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.
1. Did you really just write that whole email for us?
2. Would you join our forum and discuss your email with others if I posted
it?- Sapient
1.yes I did.
2.I would love to discuss my email with others as well as potential others
under a few conditions: my faith isn't bashed....i.e. having people saying
that I'm gay for my beliefs, Jesus is a homo, christians are closeminded
etc, people stay on the subject at hand (it is easy for someone to talk
about one topic and then bombard their response with potentially endless
amounts of other comments acusations, questions, theories etc. Obviously
I have a life outside of the computer world, it takes time for me to type
and feel that I may be overwhelmed with too many emails to respond. I
also have control over what I say and request that any comments that I
state should not be taken out of context or used in an abusive manner that
may threaten my educational/oocupational endeavors. With this said, how do
I join and how fast do people respond? Obviously in a day I cannot go
through more than a few comments and have appropriate time to read, obsorb
think and respond.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
drdoubleu wrote:Also, why is there no proof for
5.Marcroevolution
Not Found
The requested URL /faqs/comdesc/Â 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.
- Login to post comments
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?
- Login to post comments
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....
- Login to post comments
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.
- Login to post comments
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
- Login to post comments
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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
BobSpence1 wrote:
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.
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.
- Login to post comments
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??
Map of Greenland with temperature changes. Image credit: ESA 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.
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.
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.
- Login to post comments
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.
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?
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.
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.
- Login to post comments
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.
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
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
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.
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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
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!
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
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
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
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
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.
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.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
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.
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.
they even admitted that at best they can only measure back a few centuries in the openeing argument.
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.
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.
Yeah, back to ya, ass.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.