timescales and discuss past changes in the water cycle recorded in polar ice cores. As a result of these quantitative temperature reconstructions, the capacity of coupled climate models to capture past climate changes in polar regions will be discussed.

 

OK your move Dr W, I couldn't find a 'debunking' article, you will have to help me here, a link or reference please...

 

 

 

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
drdoubleu

drdoubleu wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
You do realize that 200+ feet of solid ice is way more than what we would have if it was simply the result of the local snowfall over the period since the planes crashed, even if it was 50 years. 200 feet over even 50 years would be 4 feet per year, wheras high snowfall in Greenland is in the range of less than 3 inches per year.
So 200 feet of solid ice over the planes has to be old ice, that had covered the planes due to an ice slide or glacier movement of some kind.

 

Give me a reference to your claim.  I can't find anything on this online.  Refer to Dr. Kent Hovinds videos on google for the iced planes.  

 

What part of what I said do you have a problem with? The estimated maximum likely snowfall?
Here is a relevant extract:

 Warmer climate leads to more snow in Greenland?    Print

Outreach - Articles

Written by Linda Sohl   

Sunday, 11 December 2005

Discuss this article...

Science Summary > EdGCM Exercise > Educational Perspective


Scientists from the European Space Agency (ESA) recently analyzed 11 years of radar altimetry data for the Greenland Ice Sheet from its ERS satellites, and came up with a remarkable find. While the edges of the Greenland Ice Sheet have thinned, the high-elevation interior has actually grown in thickness as much as 6 cm (nearly 2.5 inches) per year, for the years 1992-2003.



From here

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/outreach/articles/greenland.html

 

At that rate, 50 years would produce 3 meters, or 10 feet, of snow, less that that when compacted into solid ice. So if the planes were under more that 200 feet of ice, that cannot have been just due to the snowfall since they crashed. 

400 layers in 200 feet seems a bit low, or indicates up to 6inches accumulation per year, which is high, but still in the ball park dependending just where  it was relative to prominent  hills and valleys, which can affect local snow deposition rates quite a bit.
 Its simple arithmetic, dude.

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:

From

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/labs/vostok/

Snow falling in the polar regions of the earth (e.g. Greenland and Antarctica) sometimes is preserved as annual layers within the Ice Sheets, provided that they are not destroyed by flow of the ice. These annual layers provide a record of the earth's climate that reaches back as much as 200,000 years.

Several different climate indicators can be measured from samples of the ice:

* The amount of dust in each annual layer is indicative of the environment at the time that the dust was deposited. Various kinds of fallout from the atmosphere, including airborne continental dust and biological material, volcanic debris, sea salts, cosmic particles, and isotopes produced by cosmic radiation, are deposited on the ice sheet surface along with the snow, thus mixing with the snow and also acting as a distinctive barrier between different ice layers.

* The composition of bubbles of air trapped in the ice is a measure of the composition of the atmosphere in ancient times. With increasing pressure from subsequent snow deposition on an ice cap or glacier, the snow becomes compacted and, consequently, air is trapped within the deposited layer. This entrapment of air occurs essentially with no differentiation of the atmospheric gas components. However, carbon dioxide has different chemical properties from other atmospheric gases, thus, the carbon dioxide concentration in the air-filled spaces might be affected by interaction with the ice itself or with trapped impurities.

* The isotopic composition of water, and in particular the concentration of the heavy isotope of oxygen, 18O, relative to 16O, as well as 2H (deuterium) relative to 1H, is indicative of the temperatures of the environment. During cold periods, the concentration of less volatile 2H (18O) in the ice is lower than during warm periods. The reason for this is that at lower temperature, the moisture has been removed from the atmosphere to a larger degree resulting in an increased depletion of the heavier isotopes.

The Vostok core was drilled in East Antarctica, at the Soviet station Vostok from an altitude of 3488 m, and has a total length of 2083 m. Ice samples have been analyzed with respect to isotopic content in 2H, dust, and methane and carbon dioxide trapped in air bubbles. The profiles of 2H, methane, and carbon dioxide concentrations behave in a similar way with respect to depth in the core, showing a short interglacial stage, the Holocene, at the top, a long glacial stage below, and the last interglacial stage near the bottom of the core. The record goes back in time about 160,000 years.

from here

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/datation.htm

A novel method of dating ice cores helps us to understand deglaciation that occurred 250,000 years ago

Paris, March 14, 2003

Working with American, Russian, and Chinese scientists, researchers from the "Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de ''environnement" (Laboratory for Climate and Environment Sciences) in Saclay (a research unit run jointly by the CEA [French Atomic Energy Authority] and by the CNRS - Institut Pierre Simon Laplace)(1), and from the "Laboratoire de glaciologie et géophysique de ''environnement" (Laboratory for Glaciology and Environment Geophysics) in Grenoble (a research unit run jointly by the CNRS and by the Université Joseph Fourier) (2) have developed a new and more accurate method of dating ice core samples. The measurements they have taken on the Vostok Antarctic ice core have made it possible to reconstruct with great precision the sequence of events of the deglaciation that occurred 250,000 years ago.

 

 

from http://www.pages2005.org/mediaroom/masson.html

Abstract:

Dynamics of climate and water cycle changes: interest of quantitative climate reconstructions

The awareness that climate has changed in the past has emerged from our capability to date past environmental changes and quantify the magnitude of climate change together with its consequences on local ecosystems. Instrumental records are too short—at best a few centuries—to capture the full spectrum of climate variability. They have to be complemented by a variety of proxies in a variety of archives. These indirect climate indicators have to be calibrated against climatic parameters and the various sources of biases have to be identified and quantified.

Most quantitative efforts have been dedicated to the reconstruction of past temperatures. Quantitative temperature reconstructions enable us to estimate not only local climatic changes but the aggregation of local records, to provide regional to hemispheric estimates that are critical for the comparison between observed and modeled past climate changes, and to understand the mechanisms of climatic changes. Water cycle changes are deeply involved in many feedback processes within the climate system, ranging from short spatial and temporal scales associated with cloud radiative properties, to large scales associated with snow and ice albedo feedbacks.

Polar regions represent the cold point of the climate system. They are both sensitive to climate change and actors of climate change due to polar amplification processes, contributions to sea level changes, and interactions with atmospheric and ocean circulations. Several methods enable us to reconstruct past temperature changes from polar ice cores. I will show the state-of-the-art to quantify polar temperature changes at various timescales and discuss past changes in the water cycle recorded in polar ice cores. As a result of these quantitative temperature reconstructions, the capacity of coupled climate models to capture past climate changes in polar regions will be discussed.

 

OK your move Dr W, I couldn't find a 'debunking' article, you will have to help me here, a link or reference please...

 

 

 

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8463129851563631666&q=Kent+Hovind      I hour 35 minutes into the video.   Easier to type for me.  Plus everything else I have talked about....which I didn't know he talked about in his videos.  I just say the ice part of the video before....but he has confirmed everything I have said so far.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Whats wrong? Cant handle

Whats wrong? Cant handle simple dirrect questions?

You love engauging the deconstructionists because it allows you to swamp people with spam.

You don't like to answer my questions because the cut through all the garbage.

The core of your religion depends on the virgin birth, without it, you have nothing. You know it never happend otherwise it would be a simple question to answer and the proof would be so simple a monkey would understand. You simply want to believe it happend so desperately that you come up with all this distracting crap.

All you have for the virgin birth is "God did it", thats it, that is what your entire faith rests on. Not very strong at all. Your entire reason for believing depends on that one event. And all you have to explain that event is a claim that your favorite sky daddy put on some Barry White albums and told Marry, "I'm in the mood".

SO, show me the money!

Explain how god knocked up Mary. Should be simple for a smart guy like you. 

 KNOCK IT OFF!

I am challenging you to provide evidence as to HOW it happened. "God did it" is an intelectuall cop out.

DEMONSTRATE TO US HOW A "SPIRIT" KNOCKED UP A GIRL!

WHO did it is not my question. HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN!

So, skip the other crap and answer that. You know you cant and that is why you have to resort to "Pay no attention to the mythology behind the curtain". 

 

 

 

 

"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


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: drdoubleu

KSMB wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:

www.drdino.com I think has a few sources on it.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!! You know, using Kent Hovind as a reference does wonders for your scientific credibility. Rofl.

Isn't using Hovind as a source one of the Irrational Precepts? If not, it should be. 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ha Ha...For someone who

Ha Ha...
For someone who ridicules us for quoting unqualified or un-authoritative sources, it makes it even more absurd....

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


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu 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'm going to guess that there's no evidence because you don't want to see it. Most of these require more time than creationism allows.

#1: Are you referring to change of the universe? We can see galaxies speeding away from us right now.

#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.

#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.

#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.

#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".

------------

I like analyzing evidence:

1) Makes elitist jokes.

2) Dismisses things we present as crap.

Hmmm... it appears that you aren't a very good objective observer.

-Triften


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: Also, why

drdoubleu wrote:

Also, why is there no proof for

5.Marcroevolution

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


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

drdoubleu


Also, why is there no proof for

1.Cosmic Evolution

2.Chemical Evolution

3.Stellar and planetary evolution

4.Organic Evolution

5.Marcroevolution

 

when there isn't one once of evidence for any.  Note, anything stated on these you will realize is just theory and speculation...not proof or evidence.  

 Science is not about 'proof', in any strict logical absolute sense. There certainly is a lot of evidence for all those things, but it is obvious from your whole correspondence that you will resolutely dismiss anything that doesn't fit your particular beliefs. So it seems pointless to try and present it to you, if you don't appear able to comprehend the simplest problems we point out to you....

 

EDIT: Triften has presented a good quick response to those questions - thanks.

  

And BTW , if you expect me to sit thru 2 hours of ignorance on display by the abominable creep Hovind, I have better things to do, like bang my head against the wall. 

 

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: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Damn I wish I'd been here 3

Damn I wish I'd been here 3 days ago. 110 posts of such length is way too much for me to try and cover in the short time I have. But I got this far before I had to post. I'll apologize in advance if anything has already been addressed, but unfortunately I don't have time to properly deal with a topic of this length.

drdoubleu wrote:
Ophios wrote:

Warning: the user drdoubleu has confounded abiogenesis with evolution.

 

Well then tell me, how did you get to evolution withiout starting with abiogensis?  Panspermia?   Seriously, I think you need to learn the dogmatic trend of evolution and know that it didnt' start with fish in the sea, you have to start before that, remember according to the theories of science the earth was rocks pulled together by their own gravity, super heated cooled etc.....but where is life on a super heated sterile environment with limited chemical elements?  See....It's flawed. 

Before I deal with this quote directly, I have to ask how you can explain the fossil record of pre-humans? There are many homo related species that have been discovered. Where did they all come from, and where did they all go?

As to this quote directly, we know from studies of the early solar system that the Earth would have been bombarded constantly by asteroids of various elements and comets bearing water. We know that life appeared about 3.5-3.9 billion years ago. The cause I'll ignore for now as sidetracking. We know it wouldn't have taken more than 600 million years for the earth to cool to a degree at which it could sustain life. Especially since the sun was smaller and put out less heat at the time. So I have to ask exactly what you think was missing for life to form? I also have to ask you what you'd say if we one day found that life actually hitched a ride on one of those comets, and didn't actually start here in the first place? That would give life a good 9 billion more years to form and make it's way to our tiny corner of the galaxy. And a near infinate number of arenas for it to form in. We already know that life can survive in space, and at extreme temperature variations. So it's easy enough to see how it could travel here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

From

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/labs/vostok/

Snow falling in the polar regions of the earth (e.g. Greenland and Antarctica) sometimes is preserved as annual layers within the Ice Sheets, provided that they are not destroyed by flow of the ice. These annual layers provide a record of the earth's climate that reaches back as much as 200,000 years.

Several different climate indicators can be measured from samples of the ice:

* The amount of dust in each annual layer is indicative of the environment at the time that the dust was deposited. Various kinds of fallout from the atmosphere, including airborne continental dust and biological material, volcanic debris, sea salts, cosmic particles, and isotopes produced by cosmic radiation, are deposited on the ice sheet surface along with the snow, thus mixing with the snow and also acting as a distinctive barrier between different ice layers.

* The composition of bubbles of air trapped in the ice is a measure of the composition of the atmosphere in ancient times. With increasing pressure from subsequent snow deposition on an ice cap or glacier, the snow becomes compacted and, consequently, air is trapped within the deposited layer. This entrapment of air occurs essentially with no differentiation of the atmospheric gas components. However, carbon dioxide has different chemical properties from other atmospheric gases, thus, the carbon dioxide concentration in the air-filled spaces might be affected by interaction with the ice itself or with trapped impurities.

* The isotopic composition of water, and in particular the concentration of the heavy isotope of oxygen, 18O, relative to 16O, as well as 2H (deuterium) relative to 1H, is indicative of the temperatures of the environment. During cold periods, the concentration of less volatile 2H (18O) in the ice is lower than during warm periods. The reason for this is that at lower temperature, the moisture has been removed from the atmosphere to a larger degree resulting in an increased depletion of the heavier isotopes.

The Vostok core was drilled in East Antarctica, at the Soviet station Vostok from an altitude of 3488 m, and has a total length of 2083 m. Ice samples have been analyzed with respect to isotopic content in 2H, dust, and methane and carbon dioxide trapped in air bubbles. The profiles of 2H, methane, and carbon dioxide concentrations behave in a similar way with respect to depth in the core, showing a short interglacial stage, the Holocene, at the top, a long glacial stage below, and the last interglacial stage near the bottom of the core. The record goes back in time about 160,000 years.

Thought provoking but the site doesn't work so I can't read in more detail.  From this little bit of information I still observe that they base this entire article, its data, findings, theories and conclusion off of the preset idea that the rings in ice are based on summer and winter seasons and not periods of warming and cooling.  Because of this, although they have many good points to help determine temperature in the past, the age of the ice they estimate is way off because of their mathematical error due to their lack of understanding ice formation. 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

from here

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/datation.htm

A novel method of dating ice cores helps us to understand deglaciation that occurred 250,000 years ago

Paris, March 14, 2003

Working with American, Russian, and Chinese scientists, researchers from the "Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de ''environnement" (Laboratory for Climate and Environment Sciences) in Saclay (a research unit run jointly by the CEA [French Atomic Energy Authority] and by the CNRS - Institut Pierre Simon Laplace)(1), and from the "Laboratoire de glaciologie et géophysique de ''environnement" (Laboratory for Glaciology and Environment Geophysics) in Grenoble (a research unit run jointly by the CNRS and by the Université Joseph Fourier) (2) have developed a new and more accurate method of dating ice core samples. The measurements they have taken on the Vostok Antarctic ice core have made it possible to reconstruct with great precision the sequence of events of the deglaciation that occurred 250,000 years ago.

Interesting, but they never provided the information on how they measured the ice in this little snippet.  The article itself cannot be found and the link doesn't work.  Error 404.

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

 

from http://www.pages2005.org/mediaroom/masson.html

Abstract:

Dynamics of climate and water cycle changes: interest of quantitative climate reconstructions

The awareness that climate has changed in the past has emerged from our capability to date past environmental changes and quantify the magnitude of climate change together with its consequences on local ecosystems. Instrumental records are too short—at best a few centuries—to capture the full spectrum of climate variability. They have to be complemented by a variety of proxies in a variety of archives. These indirect climate indicators have to be calibrated against climatic parameters and the various sources of biases have to be identified and quantified.

Most quantitative efforts have been dedicated to the reconstruction of past temperatures. Quantitative temperature reconstructions enable us to estimate not only local climatic changes but the aggregation of local records, to provide regional to hemispheric estimates that are critical for the comparison between observed and modeled past climate changes, and to understand the mechanisms of climatic changes. Water cycle changes are deeply involved in many feedback processes within the climate system, ranging from short spatial and temporal scales associated with cloud radiative properties, to large scales associated with snow and ice albedo feedbacks.

Polar regions represent the cold point of the climate system. They are both sensitive to climate change and actors of climate change due to polar amplification processes, contributions to sea level changes, and interactions with atmospheric and ocean circulations. Several methods enable us to reconstruct past temperature changes from polar ice cores. I will show the state-of-the-art to quantify polar temperature changes at various timescales and discuss past changes in the water cycle recorded in polar ice cores. As a result of these quantitative temperature reconstructions, the capacity of coupled climate models to capture past climate changes in polar regions will be discussed.

they even admitted that at best they can only measure back a few  centuries in the openeing argument.


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

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:

Get these books, read them, then talk to me

Buried Alive - The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man by Dr. Jack Cuozzo

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
Lee Strobel

The Case for Faith, The Case for a Creator, God's Outrageous Claims, The Case for Christmas, The Case for Easter,also written by Lee Strobel (a former die hard atheist who sought after evidence to write a news article ending christianity but became a christian)

Does God believe in Atheists.

Tell me then whether or not you have the same ideologies.

I dare you.

Nah. My parents-in-law try to give me enough of this sort of atheist-turned-xtian bs. I don't care for it. I also don't care for your smug attitude mister.

 

Then continue to live a naive and ignorant life.  Ignorant is bliss right?  Keep that motto since you fail the desire to grow in intelligence. 


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

BobSpence1 wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
You do realize that 200+ feet of solid ice is way more than what we would have if it was simply the result of the local snowfall over the period since the planes crashed, even if it was 50 years. 200 feet over even 50 years would be 4 feet per year, wheras high snowfall in Greenland is in the range of less than 3 inches per year.
So 200 feet of solid ice over the planes has to be old ice, that had covered the planes due to an ice slide or glacier movement of some kind.

 

Give me a reference to your claim. I can't find anything on this online. Refer to Dr. Kent Hovinds videos on google for the iced planes.

 

What part of what I said do you have a problem with? The estimated maximum likely snowfall?
Here is a relevant extract:

Warmer climate leads to more snow in Greenland? Print

Outreach - Articles

Written by Linda Sohl

Sunday, 11 December 2005

Discuss this article...

Science Summary > EdGCM Exercise > Educational Perspective


Scientists from the European Space Agency (ESA) recently analyzed 11 years of radar altimetry data for the Greenland Ice Sheet from its ERS satellites, and came up with a remarkable find. While the edges of the Greenland Ice Sheet have thinned, the high-elevation interior has actually grown in thickness as much as 6 cm (nearly 2.5 inches) per year, for the years 1992-2003.



From here

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/outreach/articles/greenland.html

 

At that rate, 50 years would produce 3 meters, or 10 feet, of snow, less that that when compacted into solid ice. So if the planes were under more that 200 feet of ice, that cannot have been just due to the snowfall since they crashed.

400 layers in 200 feet seems a bit low, or indicates up to 6inches accumulation per year, which is high, but still in the ball park dependending just where it was relative to prominent hills and valleys, which can affect local snow deposition rates quite a bit.
Its simple arithmetic, dude.

 I read the article.  I have no problem with it.  The problem is your interpretation.  First off they are basing the snow fall on a limited period of time where we know the temperature has been gradually increasing because of global warming.  They state the time of the measurements was 1992-2003.  Now if weather has ten year cycles, then this could be the ten year period of little snow fall.  To base the average snowfall on a country from a ten year span seems innacurate to assume that all years in the past and future will be like this.  You are basing you snow fall theory on data over ten years.  Extended out you will see a different picture.  But also you are basing it on the WHOLE COUNTRY and not on particular regions.  The US has x amount of snow per year.  But if someone says that in Michigan it snows y feet per year you would say this is wrong based on the country rate over a few years, completely disregarding all of the southern states that see snow once in a blue moon and even when that happens it doesn't deposit on the ground making a pile like we see in the north.  The area talked about did infact have a few hundred feet of ice covering the planes that originally were on the surface....they crash landed...not crashed completely.  I hope you can see the error in your statement and watched that part of the video I sent you a link to so that you could physically see the tunnel of ice and their excavation of the WWII plane.

Has this been sufficient? 

-Dr. W. 


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu

drdoubleu wrote:
MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:

Get these books, read them, then talk to me

Buried Alive - The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man by Dr. Jack Cuozzo

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
Lee Strobel

The Case for Faith, The Case for a Creator, God's Outrageous Claims, The Case for Christmas, The Case for Easter,also written by Lee Strobel (a former die hard atheist who sought after evidence to write a news article ending christianity but became a christian)

Does God believe in Atheists.

Tell me then whether or not you have the same ideologies.

I dare you.

Nah. My parents-in-law try to give me enough of this sort of atheist-turned-xtian bs. I don't care for it. I also don't care for your smug attitude mister.

 

Then continue to live a naive and ignorant life. Ignorant is bliss right? Keep that motto since you fail the desire to grow in intelligence.

Yeah, back to ya, ass.


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

triften 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'm going to guess that there's no evidence because you don't want to see it. Most of these require more time than creationism allows.

#1: Are you referring to change of the universe? We can see galaxies speeding away from us right now.

No.  Cosmic evolution is based on the big bang thoery.   The origin of space, time and matter.  There is not one thing of evidence at all for this.  

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.  As for the amino acids thing, I already debunked it earlier with the first statement I told you.  Please go back to it.  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.  What they disregarded in their experiment is that ozone also keeps hydrogen in the atmosphere.  Since no ozone, no hydrogen, since no hydrogen....more ammonia couldn't be produce, more methan couldn't be produced, water wouldn't exist and amino acids are impossible to form.  If you don't have Hydrogen you can't get water, precipitation, a storm cloud and lightening to even produce the amino acids.  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?

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:

#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.

 

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. 

 

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.

triften wrote:

------------

I like analyzing evidence:

1) Makes elitist jokes.

2) Dismisses things we present as crap.

Hmmm... it appears that you aren't a very good objective observer.

-Triften

 

Says the person who I had to define each evolution concept to.  If you don't even know the definitions how can you even bring into the discussion theories that you think are facts because of the words billions of years?   Hope you now start seeing my point.  Keep in mind, I'm the scientist, I study this stuff all of the time and can assure you that there is no evidence, only theories that they try to present in a plausable scenario to help support their own personal agendas.


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

Ophios wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:

Also, why is there no proof for

5.Marcroevolution

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

Not Found

The requested URL /faqs/comdesc/  was not found on this server.

 

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.talkorigins.org Port 80
 
LoL now this is irony if I've ever seen it. 

 


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

drdoubleu


Also, why is there no proof for

1.Cosmic Evolution

2.Chemical Evolution

3.Stellar and planetary evolution

4.Organic Evolution

5.Marcroevolution

when there isn't one once of evidence for any. Note, anything stated on these you will realize is just theory and speculation...not proof or evidence.

Science is not about 'proof', in any strict logical absolute sense. There certainly is a lot of evidence for all those things, but it is obvious from your whole correspondence that you will resolutely dismiss anything that doesn't fit your particular beliefs. So it seems pointless to try and present it to you, if you don't appear able to comprehend the simplest problems we point out to you....

 

EDIT: Triften has presented a good quick response to those questions - thanks.

 

And BTW , if you expect me to sit thru 2 hours of ignorance on display by the abominable creep Hovind, I have better things to do, like bang my head against the wall.

 

First of all there is NO EVIDENCE. The closest thing to evidence is the theories involved. YOu are right, it's not about proof. I acciently used the wrong word and openly state my error and wanted to acknowlege that I meant evidence for word choice.

Second, Triften did not provide a quick good response because

1.He didn't know a single definition of the evolutionary listings

2.He based his information on things I have already debunked

3.His information was based on the preconceived notion that he knew the correct definition.

And also how would you base what he says on ignorance when you so ignorantly ignore someone who has been debating against evolution and studying the materials for over 30 years. And on what grounds do you have to call Dr. Hovind the abominable creep Hovind? Does making a Ph D. intellect who believes in creation a creep?  What gives you room to judge someone else in this manner?


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

Vastet wrote:

Damn I wish I'd been here 3 days ago. 110 posts of such length is way too much for me to try and cover in the short time I have. But I got this far before I had to post. I'll apologize in advance if anything has already been addressed, but unfortunately I don't have time to properly deal with a topic of this length.

drdoubleu wrote:
Ophios wrote:

Warning: the user drdoubleu has confounded abiogenesis with evolution.

 

Well then tell me, how did you get to evolution withiout starting with abiogensis? Panspermia? Seriously, I think you need to learn the dogmatic trend of evolution and know that it didnt' start with fish in the sea, you have to start before that, remember according to the theories of science the earth was rocks pulled together by their own gravity, super heated cooled etc.....but where is life on a super heated sterile environment with limited chemical elements? See....It's flawed.

Before I deal with this quote directly, I have to ask how you can explain the fossil record of pre-humans? There are many homo related species that have been discovered. Where did they all come from, and where did they all go?

As to this quote directly, we know from studies of the early solar system that the Earth would have been bombarded constantly by asteroids of various elements and comets bearing water. We know that life appeared about 3.5-3.9 billion years ago. The cause I'll ignore for now as sidetracking. We know it wouldn't have taken more than 600 million years for the earth to cool to a degree at which it could sustain life. Especially since the sun was smaller and put out less heat at the time. So I have to ask exactly what you think was missing for life to form? I also have to ask you what you'd say if we one day found that life actually hitched a ride on one of those comets, and didn't actually start here in the first place? That would give life a good 9 billion more years to form and make it's way to our tiny corner of the galaxy. And a near infinate number of arenas for it to form in. We already know that life can survive in space, and at extreme temperature variations. So it's easy enough to see how it could travel here.

 

REFER to all comments I have posted. Second what you are stating is the theory of panspermia. That would mean that somehow an alien form of life would have to be able to survive the vaccum of space, the freezing temperatures, survive super heating towards teh earth through the 'atmosphere' survive the crash, be able to then withstand our gravitational pull and climates and somehow evovle. Sorry, even much respected scientists believe such a critter is impossible. Lfe has never been created from nothing. The closest we have ever came is amino acids, which without other more complex devices cannot change into something else regardless of how much time you stamp on it.

 

However, they did make an entertaining movie about it.  Appropriately it was called Evolution and should belong in science fiction/comedy....

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_1/images/movie-evolution.jpg


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

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:


Yeah, back to ya, ass.

 

grow up kid.  Your statement is as great as I know you are but what am I?  Yet you disregard the fact that I concentrate on studying evolution and its shortfalls which means I have to mainly study evolution.  Yet when you say you want proof for God I give it to you and you still say no I'm too lazy.

 Your wisdom shows through in colors.


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

I have had difficulty finding a more comprehensive description of snowfall across Greenland.
Please note that global warming tends to lead to increased precipitation because of the increased evaporation from warmer oceans.
Also note that it is very specifically NOT "basing it on the WHOLE COUNTRY".
Quote:While the edges of the Greenland Ice Sheet have thinned, the high-elevation interior has actually grown in thickness as much as 6 cm (nearly 2.5 inches) per year, for the years 1992-2003.
IOW this is a local variation, and the figure quoted is the high end of the observations. Is your reading comprehension really that bad??   For the sake of thoroughness, I will continue to see if I can locate more comprehensive snowfall data for Greenland.   No I haven't sat thru two hours of crap from scam-artist Hovind to see a glimpse of stuff relevant to this argument. I did find the site devoted to the recovery project itself, and gained the most important information which helps support my explanation , namely that they landed on a glacier. IOW the planes almost certainly slipped down thru the crevasses which normally open and close as glaciers move.
EDIT: I think it should also be obvious that one of the last places one would expect to get a meaningful useful ice-core would be from an active glacier.   Incidentally I'm a little curious why you failed to open so many links. Immediately I read your comment on failed links I tried them all and encountered no problems.
I have heard Hovind 'debate' many people and have no hesitation on calling him a creep based on his whole approach which is either fundamentally dishonest or ignorant, or some combination of the two. His 'arguments' seem to be largely based on endless restating a limited repertoire of strawman and/or completely invalid or way-out-of-date assertions.
 
The fact that he has been convicted of tax fraud, while not strictly relevant to his relentless attacks on evolution, doesn't exactly suggest a highly moral and honest character.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Now we are on to ice

Now we are on to ice melting? Still no science to explain spirits getting girls pregnant.

Others here may injoy your elaborate stroll through your steamy pile of bunk. But you are not brave enough to tackle my qestion.

You cherry pick sceince to prop up your mythology but convienantly continue to dodge the most important part of the bible, the virgin birth. You wont do it because there is no defense for magic, so once again, you continue to spam the board with pseudo science in hopes someone will give up and go, "He's smart"

You are proving our point by contining these dodges in that you have no intrest in being objective. If you were you could ask yourself this very serious and important question about the most important story in the bible.

So, can you at some point adress this question, or are you going to be dodger and continue to be a snake oil salesman? 

"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
drdoubleu

drdoubleu wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:

drdoubleu


Also, why is there no proof for

1.Cosmic Evolution

2.Chemical Evolution

3.Stellar and planetary evolution

4.Organic Evolution

5.Marcroevolution

when there isn't one once of evidence for any. Note, anything stated on these you will realize is just theory and speculation...not proof or evidence.

Science is not about 'proof', in any strict logical absolute sense. There certainly is a lot of evidence for all those things, but it is obvious from your whole correspondence that you will resolutely dismiss anything that doesn't fit your particular beliefs. So it seems pointless to try and present it to you, if you don't appear able to comprehend the simplest problems we point out to you....

 

EDIT: Triften has presented a good quick response to those questions - thanks.

 

And BTW , if you expect me to sit thru 2 hours of ignorance on display by the abominable creep Hovind, I have better things to do, like bang my head against the wall.

 

First of all there is NO EVIDENCE. The closest thing to evidence is the theories involved. YOu are right, it's not about proof. I acciently used the wrong word and openly state my error and wanted to acknowlege that I meant evidence for word choice.

Second, Triften did not provide a quick good response because

1.He didn't know a single definition of the evolutionary listings

2.He based his information on things I have already debunked

3.His information was based on the preconceived notion that he knew the correct definition.

Speaking of definitions: a hypothesis becomes a theory (This is by the scientific method definition of "theory" ) when it has evidence backing it. A hypothesis is a suggested explaination that has yet to be verified through study and experiment. So, if you really want to denigrate something, call it a hypothesis.

If you'd really like to have a dialog, (I was under that impression when you started posting here, I could be wrong) then why don't you want to clarify the definitions of the terms you stated instead of just dismissing me because I "didn't know the correct definitions"?

Here's the definitions I was using:

0. Evolution: noun:

From m-w.com:

2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH

(Sadly, the term "better" is subjective, so that gets thrown right out.)

 

1.Cosmic Evolution

The "unfloding" of the universe as it changes from one state to another as per 2a.

2.Chemical Evolution

"A hypothesis to explain how life might possibly have developed or evolved from non-life (see Abiogenesis)"

3.Stellar and planetary evolution

Again, the changing of stars and planets and whatnot as per definition 2a.

4.Organic Evolution

The evolution of life-forms as they adapt a change depending on their environment, generally using 2c1 but not necessarily in practice. (An example of "de-evolution": Salamanders in lightless caves have no use for eyes, therefore they don't aid in survival so salamanders who expend less energy on building and maintaining eyes have an advantage.)

5.Marcroevolution

"evolution that occurs above the level of species."

Which definitions are you using, Dr.?

Also, you dismiss out of hand our sources. At one point you quoted wikipedia. Then one of us quoted wikipedia. So wikipedia must be either unreliable or reliable. Dr., is wikipedia sufficiently reliable? If yes, then we have presented evidence. If no, then please admit that the information you used from it was also unreliable.

 

drdoubleu wrote:

And also how would you base what he says on ignorance when you so ignorantly ignore someone who has been debating against evolution and studying the materials for over 30 years. And on what grounds do you have to call Dr. Hovind the abominable creep Hovind? Does making a Ph D. intellect who believes in creation a creep? What gives you room to judge someone else in this manner?

Just because someone has been debating something for 30 years does not mean they are any good at it.

Perhaps Bob's making his judgement based on the evidence he sees? You insulted every geologist previously and I doubt that you've met a significant percentage of them in order to make a blanket judgement.

Hovind's Ph.D. is from an unaccredited university and in "Christian education." Not paleontology, not geology, not biology, his degree is in teaching the bible. So, I take this as very solid evidence that he has ideology clouding his views.

Also, he has been convicted of 58 counts of federal tax and tax-related expenses (Sentencing will be on Jan 19th, 2007).

Give me $50 and a few weeks and I can have a PhD, too.


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: (edit from earlier post, new stuff)

BobSpence1 wrote:

I have had difficulty finding a more comprehensive description of snowfall across Greenland.


Please note that global warming tends to lead to increased precipitation because of the increased evaporation from warmer oceans.
Also note that it is very specifically NOT "basing it on the WHOLE COUNTRY".
Quote:While the edges of the Greenland Ice Sheet have thinned, the high-elevation interior has actually grown in thickness as much as 6 cm (nearly 2.5 inches) per year, for the years 1992-2003.
IOW this is a local variation, and the figure quoted is the high end of the observations. Is your reading comprehension really that bad??
No but aparently yours is. You even wrote down what I said. Greenland Ice sheet edges and interior. Lets look at a picture of what this study was based on:
 ESAMap of Greenland with temperature changes. Image credit: ESA http://www.peopleandplanet.net/thumbnail.php?id=1166&max=1000 So since this icesheet covers the entire country, the basis of my claim that the snow fall is over the entire country still stands and shows that you didn't know the size of the icesheet covering the entire country and not local studies of one location. They started from the shores and worked their way into the mainland.
BobSpence1 wrote:

I did find the site devoted to the recovery project itself, and gained the most important information which helps support my explanation , namely that they landed on a glacier. IOW the planes almost certainly slipped down thru the crevasses which normally open and close as glaciers move.
Seeing how the Greenland icesheet covering Greenland is a Glacier, that stands to reason and is an obvious observation to the naked eye. Your theory is flawed about consuming the planes. That would mean that they all at their different locations in the area collapsed down into the ice, still intact, somehow landed still right side up and then had the glacier close on them without the surrounding ice crushing them like a trash compactor as it sealed them into their solid ice tomb. Glaciers moving this much would surely cause the planes to move from the original location of landing to another part and in crushed form. this was not observed. This whole ordeal would mean that the three planes would have to land in three locations with the same ice cave, this cave would have to consume them the same time roughly, allow them to fall intact, unbroken and all at the same depth and close them in solid ice without crushing them.
BobSpence1 wrote:


EDIT: I think it should also be obvious that one of the last places one would expect to get a meaningful useful ice-core would be from an active glacier. Incidentally I'm a little curious why you failed to open so many links. Immediately I read your comment on failed links I tried them all and encountered no problems.
I don't know since it looks that all of them were from the same server if the server was down at the time I checked then the 404 message would be seen. However, from what you gave me was sufficient information to show that they based their measures on the outdated seasonal trend and not the routine heating cooling trend seen several times a week.
BobSpence1 wrote:


I have heard Hovind 'debate' many people and have no hesitation on calling him a creep based on his whole approach which is either fundamentally dishonest or ignorant, or some combination of the two. His 'arguments' seem to be largely based on endless restating a limited repertoire of strawman and/or completely invalid or way-out-of-date assertions.
This shows that you really haven't sat in on a debate with him, especially since he uses the glacier one about every time because there is always someone like you that brings up aging based on glaciers. Strawman and way-out-of-date assertions isn't his approach nor repetoir.
BobSpence1 wrote:

The fact that he has been convicted of tax fraud, while not strictly relevant to his relentless attacks on evolution, doesn't exactly suggest a highly moral and honest character.

First off he hasn't been convicted yet, he is on trial for it. The basis is that his ministry is considered a church setting. He doesn't work for money but rather takes a donation or love offering every place that he goes. His workers are volunteer and once in a while he will give them an offering the same way a church does. The problem is that he isn't inside a church and as a preacher, I guess that is what they are basing their claims on. If anything they will either put him in jail for a few months or try and find how much he owes according to their verdict and he'll have to do bookkeeping.

 

NEW ADDITION:

The websites are now working and I have read what they say.  

From http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/datation.htm This is what I got:

"The method used hitherto, which was based on isotopic analysis of the ice for evaluating temperature, and on analysis of air bubbles trapped in the ice for determining composition of the atmosphere, had its limitations. Uncertainty of about 1,000 years remained on the age difference between the ice and the air bubbles." - This is based on the idea that the rings provided an accurate guestimate.  They are then fine tuning this guestimate with isotopes and air bubbles.  I wil not doubt at this moment that their methods does increase accuracy...but still based on the thought that the ice is 250,000 years old from an inaccurate and proven to be wrong way of mearsuring causes obscurity in their data and still throws it off.

 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: If you'd

triften wrote:
If you'd really like to have a dialog, (I was under that impression when you started posting here, I could be wrong) then why don't you want to clarify the definitions of the terms you stated instead of just dismissing me because I "didn't know the correct definitions"?

I already gave you the definitions in my response to your last response in this thread.  Please refer to that for correct definitions and answers to your argument. 

 

triften wrote:
Also, you dismiss out of hand our sources. At one point you quoted wikipedia. Then one of us quoted wikipedia. So wikipedia must be either unreliable or reliable. Dr., is wikipedia sufficiently reliable? If yes, then we have presented evidence. If no, then please admit that the information you used from it was also unreliable.

when did I use wikipedia? 

triften wrote:
Just because someone has been debating something for 30 years does not mean they are any good at it.

Perhaps Bob's making his judgement based on the evidence he sees? You insulted every geologist previously and I doubt that you've met a significant percentage of them in order to make a blanket judgement.

He bases his judgement on what he has read from someone who doesn't like him, not on who he actually is and how he argues.  there are over a dozen sites dedicated against him.  None of them know him and really base their statements on a steemed pissed off attitude towards someone who debunks their statements left and right. 

 

triften wrote:
Hovind's Ph.D. is from an unaccredited university and in "Christian education." Not paleontology, not geology, not biology, his degree is in teaching the bible. So, I take this as very solid evidence that he has ideology clouding his views.

So if I get a degree in paleontology will you listen to me?  I can change majors now and graduate in the spring with one, I'm only three classes away if I wanted.  Taking his study of the bible and teaching it should is irrelevant to real world contradictions to the current teachings of evolution.  Although he doesn't have a degree in it doesn't mean he can't study it and find these claims supported by his friends with Ph D's in Paleontology, mineralology, physicis, chemistry, biochemistry, anatomy, astronomy, marine biology, etc.  My claims and statements I make to you are based solely on scientific journals and science laws that have authors and key points that argue against evolution either by accident or on purpose, depending on the direction taken by the researcher.  Dr. Hovind just happens to have many of the same findings as myself and produces them in debate and film form.  This does not mean in anyway that the argument has lost any value.  

 

"Also, he has been convicted of 58 counts of federal tax and tax-related expenses (Sentencing will be on Jan 19th, 2007).

Give me $50 and a few weeks and I can have a PhD, too."

One, that's from a news article that claims he faces 288 years in prison, give me a break.  Second, go ahead, but you will face the same scrutiny as he did and you'll also have to study and write about the biblical teachings they provide. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: Vastet

drdoubleu wrote:
Vastet wrote:

Damn I wish I'd been here 3 days ago. 110 posts of such length is way too much for me to try and cover in the short time I have. But I got this far before I had to post. I'll apologize in advance if anything has already been addressed, but unfortunately I don't have time to properly deal with a topic of this length.

drdoubleu wrote:
Ophios wrote:

Warning: the user drdoubleu has confounded abiogenesis with evolution.

 

Well then tell me, how did you get to evolution withiout starting with abiogensis? Panspermia? Seriously, I think you need to learn the dogmatic trend of evolution and know that it didnt' start with fish in the sea, you have to start before that, remember according to the theories of science the earth was rocks pulled together by their own gravity, super heated cooled etc.....but where is life on a super heated sterile environment with limited chemical elements? See....It's flawed.

Before I deal with this quote directly, I have to ask how you can explain the fossil record of pre-humans? There are many homo related species that have been discovered. Where did they all come from, and where did they all go?

As to this quote directly, we know from studies of the early solar system that the Earth would have been bombarded constantly by asteroids of various elements and comets bearing water. We know that life appeared about 3.5-3.9 billion years ago. The cause I'll ignore for now as sidetracking. We know it wouldn't have taken more than 600 million years for the earth to cool to a degree at which it could sustain life. Especially since the sun was smaller and put out less heat at the time. So I have to ask exactly what you think was missing for life to form? I also have to ask you what you'd say if we one day found that life actually hitched a ride on one of those comets, and didn't actually start here in the first place? That would give life a good 9 billion more years to form and make it's way to our tiny corner of the galaxy. And a near infinate number of arenas for it to form in. We already know that life can survive in space, and at extreme temperature variations. So it's easy enough to see how it could travel here.

 

REFER to all comments I have posted. Second what you are stating is the theory of panspermia. That would mean that somehow an alien form of life would have to be able to survive the vaccum of space, the freezing temperatures, survive super heating towards teh earth through the 'atmosphere' survive the crash, be able to then withstand our gravitational pull and climates and somehow evovle. Sorry, even much respected scientists believe such a critter is impossible. Lfe has never been created from nothing. The closest we have ever came is amino acids, which without other more complex devices cannot change into something else regardless of how much time you stamp on it.

 

However, they did make an entertaining movie about it.  Appropriately it was called Evolution and should belong in science fiction/comedy....

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_1/images/movie-evolution.jpg

Arrogance and fiction in the same post. You sir are the wrong one. Such a life form is most definately possible. We have directly observed life that can do any of these things. You are assuming that no life can do them all without any evidence at all, much like your whole religion. So unless you want to lose every shred of credibility you have, you'll address this now. I also enjoy how you completely ignored the pre-homo-sapien fossil record, probably out of incapability to defend your assertions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Vastet wrote:
<original message snipped out>

 

Arrogance and fiction in the same post. You sir are the wrong one. Such a life form is most definately possible. We have directly observed life that can do any of these things. You are assuming that no life can do them all without any evidence at all, much like your whole religion. So unless you want to lose every shred of credibility you have, you'll address this now.

"We have directly observed life that can do any of these things"

First of all who is "we"? Second where is your evidence. Such an event would have been top priority in the origins classes throughout the world as well as newspapers. The theory of panspermia practically died out overnight. It started in the 1800s and ended around 1908 if I remember right. In the 1960s it popped up again but remains a highly imaginative theory without any possible evidence to support it enough for a slight plausability. It would be like taking an obligate anaerobe spore from a bacillus bacteria, putting it on a rock, shooting it into space having it land on an oxygenated planet which kills obligate anaerobes and expect it to populate the world. Not happening. No evidence of this occurance has taken place, otherwise it would be higher up in the evolution theory chain. You ask me to give you evidence of how you are wrong. Well Here it is, you can't provide evidence of how you are right....therefore that is enough evidence to show that you are wrong in your accusations.

Vastet wrote:
I also enjoy how you completely ignored the pre-homo-sapien fossil record, probably out of incapability to defend your assertions.

You mean how you completely disregarded my original post to you that you are responding on that flat out said: "REFER to all comments I have posted."

But to reemphasize get the book: Buried Alive by Dr. Jack Cuozzo. He specializes in craniofacial structures (orthodontist) and explains in great detail the flaws with the current pre-human bone theories.

 To make it easier:  http://www.jackcuozzo.com/

But to give you an idea. There isn't evidence we have come from apes. We don't see a half ape man, or half man ape. We see men and we see animals. Neaderthals is heavily covered in his speeches, research and book. Refer to that for answers. Scientists don't even look at the area of where these fossils are tied together and think that geographic barriers and inbreeding could result in their tribes as easily as observed with the blue skinned clan and the austridge people mentioned in my very first statement on this board.

As for the age of people in existance, if we truly have lived the age science hypothesizes we have, with fecundity rate trends seen since the age of the bible, and base the average FR for 4000+ years it is easy to conclude that we would be around 240 billion or much higher even when wars, natural disasters (not including the bible's), disease and famine wipes out 6 billion people at a time.

 

"without any evidence at all, much like your whole religion"

You must be one of those guys that still believes the world is flat regardless of the evidence. You're right, I guess archeological finds, historical documentations both religious and nonreligious, burial sites, scrolls, people, monuments, a staggering amount of followers, history, the bible, bones, DNA, geographic locations, ruins, skeletons, artifacts, scientific confirmation isn't evidence for a religion. LOL.


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

Ophios wrote:
drdoubleu wrote:

Also, why is there no proof for

5.Marcroevolution

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

This link has supported my claim.  thank you.

"Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection (duh), genetic drift (evolution by chance and 90%+ of the time fatal or non beneficial to the organism), sexual selection (you're hot lets swap gametes), neutral evolution (The frequency of a selectively neutral gene is as likely to decrease as to increase by genetic drift; on average the frequencies of neutral alleles remain unchanged from one generation to the next -aparently the writer of this site didn't know this definition argued against their claims), and theories of speciation (theories lacking evidence beyond microevolution that still is involved in neutral evolution). The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open."

Meaning lack of support or evidence.  Basically what they do is to get Macroevolution they see micro and assume that because we see micro amounts of change in a system that because of all the species in the world and the theory of the big bang that micro leads to macro and macro was the cause of life.  So you have a theory (big bang) mixed with another theory (planetary evolution) mixed with another theory (chemical evolution forming 105+ elements from hydrogen) mixed with another theory (origin of life -organic matter from inorganic matter) mixed with a scientifcally supported fact of microevolution mixed with a theory of evolution (macroevolution) to get where we are today.  So you have one fact in science surrounded by 5 major evolutionary theory blunders that lack any evidence to get the whole atheist world view of how did we get here.  That doesn't sound like science to me. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote: Vastet

drdoubleu wrote:

Vastet wrote:
<original message snipped out>

 

Arrogance and fiction in the same post. You sir are the wrong one. Such a life form is most definately possible. We have directly observed life that can do any of these things. You are assuming that no life can do them all without any evidence at all, much like your whole religion. So unless you want to lose every shred of credibility you have, you'll address this now.

"We have directly observed life that can do any of these things"

First of all who is "we"?

The human species.

Quote:
 Second where is your evidence.

Right here. 

Life surviving a vacuum: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast01sep98_1.htm

A far more advanced creature than bacteria; a frog freezing to 65% solidity, then thawing weeks or months later and continuing on as if nothing happened:

http://www.naturenorth.com/winter/frozen/frozen3.html

Life surviving extreme temperature and climate variations:

 http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/january10/archaeasr-011007.html

If you want the actual reports on the last one you'll have to wait a bit. Many are quite recent discoveries that were only within the last couple months released to the media. The actual scientific papers won't be released for a little while longer. Unfortunately the original source I read it from has vanished on me, rendering me incapable of easily recalling the name of the project so you could examine it's findings more closely.

As an aside, I have no idea how you could have missed these discoveries, as they did indeed illicit headlines in the media.

Quote:
Such an event would have been top priority in the origins classes throughout the world as well as newspapers. The theory of panspermia practically died out overnight. It started in the 1800s and ended around 1908 if I remember right. In the 1960s it popped up again but remains a highly imaginative theory without any possible evidence to support it enough for a slight plausability. It would be like taking an obligate anaerobe spore from a bacillus bacteria, putting it on a rock, shooting it into space having it land on an oxygenated planet which kills obligate anaerobes and expect it to populate the world. Not happening. No evidence of this occurance has taken place, otherwise it would be higher up in the evolution theory chain. You ask me to give you evidence of how you are wrong. Well Here it is, you can't provide evidence of how you are right....therefore that is enough evidence to show that you are wrong in your accusations.

You not paying attention to your own field means nothing to the credibility of my argument. 

Quote:
Vastet wrote:
I also enjoy how you completely ignored the pre-homo-sapien fossil record, probably out of incapability to defend your assertions.

You mean how you completely disregarded my original post to you that you are responding on that flat out said: "REFER to all comments I have posted."

Perhaps you further ignored the fact that I mentioned I didn't have time to read through 110+ posts, and apologized in advance for it? Perhaps you took an arrogant and condescending attitude instead of pointing out to me exactly what you were referring to? REFER to all comments I have posted. Hypocrite.

Quote:
But to reemphasize get the book: Buried Alive by Dr. Jack Cuozzo. He specializes in craniofacial structures (orthodontist) and explains in great detail the flaws with the current pre-human bone theories.

 To make it easier:  http://www.jackcuozzo.com/

Fruitcake that hasn't come anywhere near debunking every skeleton we've discovered. Try again.

Quote:
But to give you an idea. There isn't evidence we have come from apes.

 There isn't evidence we didn't, and plenty that we did. You seem to like cherry picking your science.

Quote:
 

 We don't see a half ape man, or half man ape. We see men and we see animals.

Men are animals. And you call yourself a biologist. And assuming we'd see a half man ape would be assuming that we turned from apes to humans in effectively 2 generations. Do you even understand the basic premis of evolution?

Quote:
 Neaderthals is heavily covered in his speeches, research and book. Refer to that for answers. Scientists don't even look at the area of where these fossils are tied together and think that geographic barriers and inbreeding could result in their tribes as easily as observed with the blue skinned clan and the austridge people mentioned in my very first statement on this board.

Doesn't fly. Much as you'd like it to. There is a clear fossil record of our advancement through various periods. If those aren't really us then they're something else, but still clearly not human. And that one person didn't come anywhere near debunking the lot of them. I'll take the words of the entire scientific community long before one crackpot and yourself.

Quote:
As for the age of people in existance, if we truly have lived the age science hypothesizes we have, with fecundity rate trends seen since the age of the bible, and base the average FR for 4000+ years it is easy to conclude that we would be around 240 billion or much higher even when wars, natural disasters (not including the bible's), disease and famine wipes out 6 billion people at a time.

Doesn't follow. There are very real barriers to any group of animals against their excessive expansion. Most primarily the natural resources of an area, which can only sustain a limitted population. The earth is incapable of sustaining 240 billion homo-sapiens. And so we could never reach such numbers.

Quote:

"without any evidence at all, much like your whole religion"

You must be one of those guys that still believes the world is flat regardless of the evidence. You're right, I guess archeological finds, historical documentations both religious and nonreligious, burial sites, scrolls, people, monuments, a staggering amount of followers, history, the bible, bones, DNA, geographic locations, ruins, skeletons, artifacts, scientific confirmation isn't evidence for a religion. LOL.

You should look in the mirror when being so hypocritical. Cause I'm just laughing at your supposed intellect, which I debunked with no effort at all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Vastet wrote:

The human species.

this proves you are a liar and don't know science. No human being in existance has observed macroevolution

Vastet wrote:
Right here.

Life surviving a vacuum: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast01sep98_1.htm

first, this is a no brainer, everyone knows freezing bacteria doesn't kill it but slows growth to a minimum and allows it to survive periods of time without nutrients. This still doesn't prove that bacteria can live in one environment it is comfortable it, get blasted into space, survive vaccuum, freezing, UV radiation, then super heated, flash thawed, plowed into the earth of another planet with different settings and have it survive. Not one archaea or bacteria lives in the range of 20 degree above absolute zero through meteor disentigrating heat. they live in one range or the other. and even so that would mean the planet would need a similar atmosphere or the oxygen levels or methane levels etc. would kill it off. Anyone that has ever taken a micro class can tell you your short falls on this statement.

Vastet wrote:
A far more advanced creature than bacteria; a frog freezing to 65% solidity, then thawing weeks or months later and continuing on as if nothing happened:

http://www.naturenorth.com/winter/frozen/frozen3.html

Life surviving extreme temperature and climate variations:

You really don't want to go here with me, rana sylvatica is something I studied for a whole year. Still the way it freezes is based on glucose levels and controled by weather climate. If you pick of a frog mid summer and throw it in a freezer it will kill it. Still it can't survive boiling, vaccum, flash freeze etc.

see above.

Vastet wrote:
You not paying attention to your own field means nothing to the credibility of my argument.

and how am I doing this kid?

"Perhaps you further ignored the fact that I mentioned I didn't have time to read through 110+ posts, and apologized in advance for it? Perhaps you took an arrogant and condescending attitude instead of pointing out to me exactly what you were referring to? REFER to all comments I have posted. Hypocrite." coming from the guy who said I think it's funny that you totally ignored my question when I answered it in the first sentence of my first response to you.

Vastet wrote:
Fruitcake that hasn't come anywhere near debunking every skeleton we've discovered. Try again.

Once again proving you know nothing about him, his studies, journals, articles and books. Try again.

Vastet wrote:

There isn't evidence we didn't, and plenty that we did. You seem to like cherry picking your science.

where's your evidence? you say you have it but then don't provide it. this is crucial when arguing against me.

 

We don't see a half ape man, or half man ape. We see men and we see animals.

Quote:
Men are animals. And you call yourself a biologist. And assuming we'd see a half man ape would be assuming that we turned from apes to humans in effectively 2 generations. Do you even understand the basic premis of evolution?

I do know if you are trying to be cute or overly technical. Saying the statement of turned human to ape in two generations is just pure arrogance on your part. I'm talking about the given amount of time even for biology. We see many extince speicies of organisms that are in complete form lacking any useless limbs arms and the such. But tried to line up with descent leading to us. This does't make science. You never see any animals throughout the fossil beds in transition from one species to another. You just see a species here and there that became extinct around some period of time and then another set after it. Nothing in between. Frog skeletons are still frogs. Alligator fossills found with dinosaurs are still alligators. The difference is the size of them. But that is because the time back then was a different climate and allowed them to grow much older, since reptiles never stop growing, the older they got, the bigger they got. You don't see a alligator/whatever the heck it came from.....so you are telling me it has defied evolution in 65 million + years?

 

Quote:
Neaderthals is heavily covered in his speeches, research and book. Refer to that for answers. Scientists don't even look at the area of where these fossils are tied together and think that geographic barriers and inbreeding could result in their tribes as easily as observed with the blue skinned clan and the austridge people mentioned in my very first statement on this board.

Quote:
Doesn't fly. Much as you'd like it to. There is a clear fossil record of our advancement through various periods. If those aren't really us then they're something else, but still clearly not human. And that one person didn't come anywhere near debunking the lot of them. I'll take the words of the entire scientific community long before one crackpot and yourself.

This would have to mean you know the entire scientific community which you don't. I can confidently say there are hundreds of very accredited researchers and scientists that hold the same view as I. Plus why is it that you keep making these claims of proven fossils that are oblivious to the rest of the science community beyond the theororists who are basing their thoughts, theories and beliefs on single to a few bone fragments not even belonging to the same individual or species is many cases.

Quote:
As for the age of people in existance, if we truly have lived the age science hypothesizes we have, with fecundity rate trends seen since the age of the bible, and base the average FR for 4000+ years it is easy to conclude that we would be around 240 billion or much higher even when wars, natural disasters (not including the bible's), disease and famine wipes out 6 billion people at a time.

Idiot wrote:
Doesn't follow. There are very real barriers to any group of animals against their excessive expansion. Most primarily the natural resources of an area, which can only sustain a limitted population. The earth is incapable of sustaining 240 billion homo-sapiens. And so we could never reach such numbers.

That is a no brainer and completely didn't see the point I was going at. The fact is the human race max. capacity is unknown but speculated. We assume it's between 12-24 billion. Others think we're passed this point. What I'm saying is that with the years passing we would have already reached max. capacity....but we haven't and continued to grow showing that we aren't as old as some scientists theorize we are.

"without any evidence at all, much like your whole religion"

You must be one of those guys that still believes the world is flat regardless of the evidence. You're right, I guess archeological finds, historical documentations both religious and nonreligious, burial sites, scrolls, people, monuments, a staggering amount of followers, history, the bible, bones, DNA, geographic locations, ruins, skeletons, artifacts, scientific confirmation isn't evidence for a religion. LOL.

Think These are Proof Humans Evolved from Apes?

  • NEBRASKA MAN: This amazing discovery was found to be nothing more than a pig's tooth.
  • LUCY: The remains of Lucy have been reclassified as an extinct ape.
  • PILTDOWN MAN: These bones were proven to be a deliberate hoax. A human skull was attached to an ape jaw and weatherd to look old.
  • RAMAPITHECUS: These bones were found to be from an orangutan.
  • JAVA MAN: These bones were found to be the remains of an ape and human mixed together. Its discoverer later rejected his find.
  • PEKING MAN: Again, a mixup of human and ape bones.

 

Human Ancestral Frauds

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska Man from the Illustrated London NewsNebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link&quotEye-wink. (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Human Ancestor Fraud - Creationist Links

 



Australopithecus AfarensisafarensisOntogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny?
 Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings

Haekel’s EmbryosThe theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

Haeckel’ Forgeries Creationary Links

 

 

 

Quote:
You should look in the mirror when being so hypocritical. Cause I'm just laughing at your supposed intellect, which I debunked with no effort at all.

 

What was it that you debunked again? Because it certainly was nothing that I said.

End of discussions for today.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu

drdoubleu wrote:
MarthaSplatterhead wrote:


Yeah, back to ya, ass.

 

grow up kid. Your statement is as great as I know you are but what am I? Yet you disregard the fact that I concentrate on studying evolution and its shortfalls which means I have to mainly study evolution. Yet when you say you want proof for God I give it to you and you still say no I'm too lazy.

Your wisdom shows through in colors.

Thanks for calling me kid since I am probably older than you. I appreciate it. You never gave me proof, you gave me "proof". Your wisdom is nil as far as I am concerned. You cite Hovind sites and think that will back your points. I don't believe any of your inane drivel. Just give me real proof of the existence of god because you can't make me believe. Just like I can't make you believe in fairies. Here, I will try: You have seen them in movies and books. Just try to let them in your heart and you will know they exist. Did it work? Nope, didn't think so.

You attempt to belittle my knowledge which shows how you don't have a case also since you need to resort to that sort of behavior. You know nothing about me or what I study or what I read. You have already made me question if you even attained a college degree. I didn't realize they let people graduate with such poor grammar.

 

>edit:  I just got one more thing to say that I want you to realize.  Christianity is not science.  It is a religion.   


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote:Vastet

drdoubleu wrote:
Vastet wrote:

The human species.

this proves you are a liar and don't know science. No human being in existance has observed macroevolution

This proves you are a liar and don't know science. No human being to my knowledge has ever claimed macroevolution exists(spider to donkey type bullshit). Any who did don't know what evolution is. A group that includes yourself, apparently.

drdoubleu wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Right here.

Life surviving a vacuum: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast01sep98_1.htm

first, this is a no brainer, everyone knows freezing bacteria doesn't kill it but slows growth to a minimum and allows it to survive periods of time without nutrients. This still doesn't prove that bacteria can live in one environment it is comfortable it, get blasted into space, survive vaccuum, freezing, UV radiation, then super heated, flash thawed, plowed into the earth of another planet with different settings and have it survive. Not one archaea or bacteria lives in the range of 20 degree above absolute zero through meteor disentigrating heat. they live in one range or the other. and even so that would mean the planet would need a similar atmosphere or the oxygen levels or methane levels etc. would kill it off. Anyone that has ever taken a micro class can tell you your short falls on this statement.

Which proves absolutely nothing whatsoever. Some scientist you are. Can you prove that all of space or even the majority of it is a constant 20k? Can you prove that every rock flying around out there is the same temperature as it's surroundings at all times or even most of the time? Can you prove that life cannot be frozen and thaw? The answer is no. And I love how you're continuing to assume that all life on a asteroid or comet would be on it's surface, and thus subject to the worst of reentry heat.

drdoubleu wrote:
Vastet wrote:
A far more advanced creature than bacteria; a frog freezing to 65% solidity, then thawing weeks or months later and continuing on as if nothing happened:

http://www.naturenorth.com/winter/frozen/frozen3.html

Life surviving extreme temperature and climate variations:

You really don't want to go here with me, rana sylvatica is something I studied for a whole year. Still the way it freezes is based on glucose levels and controled by weather climate. If you pick of a frog mid summer and throw it in a freezer it will kill it. Still it can't survive boiling, vaccum, flash freeze etc.

And yet it is still a far more complex organism than a bacteria, and yet has evolved to the point that it can handle extreme temperature variations, shutting itself down to the point of clinical death for months at a time. So what's your point?

See above? Stupid comment. Not applicable. And debunked to boot.

drdoubleu wrote:
Vastet wrote:
You not paying attention to your own field means nothing to the credibility of my argument.

and how am I doing this kid?

I've already showed you kid.

drdoubleu wrote:
"Perhaps you further ignored the fact that I mentioned I didn't have time to read through 110+ posts, and apologized in advance for it? Perhaps you took an arrogant and condescending attitude instead of pointing out to me exactly what you were referring to? REFER to all comments I have posted. Hypocrite." coming from the guy who said I think it's funny that you totally ignored my question when I answered it in the first sentence of my first response to you.

Bullshit. More proof you're a hypocrite and a liar.

drdoubleu wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Fruitcake that hasn't come anywhere near debunking every skeleton we've discovered. Try again.

Once again proving you know nothing about him, his studies, journals, articles and books. Try again.

Once again proving you know nothing about science in general, geology, paleontology, and probably a hundred other fields.

drdoubleu wrote:
Vastet wrote:

There isn't evidence we didn't, and plenty that we did. You seem to like cherry picking your science.

where's your evidence? you say you have it but then don't provide it. this is crucial when arguing against me.

Ignoring general scientific evidence in the name of a few mistakse and/or frauds doesn't further your case. It just makes you out as an asshole who ignores reality. I recommend the flat earth society for you. You'll fit right in kid.

drdoubleu wrote:

Quote:
Men are animals. And you call yourself a biologist. And assuming we'd see a half man ape would be assuming that we turned from apes to humans in effectively 2 generations. Do you even understand the basic premis of evolution?

I do know if you are trying to be cute or overly technical. Saying the statement of turned human to ape in two generations is just pure arrogance on your part.

Nope. That's what you implied. If you're incapable of explaining what you're attempting to propose, then I suggest you go back to grade school english.

drdoubleu wrote:
 

 I'm talking about the given amount of time even for biology. We see many extince speicies of organisms that are in complete form lacking any useless limbs arms and the such. But tried to line up with descent leading to us. This does't make science. You never see any animals throughout the fossil beds in transition from one species to another.

Yes you do. You see it all the time. It's called a genetic anomaly. Multiple genetic anomalies create a new species. It's simple biology. 

drdoubleu wrote:
 You just see a species here and there that became extinct around some period of time and then another set after it. Nothing in between.

So because our record is understandably incomplete, you automatically assume that it's all fiction. Gotcha.  

drdoubleu wrote:
 Frog skeletons are still frogs. Alligator fossills found with dinosaurs are still alligators. The difference is the size of them. But that is because the time back then was a different climate and allowed them to grow much older, since reptiles never stop growing, the older they got, the bigger they got. You don't see a alligator/whatever the heck it came from.....so you are telling me it has defied evolution in 65 million + years?

It's done no such thing. Part of the very nature of evolution is random mutations that can provide an evolutionary advantage. If there's no advantage to a mutation, the chances of it spreading and repeating itself are very low. Physical evidence for this is in our very own bodies, where we have an organ that no longer works. But it used to. In time it will disappear completely. But this won't be something we can personally watch. The problem with people like you is that you have no concept of what a billion years really is.

drdoubleu wrote:

Neaderthals is heavily covered in his speeches, research and book. Refer to that for answers. Scientists don't even look at the area of where these fossils are tied together and think that geographic barriers and inbreeding could result in their tribes as easily as observed with the blue skinned clan and the austridge people mentioned in my very first statement on this board.

Quote:
Doesn't fly. Much as you'd like it to. There is a clear fossil record of our advancement through various periods. If those aren't really us then they're something else, but still clearly not human. And that one person didn't come anywhere near debunking the lot of them. I'll take the words of the entire scientific community long before one crackpot and yourself.

This would have to mean you know the entire scientific community which you don't. I can confidently say there are hundreds of very accredited researchers and scientists that hold the same view as I. Plus why is it that you keep making these claims of proven fossils that are oblivious to the rest of the science community beyond the theororists who are basing their thoughts, theories and beliefs on single to a few bone fragments not even belonging to the same individual or species is many cases.

You have the arrogance to claim that you know the scientific community and that I don't? Ha. Pathetic. Even more proof you know nothing. I can confidently say that for every scientist you come up with who claims the fossil record is a lie or a hoax, I can show you 100 who say your scientists are wrong. The numbers are against you. Even suggesting otherwise shows you have an incredibly pathetic distance from the rest of the scientific community. Not every skeleton is based on a few bone fragments.

Liar and Moron wrote:
As for the age of people in existance, if we truly have lived the age science hypothesizes we have, with fecundity rate trends seen since the age of the bible, and base the average FR for 4000+ years it is easy to conclude that we would be around 240 billion or much higher even when wars, natural disasters (not including the bible's), disease and famine wipes out 6 billion people at a time.

Quote:
Doesn't follow. There are very real barriers to any group of animals against their excessive expansion. Most primarily the natural resources of an area, which can only sustain a limitted population. The earth is incapable of sustaining 240 billion homo-sapiens. And so we could never reach such numbers.

drdoubleu wrote:
That is a no brainer and completely didn't see the point I was going at. The fact is the human race max. capacity is unknown but speculated. We assume it's between 12-24 billion. Others think we're passed this point. What I'm saying is that with the years passing we would have already reached max. capacity....but we haven't and continued to grow showing that we aren't as old as some scientists theorize we are.

Care to lay down your math behind this amazing bullshit, and your justification for all it's elements? 

drdoubleu wrote:
 

Think These are Proof Humans Evolved from Apes?

  • NEBRASKA MAN: This amazing discovery was found to be nothing more than a pig's tooth.
  • LUCY: The remains of Lucy have been reclassified as an extinct ape.
  • PILTDOWN MAN: These bones were proven to be a deliberate hoax. A human skull was attached to an ape jaw and weatherd to look old.
  • RAMAPITHECUS: These bones were found to be from an orangutan.
  • JAVA MAN: These bones were found to be the remains of an ape and human mixed together. Its discoverer later rejected his find.
  • PEKING MAN: Again, a mixup of human and ape bones.

Human Ancestral Frauds

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska Man from the Illustrated London NewsNebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link&quotEye-wink. (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Human Ancestor Fraud - Creationist Links



Australopithecus AfarensisafarensisOntogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny?
 Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings

Haekel’s EmbryosThe theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

Haeckel’ Forgeries Creationary Links

I love it when idiot creationists try this. I have experience down this road.

You seriously are dumb enough to think 5-10 frauds/mistakes/misinterpretations discredit the whole fossil record? What an idiot you are. Go back to school and actually learn something this time around. Kids these days. Yeesh.

Some suggested reading material: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/3955

drdoubleu wrote:
 

Quote:
You should look in the mirror when being so hypocritical. Cause I'm just laughing at your supposed intellect, which I debunked with no effort at all.

What was it that you debunked again? Because it certainly was nothing that I said.

End of discussions for today.

How about everything? Yep, everything. What an idiot.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

drdoubleu

Ok, on the Greenlandsnow accumulation rates, I presume you are saying (I must say your phrasing can be very confusing), that because that survey did not cover the WHOLE country, ie, significant chunks of it were not sampled, that there may have been much greater rates of accumulation in those areas. OK.

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.

From the original source:

 

By combining tens of millions of data points from ERS-1 and ERS-2, the team determined spatial patterns of surface elevation variations and changes over an 11-year period.

The result is a mixed picture, with a net increase of 6.4 centimetres per year in the interior area above 1500 metres elevation. Below that altitude, the elevation-change rate is minus 2.0 cm per year, broadly matching reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The trend below 1500 metres however does not include the steeply-sloping marginal areas where current altimeter data are unusable.

The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 cm per year over the study area, when corrected for post-Ice Age uplift of the bedrock beneath the ice sheet. These results are remarkable because they are in contrast to previous scientific findings of balance in Greenland's high-elevation ice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, whose whole business model has been devoted to 'debunking' in the most graphic and sensationalist way he can find to keep his audiences coming back, anything that supports the overwhelmingly accepted (by the scientific community) ideas of evolution and anything else conflicting with his particular brand of religious crap.

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'.

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


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

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
If you'd really like to have a dialog, (I was under that impression when you started posting here, I could be wrong) then why don't you want to clarify the definitions of the terms you stated instead of just dismissing me because I "didn't know the correct definitions"?

I already gave you the definitions in my response to your last response in this thread. Please refer to that for correct definitions and answers to your argument.

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

drdoubleu wrote:

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'm going to guess that there's no evidence because you don't want to see it. Most of these require more time than creationism allows.

#1: Are you referring to change of the universe? We can see galaxies speeding away from us right now.

No. Cosmic evolution is based on the big bang thoery. The origin of space, time and matter. There is not one thing of evidence at all for this.

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

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.

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.

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.

drdoubleu wrote:
As for the amino acids thing, I already debunked it earlier with the first statement I told you. Please go back to it.

For clarity's sake, please be more specific. Your first statement to me (ever) was: "Ah yes I had a feeling someone was going to bring up these models to my attention. Let us look at the key word here: estimated that means they really don't have a set number and base it off of other estimates that they have." in reference to King's Holly and quaking aspen.

drdoubleu wrote:

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.

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.

As far as it being a greenhouse gas, you may be thinking of ground level ozone, which is considered a pollutant since our lungs don't really enjoy inhaling it.

drdoubleu wrote:

What they disregarded in their experiment is that ozone also keeps hydrogen in the atmosphere. Since no ozone, no hydrogen, since no hydrogen....more ammonia couldn't be produce, more methan couldn't be produced, water wouldn't exist and amino acids are impossible to form. If you don't have Hydrogen you can't get water, precipitation, a storm cloud and lightening to even produce the amino acids.

Again, I'd like to see references for your claim that ozone is needed to keep hydrogen in the atmosphere.

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 problem with the stance you have taken is that you assume you have to go from simple amino acids, straight to DNA. The are quite a number of self-replicating molecules orders of magnitude more simple that DNA. Yes, DNA requires all those things to reproduce, but a more simple self-replicator such as a Ghadiri group does not. Any number of self-replicating hexanucleotides could form. A known self-replicating enzyme (peptide ligase) is only 32 amino acids long. The chance of this being assembled purely randomly is (1/20)^32 which is already loads better than the 1 over spajillion-bazilion to the bunches of thousands number you gave. It's 1 in 4.29 x 10^40. Now than still seems ridiculously small, but keep in mind that a kilogram of an amino acid has on the range of 10^24 molcules in it. Only 1 kilogram!! (Specifically, arginine has 2.85x10^24 molecules/kg) So, we aren't just doing a random trial once (like a single lottery trial), we are doing lots and lots of them in parallel. Given known interaction times of these molecules, a truckload or so of amino acids dissolved in an amount of water compareable to a medium-sized lake, would yield a replicator on a scale of decades. And it only needs to happen once! Then the replicator starts replicating and making more of itself.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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)

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

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

Oh noes, he used all caps... I can't refute that... oh wait. GRAVITY IS "JUST" A THEORY TOO! LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF THEORY IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE! Please.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:

------------

I like analyzing evidence:

1) Makes elitist jokes.

2) Dismisses things we present as crap.

Hmmm... it appears that you aren't a very good objective observer.

-Triften

Says the person who I had to define each evolution concept to. If you don't even know the definitions how can you even bring into the discussion theories that you think are facts because of the words billions of years? Hope you now start seeing my point. Keep in mind, I'm the scientist, I study this stuff all of the time and can assure you that there is no evidence, only theories that they try to present in a plausable scenario to help support their own personal agendas.

 

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.

Oh, how dare they present theories as plausible scenarios! Oh wait, a theory is a proposed explanation of observed natural phenomena that fits know fact. Your statement appears to be "They try to present these theories as theories!"

 

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
Also, you dismiss out of hand our sources. At one point you quoted wikipedia. Then one of us quoted wikipedia. So wikipedia must be either unreliable or reliable. Dr., is wikipedia sufficiently reliable? If yes, then we have presented evidence. If no, then please admit that the information you used from it was also unreliable.

when did I use wikipedia?

Well, I googled to find where one of your many (PLEASE use a link next time) copy and paste references came from, the only hit I got was a wikipedia article, so based on my evidence, it appeared that you copied and pasted from a Wikipedia article.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
Just because someone has been debating something for 30 years does not mean they are any good at it.

Perhaps Bob's making his judgement based on the evidence he sees? You insulted every geologist previously and I doubt that you've met a significant percentage of them in order to make a blanket judgement.

He bases his judgement on what he has read from someone who doesn't like him, not on who he actually is and how he argues. there are over a dozen sites dedicated against him. None of them know him and really base their statements on a steemed pissed off attitude towards someone who debunks their statements left and right.

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.

drdoubleu wrote:

triften wrote:
Hovind's Ph.D. is from an unaccredited university and in "Christian education." Not paleontology, not geology, not biology, his degree is in teaching the bible. So, I take this as very solid evidence that he has ideology clouding his views.

So if I get a degree in paleontology will you listen to me? I can change majors now and graduate in the spring with one, I'm only three classes away if I wanted. Taking his study of the bible and teaching it should is irrelevant to real world contradictions to the current teachings of evolution. Although he doesn't have a degree in it doesn't mean he can't study it and find these claims supported by his friends with Ph D's in Paleontology, mineralology, physicis, chemistry, biochemistry, anatomy, astronomy, marine biology, etc. My claims and statements I make to you are based solely on scientific journals and science laws that have authors and key points that argue against evolution either by accident or on purpose, depending on the direction taken by the researcher. Dr. Hovind just happens to have many of the same findings as myself and produces them in debate and film form. This does not mean in anyway that the argument has lost any value.

So, it's okay for you to discount someone because you're "the scientist", but I can't take issue with this guy claiming expertise who got his PhD from a BS (and I don't mean bachelor of science) correspondence school? What college do you attend anyway? Are you in dentistry school and collecting degrees from the Patriot Bible University?

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.

drdoubleu wrote:
triften wrote:

"Also, he has been convicted of 58 counts of federal tax and tax-related expenses (Sentencing will be on Jan 19th, 2007).

Give me $50 and a few weeks and I can have a PhD, too."

One, that's from a news article that claims he faces 288 years in prison, give me a break. Second, go ahead, but you will face the same scrutiny as he did and you'll also have to study and write about the biblical teachings they provide.

Yes the article "claims" 288 years because he's been convicted of 58 counts of tax evasion and what not and each count carries a stated maximum sentence and those maximum sentences can be added up to some number. In this case, it is 288. It's not some wild number they get out of the air.

Oh the scrutiny! There are plenty of other diploma mills I can get PhDs from. Fun Fact: Did you know that a thesis at PBU gets reviewed by only one board member?

Here's an interesting read:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

I'll warn you that they have an agenda! Of uncovering the truth! Be careful.

 

-Triften

P.S. Honestly, is the sarcasm too much? I can lay off if you like.


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

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?



BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So drdoubleu thinks that O3

So drdoubleu thinks that O3 (ozone) is necessary to 'keep other gasses from escaping???

Thank you drdoubleu. This statement alone reveals how little you understand virtually any of this stuff you are spouting. That is utterly mistaken. Gasses don't and can't interact like that.

Gasses escape from the fringes of the atmosphere when the velocity of individual molecules exceeds escape velocity of 11.2 km/sec, and they are going away from the surface, and they don't collide with other things which might bounce them back toward Earth.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Why would anyone here

Why would anyone here expect anything less from a person who quotes a cheerleader apologist, and a bad cheerleader at that.

Double still has yet again, to answer my direct question and continues to prove my point that his "science" is not science, but an attempt to justify mythology, nothing more.

He's gone from bible quotes, when I called him on that, he stopped, then started talking about water errosion and fociles, then went on to ice melting, now he's talking about gasses. WHY? Because he cant explain, or refuses to explain how a "spirit" gets a girl pregnant.

So, dispite several attemts to get him to answer a direct qestion which he knows he cannot, or will not answer honestly, he continues to dodge by attempting to distract us from his magical claims.

So here I am again, emploring him to cut to the chase and defend the most important claim his holy book claims. "Demonstrate the mechinisms of a spirit getting a girl pregnant".

All the rest is irrelevent. Double claims that Jesus was born from a "spirit". CUT TO THE CHASE! Knock off these distractions. 

"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


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

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
Thanks for calling me kid since I am probably older than you. I appreciate it.

Well since we are on a computer based argument I can't tell your age.  I am basing this assumption clearly on your vocabulary and ways of speeking.  You are either sixteen or late thirties with tattoos and bad taste in music.  So I chose the earlier.  

 

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
You never gave me proof, you gave me "proof". Your wisdom is nil as far as I am concerned. You cite Hovind sites and think that will back your points. I don't believe any of your inane drivel. Just give me real proof of the existence of god because you can't make me believe.

This seems quite contradictory and a waste of time.  first what is proof and "proof".  Is it proof meaning what you believe and "proof" what others believing, have evidence and support yet you refuse to achknowledge due to your own bitterness towards something?  Amazing to know that all sites, books, journals etc. that I have quoted have magically come from Hovind.  That's amazing.  I based my few -very few at that-links to his site because it has easy navigation is straight to the point and instead of reading for hours you can watch it on video in a more understanding format.  The person speeking regardless of his education that you now want to attack doesn't shortfall the materials already present from hundreds of well respected scientists.  He has his own say and research but pulls it all together in a nice package easy for you to understand that don't have backgrounds in biology like myself.  But still it's a waste of time to prove to you that there is a god when you already said that I can't make you believe.   

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
Just like I can't make you believe in fairies. Here, I will try: You have seen them in movies and books. Just try to let them in your heart and you will know they exist. Did it work? Nope, didn't think so.

This statement is beyond stupid and irrelevant. 

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
You attempt to belittle my knowledge which shows how you don't have a case also since you need to resort to that sort of behavior. You know nothing about me or what I study or what I read.

I don't have to attempt to belittle your knowledge.  You did a good job for me....no offense.  You are right I know nothing about what you study what you read but what you say to me reveals that you don't read the same stuff I do and definately don't have an understanding of biology, evolution and science to my level.   

 

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
You have already made me question if you even attained a college degree. I didn't realize they let people graduate with such poor grammar.

How?  Bad grammar?  Highly doubtful. 

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
>edit: I just got one more thing to say that I want you to realize. Christianity is not science. It is a religion.

OBVIOUSLY.  I don't know how many times I have to say this, but it's aparent that people don't pay attention. 


drdoubleu
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
First I only have time for

First I only have time for one response today, since this was the first in the pile, I thought I would go at it....This guy is hilarious.

Vastet wrote:
ORIGINAL QUOTE FROM Vastet "such a life form is most definately possible. We have directly observed life that can do any of these things." We=The human species.

 

[quote =Dr W's response]this proves you are a liar and don't know science. No human being in existance has observed macroevolution

Vastet wrote:
This proves you are a liar and don't know science. No human being to my knowledge has ever claimed macroevolution exists(spider to donkey type bullshit). Any who did don't know what evolution is. A group that includes yourself, apparently.

How does this prove that I am a liar? You are contradicting yourself, first you said that humans have observed macroevolution all the time, yet everyone know that no one has lived millions of years to observe this theory. Second, about 99% of evolutionists believe that macroevolution exists. This is how they support the origin of species. Showing that you fail to realize this shows that you don't know science, evoltuion and scientific theory. Apparently since you claim that any who support and believe in macroevolution don't know what evolution is means that 99% of evolutionists don't know what evolution is. I could have a lot of fun with this statement of yours, but we'll leave it with the sum of your beliefs that 99% of evolutionists don't know what evolution is because they believe in macroevolution as the source of origin of species.

Vastet wrote:

Life surviving a vacuum: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast01sep98_1.htm

DrW wrote:
first, this is a no brainer, everyone knows freezing bacteria doesn't kill it but slows growth to a minimum and allows it to survive periods of time without nutrients. This still doesn't prove that bacteria can live in one environment it is comfortable it, get blasted into space, survive vaccuum, freezing, UV radiation, then super heated, flash thawed, plowed into the earth of another planet with different settings and have it survive. Not one archaea or bacteria lives in the range of 20 degree above absolute zero through meteor disentigrating heat. they live in one range or the other. and even so that would mean the planet would need a similar atmosphere or the oxygen levels or methane levels etc. would kill it off. Anyone that has ever taken a micro class can tell you your short falls on this statement.

Vastet wrote:
Which proves absolutely nothing whatsoever. Some scientist you are. Can you prove that all of space or even the majority of it is a constant 20k? Can you prove that every rock flying around out there is the same temperature as it's surroundings at all times or even most of the time? Can you prove that life cannot be frozen and thaw? The answer is no. And I love how you're continuing to assume that all life on a asteroid or comet would be on it's surface, and thus subject to the worst of reentry heat.

I don't even need to bother with most of this statement because it really does wonders for itself already. First off, you would have to take a bacteria and shove it inside of a rock so deep that temperature wouldn't affect it. If such a closed environment existed there would be problems, first, gas exange would be limited, food supply-unless it ate rocks would be nonexistant, and water would be nonexistant. Either case you still haven't provided me with a bacterial strain that can survive: obligate aerobic, Microaerophilic, facultative anaerobic, obligate anaerobic conditions, with the ability to form a spore that is UV resistant, has the ability to go from its optimal temperature through the ranges of super freezing air to super heated exposure into the atmosphere and then land in its appropriate growing area IE salty lakes, dry desert, mineral rich soil, water, hindguts of insects (wait, that can't happen because the bacteria has to first evolve this animal). There is not one bacteria nor archaea that can do all of this. NOT ONE. Even if this is plausable because of your arguement against macroevolution is still wouldn't turn the earth into what it is today. It still would be SUPER bacteria and all of its super kids in a wasteland.

Vastet wrote:
A far more advanced creature than bacteria; a frog freezing to 65% solidity, then thawing weeks or months later and continuing on as if nothing happened:

http://www.naturenorth.com/winter/frozen/frozen3.html

Life surviving extreme temperature and climate variations:

You really don't want to go here with me, rana sylvatica is something I studied for a whole year. Still the way it freezes is based on glucose levels and controled by weather climate. If you pick of a frog mid summer and throw it in a freezer it will kill it. Still it can't survive boiling, vaccum, flash freeze etc.

And yet it is still a far more complex organism than a bacteria, and yet has evolved to the point that it can handle extreme temperature variations, shutting itself down to the point of clinical death for months at a time. So what's your point?

Vastet wrote:
See above? Stupid comment. Not applicable. And debunked to boot.

Already explained with enough information for you to understand. 'debunked to boot' is overruled


Vastet wrote:
I've already showed you kid.

Nope, you really haven't.

drdoubleu wrote:
"Perhaps you further ignored the fact that I mentioned I didn't have time to read through 110+ posts, and apologized in advance for it? Perhaps you took an arrogant and condescending attitude instead of pointing out to me exactly what you were referring to? REFER to all comments I have posted. Hypocrite." coming from the guy who said I think it's funny that you totally ignored my question when I answered it in the first sentence of my first response to you.

Vastet wrote:
Bullshit. More proof you're a hypocrite and a liar.

Still lacks credible support to hollow claims

drdoubleu wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Fruitcake that hasn't come anywhere near debunking every skeleton we've discovered. Try again.

Once again proving you know nothing about him, his studies, journals, articles and books. Try again.

Vastet wrote:
Once again proving you know nothing about science in general, geology, paleontology, and probably a hundred other fields.

Evidence? You continue to show you know nothing significant, true or relevant.

drdoubleu wrote:

I'm talking about the given amount of time even for biology. We see many extince speicies of organisms that are in complete form lacking any useless limbs arms and the such. But tried to line up with descent leading to us. This does't make science. You never see any animals throughout the fossil beds in transition from one species to another.

Vastet wrote:
Yes you do. You see it all the time. It's called a genetic anomaly. Multiple genetic anomalies create a new species. It's simple biology.

We see it all the time? So now you believe in macroevolution? Make up your mind. You either do or you don't. But I guess this shows that you don't know evolution even according to your own definition of who doesn't know evolution. Genetic anomalies don't create new species, they create differentiations in those that already exist. We don't observe one animal turning into another. If this was seen then the scientific world would view macroevoltuion as a fact and not as a theory. Saying what you just said doesn't make it true and your lack of any evidence shows that you don't know what you are talking about and really don't understand the basic facts behind the theories of evolution and why they remain questionable theories.

drdoubleu wrote:
You just see a species here and there that became extinct around some period of time and then another set after it. Nothing in between.

Vastet wrote:
So because our record is understandably incomplete, you automatically assume that it's all fiction. Gotcha.

Our understanding of the fossil records is quite extensive. We have well over 200 years in fossil studies and yet no hard evidence of evolution taking place. The things that keep our records incomplete is the continual new species discoveries and the quest for the missing links. In 200 years you would think they would find a missing link between at least one animal.....'gotcha'

drdoubleu wrote:
Frog skeletons are still frogs. Alligator fossills found with dinosaurs are still alligators. The difference is the size of them. But that is because the time back then was a different climate and allowed them to grow much older, since reptiles never stop growing, the older they got, the bigger they got. You don't see a alligator/whatever the heck it came from.....so you are telling me it has defied evolution in 65 million + years?

Vastet wrote:
It's done no such thing. Part of the very nature of evolution is random mutations that can provide an evolutionary advantage. If there's no advantage to a mutation, the chances of it spreading and repeating itself are very low.

well according to fossils and the living specimens it has. What ou are trying to talk about here is nutral evolution based on a microscale. It is still supporting my argument that macroevolution isn't observed because microevolution is bouncing back and forth due to nutral evolution that causes it to lack any progression into a new species whether or not you want to slap a billion years on the process.

Vastet wrote:
Physical evidence for this is in our very own bodies, where we have an organ that no longer works. But it used to. In time it will disappear completely. But this won't be something we can personally watch. The problem with people like you is that you have no concept of what a billion years really is.

The appendix isn't well understood still. We know it does some things in our body and can get infected. It is believed to be useful during the time of different diets of raw meat and the such. I'm sure that once we grasp a complete understanding then you'll understand it better. Even in physiology courses and anatomy they say they don't know what the appendix does. It doesn't mean it was once a useful organ that evolved. It means we don't know what it does.

drdoubleu wrote:

Neaderthals is heavily covered in his speeches, research and book. Refer to that for answers. Scientists don't even look at the area of where these fossils are tied together and think that geographic barriers and inbreeding could result in their tribes as easily as observed with the blue skinned clan and the austridge people mentioned in my very first statement on this board.

Quote:
Doesn't fly. Much as you'd like it to. There is a clear fossil record of our advancement through various periods. If those aren't really us then they're something else, but still clearly not human. And that one person didn't come anywhere near debunking the lot of them. I'll take the words of the entire scientific community long before one crackpot and yourself.

This would have to mean you know the entire scientific community which you don't. I can confidently say there are hundreds of very accredited researchers and scientists that hold the same view as I. Plus why is it that you keep making these claims of proven fossils that are oblivious to the rest of the science community beyond the theororists who are basing their thoughts, theories and beliefs on single to a few bone fragments not even belonging to the same individual or species is many cases.

Vastet wrote:
-origianl message snipped because of pointless name calling irrelevant to argument- Not every skeleton is based on a few bone fragments.

Evidence?

DrW wrote:
As for the age of people in existance, if we truly have lived the age science hypothesizes we have, with fecundity rate trends seen since the age of the bible, and base the average FR for 4000+ years it is easy to conclude that we would be around 240 billion or much higher even when wars, natural disasters (not including the bible's), disease and famine wipes out 6 billion people at a time.


drdoubleu wrote:
That is a no brainer and completely didn't see the point I was going at. The fact is the human race max. capacity is unknown but speculated. We assume it's between 12-24 billion. Others think we're passed this point. What I'm saying is that with the years passing we would have already reached max. capacity....but we haven't and continued to grow showing that we aren't as old as some scientists theorize we are.

Vastet wrote:
Care to lay down your math behind this amazing bullshit, and your justification for all it's elements?

Looks like someone is getting mad that their wrong. It's simple. Look at the time that science assumes humans came into existance. Assume that only two people started out. Double their number every 30 years through the time that we are currently living. Subtract from that number 6 billion people for each world war and the black plaque and take in consideration the estimates of max carrying capacity and you'll see we are way above that number. Although the calcuations aren't accurate, I made them so that they would be below accurate. First, people don't on average wait till 30 to reproduce, second not every family has an FR of 4 although preindustrialized countries do. 6 billion people aren't killed off during these wars nor the black plaque. we are simply just killing off the current would population 3 times over. I did the correct measurements before, I just don't have them here and don't feel like digging through file cabinets to find it to prove to someone the logistics of it.

Vastet wrote:
love it when idiot creationists try this. I have experience down this road.

You seriously are dumb enough to think 5-10 frauds/mistakes/misinterpretations discredit the whole fossil record? What an idiot you are. Go back to school and actually learn something this time around. Kids these days. Yeesh.

Some suggested reading material: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/3955[/quot]

No, all I had to do was prove the major ones wrong. You are the idiot for believing that putting up just the main slashes in the achilles tendon of the current missing links that that is the ONLY information I have. How many evidences are there? not many more than that if any. All I had to do is prove the ones that are the major teachings wrong for it to crumble. what you need to do now is go and find information that shows that I am wrong. You need to prove to me and yourself that there is actual fossils out there. Saying that I'm an idiot and that there are other fossils out there without any evident proof isn't a good nor educated argument.

 

Quote:
You should look in the mirror when being so hypocritical. Cause I'm just laughing at your supposed intellect, which I debunked with no effort at all.

What was it that you debunked again? Because it certainly was nothing that I said.

End of discussions for today.

Vastet wrote:
How about everything? Yep, everything. What an idiot.

Yes, you are. You haven't shown any evidence to anything that would prove you even close to being correct on anything let alone right overall. Do your homework. Before you open your mouth make sure you 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.

 

All of you still have disregarded the LONDON artifact. A man made hammer stuck in the sedimentary rock aged geologically at 65+ million years old.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This site seems to analyse

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....

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


Eggplant
Eggplant's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-01-13
User is offlineOffline
drdoubleu wrote:

drdoubleu wrote:
All of you still have disregarded the LONDON artifact. A man made hammer stuck in the sedimentary rock aged geologically at 65+ million years old.


The London Artifact (also known as the London Hammer) is a man-made hammer stuck in a sedimentary rock, this is true. However, the age of the rock and the hammer itself are more important. The former being slightly older than the rock and the latter being slightly older than some more distinguished tortises.

Found in 1936 in Texas, the London Hammer was discovered by hikers near a creek bed. It was removed; while it is not disputed that it did come from near the creek bed, it has not been so with that it was part of an ancient rock formation as you have presented.

Carbon-14 testing that was done on the hammer in 1990s showed a date range of between present day and 700 years as the age range for the hammer's wooden handle, leading to the proposal that it is any older than this in doubt.

The question becomes thus: How did the rock form around the hammer in such a short time?

The answer is simple: It's rock formed from sediment, rock that formed quickly over likely less than 200 years to create the nodule. It is ultimately just a miner's hammer circa the 19th Century.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_London_Artifact
http://www.creationevidence.org/museum_tour/london/london_artifct.html

Edit: Bah, beat to the punch. Did I really take 15 minutes to write this?


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Just a mention of the

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sigh. I spent a whole

Sigh. I spent a whole fucking hour making a total idiot of this idiot, only for some error to erase it all. Fuck that. This moron who claims to be a scientist is anything but, and the proof is everywhere. Fortunately some of the more important things I was going to say were said by others anyway, so that'll have to do.

There is one thing I will point out though anyway.

"-origianl message snipped because of pointless name calling irrelevant to argument- Not every skeleton is based on a few bone fragments."

More proof of hypocracy. If you don't like the name calling, don't start it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
    MarthaSplatterhead

  MarthaSplatterhead wrote:

Just like I can't make you believe in fairies. Here, I will try: You have seen them in movies and books. Just try to let them in your heart and you will know they exist. Did it work? Nope, didn't think so.

Quote:
This statement is beyond stupid and irrelevant.

 

It's the same thing you expect of me.  So how is it irreverant or stupid?  

 

I have never made any personal attacks at you yet you can't seem to make any valid points so you resort to name calling and such.  Oh, boohoo, you hurt my feelings.  Now, can we move on?  Why do you feel it necessary to come on an atheist message board and tell us we are all stupid?  Why do you think attacking me is going to further your agenda?  It doesn't matter what you think about me.  I think if you knew me in person you would never say these hateful things to me.  But anyway, I will not drop to your level and pick on you.  It has no bearing on these issues anyway.  My 8 year old son knows there is no Santa or storybook God so why not call him stupid too?  You are a poor individual that needs some guidance.  I really feel sorry for people like you.

I don't think conversing with you is going anywhere so I will say I hope you find the answers you are looking for.  I think if you could hurt my feelings, you would really feel like you won your argument.  It's sad that you can not see that we are here to help people, not to attack them personally.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY AT THE

SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY

AT THE FUNDY AIR ARENA

ITS THE FUNDY FALLACY INTERNATIONAL!

WHERE TALKING DONKEYS AND SPIRITS KNOCKING UP GIRLS GET A PASS!

PAY NO ATTENTION THE THE MYTHOLOGY BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

Keep going Doubledumb, I am sure if you throw in a cotton candy maker into your fiction you falsely call "science" maybe, just maybe some zit faced freshman will by your garbage.

Now, for the billionth time.

"SHOW US THE MECHINISMS OF A SPIRIT KNOCKING UP A GIRL"

You cant do it, thats why you continually dodge me. 

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Sigh. I

Vastet wrote:

Sigh. I spent a whole fucking hour making a total idiot of this idiot, only for some error to erase it all. Fuck that. This moron who claims to be a scientist is anything but, and the proof is everywhere. Fortunately some of the more important things I was going to say were said by others anyway, so that'll have to do.

There is one thing I will point out though anyway.

"-origianl message snipped because of pointless name calling irrelevant to argument- Not every skeleton is based on a few bone fragments."

More proof of hypocracy. If you don't like the name calling, don't start it.

I was so mad....

Anyway, I'm ready to do this over again.

drdoubleu wrote:

First I only have time for one response today, since this was the first in the pile, I thought I would go at it....This guy is hilarious.

Wish I could say the same about you. Unfortunately I don't find liars and hypocrites particularly amusing most of the time.

drdoubleu wrote:

How does this prove that I am a liar?

It's self evident.

drdoubleu wrote:
 You are contradicting yourself

On the contrary.

drdoubleu wrote:
first you said that humans have observed macroevolution all the time

I said no such thing. I said we observe evolution all the time. Micro and macro are expansionary terms that I have found you creationists often misunderstand and misuse. In an often but not always useless attempt to speak to creationists on their own level I often use the terms inaccurately myself, since it's the only way to get the point across. Macro-evolution in reality is simply combined micro-evolutionary stages that add up over time, and so the subjective terms of macro and micro don't truly apply to evolution unless you're comparing small differences between species to large differences between species. And even then, they are merely descriptive of portions of the overall process during periods of time. They are not elements in and of themselves.

drdoubleu wrote:
yet everyone know that no one has lived millions of years to observe this theory.

Noone needs to live millions of years to observe evolution. Evolution is not a theory except in the scientific sense.

drdoubleu wrote:
 Second, about 99% of evolutionists believe that macroevolution exists.

Depends what you mean. 100% of evolution supporters believe in evolution.

drdoubleu wrote:
 This is how they support the origin of species.

Not quite. The vast majority of the scientific community readily acknowledges that they don't know exactly how, when, where, or even if life first began. They simply acknowledge that your explanation is not scientific, not provable, and contrary to evidence.

drdoubleu wrote:
 Showing that you fail to realize this shows that you don't know science, evoltuion and scientific theory.

You got it backwards kid. Again.

drdoubleu wrote:
 Apparently since you claim that any who support and believe in macroevolution don't know what evolution is means that 99% of evolutionists don't know what evolution is.

*Yawn* Already discreditted this fallacy. 

drdoubleu wrote:
 I could have a lot of fun with this statement of yours

You could certainly try, but we all know how successful you've been so far.

drdoubleu wrote:
 but we'll leave it with the sum of your beliefs that 99% of evolutionists don't know what evolution is because they believe in macroevolution as the source of origin of species.

Since I already destroyed the basis for this amusing accusation, I don't need to bother with it further. 

drdoubleu wrote:
I don't even need to bother with most of this statement because it really does wonders for itself already.

In your dreams.

drdoubleu wrote:
 First off, you would have to take a bacteria and shove it inside of a rock so deep that temperature wouldn't affect it. If such a closed environment existed there would be problems, first, gas exange would be limited, food supply-unless it ate rocks would be nonexistant, and water would be nonexistant.

A foolish notion. Did you somehow forget that the bacteria is frozen? Inert? You know that frog doesn't take a single breath during the time it's frozen? Not a single heart beat? You remind me of the common creationist probability study for life forming on it's own. You know, the one that requires the pre-existance of flora for it to happen, ignoring the fact that flora is life itself? lol. 

drdoubleu wrote:
 Either case you still haven't provided me with a bacterial strain that can survive: obligate aerobic, Microaerophilic, facultative anaerobic, obligate anaerobic conditions, with the ability to form a spore that is UV resistant, has the ability to go from its optimal temperature through the ranges of super freezing air to super heated exposure into the atmosphere and then land in its appropriate growing area IE salty lakes, dry desert, mineral rich soil, water, hindguts of insects (wait, that can't happen because the bacteria has to first evolve this animal). There is not one bacteria nor archaea that can do all of this. NOT ONE.

Modified to be accurate, your statement reads: "Not one, that you or I know about." And yet we have observed that life is in fact capable of all of these. So now in order to discredit the notion that one could inhibit them all, you have to prove that no life form could contain all of these and yet still survive. Good luck with that.

drdoubleu wrote:
 

Even if this is plausable because of your arguement against macroevolution is still wouldn't turn the earth into what it is today. It still would be SUPER bacteria and all of its super kids in a wasteland.

Sure it would. *Rolls eyes* 

drdoubleu wrote:

Already explained with enough information for you to understand. 'debunked to boot' is overruled

"Debunked" overrules your overruling, as I've discredited everything you've said. Try again.

drdoubleu wrote:

Nope, you really haven't.

Yes, I really have. So have others.

drdoubleu wrote:

Still lacks credible support to hollow claims

Further proof of my claims.

drdoubleu wrote:

Evidence? You continue to show you know nothing significant, true or relevant.

The evidence has already been presented by myself and others. I feel no reason to repeat it. You continue to show your irrationality and distance from science with such ludicrous claims.

drdoubleu wrote:
We see it all the time? So now you believe in macroevolution? Make up your mind.

My mind is made up. Perhaps you should understand the reality of the subject before trying to argue it. Then you won't have problems with misconceptions.

drdoubleu wrote:
 You either do or you don't.....

I really already covered all this. I'm not going to do so again. Skipping ahead now...

drdoubleu wrote:
Our understanding of the fossil records is quite extensive. We have well over 200 years in fossil studies and yet no hard evidence of evolution taking place. The things that keep our records incomplete is the continual new species discoveries and the quest for the missing links. In 200 years you would think they would find a missing link between at least one animal.....'gotcha'


Rofl. 3.9 billion years of evolution when the RARE circumstances that provide for fossilization of organic material occur less than 5% of the time(ballparking it, to borrow your own phrase). And you claim the record is extensive. ha ha ha ha ha.....

drdoubleu wrote:

well according to fossils and the living specimens it has.

It has what? Defied evolution? So now you're just flat out ignoring evidence and reality, not to mention failing to counter what I've said. Good job! /sarcasm.

drdoubleu wrote:
 What ou are trying to talk about here is nutral evolution based on a microscale. It is still supporting my argument that macroevolution isn't observed because microevolution is bouncing back and forth due to nutral evolution that causes it to lack any progression into a new species whether or not you want to slap a billion years on the process.

Again, I already covered this. 

drdoubleu wrote:

The appendix isn't well understood still. We know it does some things in our body and can get infected. It is believed to be useful during the time of different diets of raw meat and the such. I'm sure that once we grasp a complete understanding then you'll understand it better. Even in physiology courses and anatomy they say they don't know what the appendix does. It doesn't mean it was once a useful organ that evolved. It means we don't know what it does.

The day you can prove exactly what it does, and exactly what it's always done, and that it's always done what it does now, you can make claims based on your evidence. Until then, you're speculating. And unlike myself, your guesses are not educated.

drdoubleu wrote:

Vastet wrote:
-origianl message snipped because of pointless name calling irrelevant to argument- Not every skeleton is based on a few bone fragments.

If you don't like insults, don't fling them. More hypocracy.

drdoubleu wrote:
Evidence?

Where's yours? Where you even paying attention in grade school math classes? X x 100 = A. A cannot be defined until you define X. At any rate, do the search yourself and prove my claim is inaccurate. I've done enough proving in the face of irrational rejection. I'll not waste my time continuing it. Since you're so fond of unsubtantiated claims or denying the existance of real evidence, I'll feel free to make unsubstantiated claims myself at this point.

drdoubleu wrote:
Looks like someone is getting mad that their wrong. It's simple.

On the contrary. I called you on your bullshit and challenged you to provide justification for it. And look what crap you've delivered...

drdoubleu wrote:
 Look at the time that science assumes humans came into existance. Assume that only two people started out. Double their number every 30 years through the time that we are currently living. Subtract from that number 6 billion people for each world war and the black plaque and take in consideration the estimates of max carrying capacity and you'll see we are way above that number. Although the calcuations aren't accurate, I made them so that they would be below accurate. First, people don't on average wait till 30 to reproduce, second not every family has an FR of 4 although preindustrialized countries do. 6 billion people aren't killed off during these wars nor the black plaque. we are simply just killing off the current would population 3 times over. I did the correct measurements before, I just don't have them here and don't feel like digging through file cabinets to find it to prove to someone the logistics of it.

This is really too easy. I'm not going to bother pointing out every single flaw. I could spend years doing so. However...

You don't take into account mass catastrophes(real or theorized) such as Toba(real) or Atlantis(theory). You don't take into account catastrophes that we don't even have awareness of, yet probably ocurred anyway. You don't take into account the after affects of such catastrophes, or their little brothers(tsunamis, earthquakes, volcano's, small meteors, etc). You don't take into account social and regional pressures that can have significant effects on population growth. You don't take into account resource management. Your gross overestimation of 3 events that happened to kill lots of people doesn't even come close to covering for ignoring millions of others. Yeah, I think I proved my point.

drdoubleu wrote:

No, all I had to do was prove the major ones wrong.

But you didn't. You even mentioned at least one subject that was never scientifically accepted in the first place: Nebraska man. Even mentioning that one proves you know nothing beyond the subject but common creationist arguments that have nothing to do with science.

drdoubleu wrote:
 You are the idiot for believing that putting up just the main slashes in the achilles tendon of the current missing links that that is the ONLY information I have.

No, you are the idiot for ignoring reality in favour of fiction. 

drdoubleu wrote:
 How many evidences are there? not many more than that if any.

More proof you haven't spent much time on the subject. Go figure.

drdoubleu wrote:

 All I had to do is prove the ones that are the major teachings wrong for it to crumble.

Again, you didn't. You just tried to. By taking what creationists have decided is proof that evolution is wrong, without actually looking at the scientific side of things. 

drdoubleu wrote:
 what you need to do now is go and find information that shows that I am wrong.

Already did. 

drdoubleu wrote:
 You need to prove to me and yourself that there is actual fossils out there. Saying that I'm an idiot and that there are other fossils out there without any evident proof isn't a good nor educated argument.

Hey, the moment you want to fund me for going out and collecting irrefutable evidence for evolution, I'll be there for you. I'm not going to do it for free though. And frankly, I'm sure others could do a better job. But hey, you want it from ME! :D 

drdoubleu wrote:

Yes, you are.

Again, look in the mirror.

drdoubleu wrote:
You haven't shown any evidence to anything that would prove you even close to being correct on anything let alone right overall.

Lie.

drdoubleu wrote:
 Do your homework.

I did. Do your own.

drdoubleu wrote:
 Before you open your mouth make sure you 1.Understand what macroevolution is

Covered this. Skipping ahead again...

drdoubleu wrote:
at least some evidence of a bacterial strain that can do all the conditions of panspermia that I have listed above.

Already did that....

drdoubleu wrote:
 Listing links to sites of one or two bacteria that can do one or two but not all of the conditions isn't credible.

Your opinion. And a laughable, uneducated one at that.

drdoubleu wrote:
evidence of fossils that I haven't debunked.

Prove that the only fossils that exist are fossils you've debunked, and then I might consider it.

drdoubleu wrote:
All of you still have disregarded the LONDON artifact. A man made hammer stuck in the sedimentary rock aged geologically at 65+ million years old.

Amazing. I'd never heard of this. What's more amazing, it took me less than 2 seconds to destroy it. I'd post it, but 2 others already have. So I'm not going to bother.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

I'm wonderting if drdoubleu has read some of my posts at all - maybe he is as busy as he says, maybe he hasn't come up with a rebuttal, altho he usually manages to find some non-sequiter in response.

I also addressed him on this macro-evolurion business, altho I didn't actually use the word. I also included it in a response to the ice-core stuff, maybe I should have kept it separate, or made it clearer I was addressing a second topic....

It's getting a bit tedious putting all this evidence together only to have it ignored or casually dismissed with the same simplistic mis-conceptions. What sort of institution would give this guy a Master's degree in anything, let alone a scientific subject? I pointed out two gross errors or misunderstanings of very basic science, which he has yet to acknowledge, about the behaviour of gasses and light interacting with matter affecting its velocity. This on top of basic misunderstanding of radiometric dating, and all the other things we keep pointing out to him.

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. Blandly asserting 'there is not a scrap of evidence for" any of it Jawdropping! .

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.

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

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: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Makes one wonder where he's

Makes one wonder where he's actually getting this "education". I also noticed in brief passing the comment he made regarding existance of elements having to come from god because hydrogen just doesn't do that. Like you mention here, I wonder if he knows what nuclear fusion is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's getting a bit

Quote:
It's getting a bit tedious putting all this evidence together only to have it ignored or casually dismissed with the same simplistic mis-conceptions.

 

Tell him why his answer is wrong and repeat the question. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


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

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