Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8161 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2014 2:12 AM
43 online now:
Faith, NoNukes, Phat (AdminPhat), Rrhain (4 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: NAME OF THE ROSE
Post Volume:
Total: 741,706 Year: 27,547/28,606 Month: 2,604/2,244 Week: 8/710 Day: 8/129 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 12 of 138 (448861)
01-15-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by johnfolton
01-15-2008 2:33 PM


No, Mitochondrial Eve and Mitochondrial Adam supports the creationists belief in one man and one woman. I agree with you that we share a common creator but not that we share a common ancestor.

There is no "Mitochondrial Adam." Mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the maternal side in sexually reproducing organisms, with a very few exceptions (and humans aren't one of them).


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2008 2:33 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 46 of 138 (449063)
01-16-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by johnfolton
01-16-2008 9:12 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
The answering from genesis folk said the mutation rate today is more accelerated than assumed thus one could also assume Mitochondrial Eve was 6,000 years old. The evolutionist assumed the mutation rate it says by their interpretation of the fossil record.

Looking to answersingenesis for information about science is like going to a scientologist for information about psychiatry, or asking a KKK member for information about race relations.

Mutation rates are not only calibrated by the fossil record (from which we don't often find genetic information anyway simply due to the nature of fossils). It's also calibrated by the mutation rates we see today. When we do receive genetic information from a fossil, it can be checked against radiometric dating (C14 or other types, depending on age - different radiometric dating techniques are accurate only for certain sets of ages) and the geological placement of the fossil. When all of these agree on a ballpark figure for an age, we can be pretty certain of our estimate's accuracy.

It's Creationists who are making the assumption here: that mutational rates (and radioisotope decay, etc) were all somehow "different" in the past...but they provide no evidence for this idea other than the Bible, and never any mechanism for the acceleration or slowdown in mutation.

Not to mention all the havok caused by messing with the physics involved in altering the decay of radioisotopes. That requires changing universal constants like the speed of light...if that were different in the past, the universe as it exists today could not have formed.

I mean we all know there is no evidence to support an old earth in that no evidence of cold fusion within the earth to establish when the radioisotope clocks were initially wound up, etc...For all we know these isotope clocks were wound up before the earth was formed in some kind of big bang?

WHAT?! I'm going to be blunt: that statement is the most idiotic thing I've heard in the past 6 months. Cold fusion to "wind up" radioactive clocks?! That's not how it works, not even close! This is a strawman the size of Mt. Everest!

Radioisotopes are created by nuclear reactions...like those inside of stars. ALL heavy elements (as in anything heavier than Hydrogen or Helium) are created exclusively in the core of a star. When a star dies and goes nova, it spreads all of those heavy elements around, and the nebulae formed will eventually form into solar systems like ours. That is when the radioisotope heavy elements like Uranium and Carbon were originally "wound up" - before the Earth had even formed.

But by making assumptions no leaching of these clocks in this way they
assume everything is old and that they call science.

Radiometrics and other methods of dating are supported my mountains of evidence.

The creationist to a creationists are giving the correct spin on the age of the fossil the evolutionists are not aging the fossil by the fossil as baumgardener has been questioning why commercial labs are fudging out up to 40000 years of 14C so everyting appears old. Give the rate boys a thumbs up, etc....

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand any of that, except for the assertion that scientists are for some reason falsifying results. I assume you have proof of this?

The answering from genesis folks said: In other words, had there been more than one mitochondrial ‘surname’, it would have been a severe challenge to the biblical scenario.

You've already established that you don't understand what mitochondrial DNA is.

Creationists have correctly countered both Eve’s ‘age’ and the Neandertal assertions by saying that the molecular clock calibrations are way off.2 Since, for example, the creationist’s (true) Eve lived only a few thousand years ago, the mutational substitutions in mtDNA must have happened at a much faster rate than assumed by evolutionists to date.

So, Creationism is true because Mitochondrial Eve proves Genesis. We know how long ago Mitochondrial Eve lived because Genesis tells us - the mutational rate that shows she's older must have simply happened at an accelerated rate.

Nice circular reasoning.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2008 9:12 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2008 2:33 AM Rahvin has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 49 of 138 (449247)
01-17-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by johnfolton
01-17-2008 2:33 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
So we agree the elements that make up the earth were created before teh earth was created thus the earth itself could of been formed only 6,000 to 13,000 years ago. I mean the evidence is supporting a young earth, etc...

We agree that the heavy elements that make up terrestrial planets were formed long before the planets themselves coalesced...but that in no way means the Earth was formed 6-13000 years ago. The evidence clearly contradicts that, in fact. Radioactive decay rates take far, far longer than that (not all, but many). Remember how everybody whines about nuclear waste, and how it wont stop being radioactive for millions of years? We know exactly the rates of radioactive decay, and if they were as fast as you're asserting, we wouldn't have to worry much about spent nuclear fuel.

Where are you getting this idiocy? It appears you've been fed a few lies regarding physics.

Yep, Creationists have been telling you for years its a young earth but the problem has roots in fraud in pretending its an old earth. Baumgardener explains commercial lab prodical is to fudge out 14C from fossils dated because its too hard to explain away any other way. In other words labs believe its intrinsic but has to explain it as contamination. Such fraud in science no reason for a creationists to believe in the lie the earth is old, etc...

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

"globalflood.org?" Somehow I'm disinclined to believe a site that purports the global flood to have actually occurred, contrary to what we observe in nature.

Aside from that, C14 dating is only useful for a specific range of dates. It's not the only form of radioisotope dating we use, for that exact purpose. C14 dating is only useful up to a little over 60,000 years - hardly long enough to date a dinosaur fossil, for example. Other radioisotopes must be used for those.

Here's a quote from your site (please stop with the bare links, btw - if you want to cite a website, give the link and also quote the relevant portion):

quote:
Given the short 14C half-life of 5730 years, organic materials purportedly older than 250,000 years, corresponding to 43.6 half-lives, should contain absolutely no detectable 14C. (One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 1010 14C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives should reduce that number by a factor of 7.3 x 10-14.) An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C!

Why does C14 dating have an error margin? Why does it require calibration?

Because C14 can enter a sample even after the organism is dead. Bacteria feeding on the rotting creature, plant material that covers the fossil at a later date...this is why C14 dating comes with an error range. The fact that incredibly old samples should not contain any original C14 is the reason C14 dating is useless on very old samples. That's why C14 isn't used at all to date dinosaurs, for example.

Your site is apparently run by morons who don't understand physics or archeology.

No Creationists used real facts not making up a mutation rate off assumptions that the earth is old. Whats wrong with a young earth, if the facts support a young earth then its time to replace the theory of evolution with biblical science !!!!!!!! Why lie to our kids and say the earth is old when the scientific evidence supports a young earth, like diamonds having 14C if the earth was old so much evidence to support the earth is a young earth, etc...

The evidence does not support a young Earth. Not 6000, or 13000, or 6000000 years, but billions of years old. Plate tectonics could not possibly move fast enough in 13000 years to create the geological features we see today and still leave the Earth habitable, and then magically slow down to the rate we see today. Yearly sediment deposits that we can observe happening even now would have needed to magically speed up to millions of times the currently seen rates (which are controlled by seasons, so we'd need seasonal changes to accelerate as well) and then magically slow down again before people were around to notice the difference. Mineralized fossils like the vast majority of dinosaur bones would have needed a completely different mechanism of fossilization from that which we currently understand, and that mechanism would have needed to magically stop happening now that we could observe it. Geological features like the Grand Canyon formed through a few million years of erosion would have needed to be magically accelerated (and no, floods don't create canyons), and then magically slowed back down to the rates we see today. The light from stars we know are millions or even billions of light-years away would have needed to be created en-route, or the speed of light would have needed to be different (which would have made the universe as we see it today an impossibility).

I could go on, but I think you get the point. A "young Earth" has been disproven so many times from so many independent fields of research that it's a position as laughable as the "flat Earth" believers at this point.

I think the problem is scientists know the theory of evolution does not answer the missing transitional fossils thus rather than allow creation sciences to be taught are going to go to Intelligent Design which is not addressing the young age of the earth.

The problem is that every time scientists find an excellent example of a transitional species, Creationists say "nuh uh!!!" without even studying the fossils, or claim it was a hoax (and continue to claim so even after it has been proven there was no hoax). The problem is that Creationists are unwilling to understand what a transitional fossil would even look like. The problem is that Creationists don't understand how rarely fossilization occurs, and that we don't expect to see an example of every generation of organism.

The real problem is that Creationists and cdesign proponentists don't bring any actual science to the table - they paint real scientists as liars and phoneys, and try to squeeze religious nonsense into science classrooms without any supporting evidence or having even followed the scientific method!

Gibbons, A. ‘Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock’. Science 279(5347):28–29, January 2, 1998. Return to text.
Parsons, T.J. et al ‘A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region’, Nature GeneticsVol. 15: 363–368, 1997; as cited in ref. 4.

Quote the text you want me to read. I'm not going to go out and buy a book to see your argument - post it. I'm not responding to any more bare links or book citations.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2008 2:33 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2008 2:32 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 55 of 138 (449287)
01-17-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
01-17-2008 2:32 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
Never said we did not agree that they decay only that you don't know the moment they were still being wound up before the earth was. Everything just decays other than 14C which is due to cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. This I know confuses you in respect to cold fusion not happening due to the sediment particle prevents this from happening within the earth.

You aren't paying attention. There is no "winding up." Your statements show that you don;t understand even the most basic concepts surrounding radioactive decay. Let me take this slowly for you.

Stars are giant balls of nuclear fusion. They constantly combine Hydrogen to make Helium, which then combines again and again and again to make all of the heavier elements. Some elements, like Uranium, decay into other elements, over a very predictable rate called a "half-life." Given perfect measurements and a guarantee that all of the original material and its products are present, we caa calculate exactly how long it has taken for the sample to decay.

All of the radioactive heavy elements on Earth were formed in a star.

Some radioisotopes, like C14, are different - I'm not going to talk about C14 at the moment because it is only accurate on timescales that are geologically insignificant.

There is no "winding." There is no "charging with nukyular powarrr!!" Uranium was never "made radioactive." It is radioactive. Uranium did not form in the Earth. It was formed int he core of a star. Radioactive decay is simply the nature of radioactive elements - they decay into stable products over very predictable periods of time. We can use radioisotope dating with elements that have very long half-lives to determine a rough age of the Earth. Combined with other evidence that agrees, "You Earth" believers are living in a fairy tale.

If you disagree with the hydroplate theory you should take up Walt Brown challenge on one of his telephone debates. He's looking for people to come to the plate and discuss the sciences of just this kind of stuff however you'd better know what your talking about because once he believed in what you espouse.

Recorded Phone Debate

For anyone who disagrees with the hydroplate theory (explained in Part II of this book), the recorded phone debate is appropriated. Anyone, regardless of their scientific credentials, can engage Dr. Brown, provided they have read the theory. For details, see page 404.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

No think the evolutionists are guilty of that like creating nebraska man from a pigs tooth,

Who disproved that? Was it a pastor at a church? Or a scientist?

and claiming how rare fossilaization occurs when you have millions of fossils in the public museums

Which is statistically tiny compared to the amount of living things that have existed on Earth...

however the millions necessary if lifes origins happened from a common ancestor as they say there should be billions upon billions of mistakes in the fossil record. Its a complex code to sort of self program which of course why we see the Intelligent Design movement because your few questionable creatures does not support your theory. In fact the absense of transistional creatures in light of the complexities of DNA proves conclusively there is a God. The truth is all the fossils in the fossil record show they were fully formed the moment they came onto the fossil record as attested by the millions of fossils in the museums of the world today.

This is all nonsense. Please sort out a complete thought next time.

Or do you really believe the fossils were created as-is by magic? Do you worship Loki, the Trickster God of Norse mythology?

Then how do you explain the Russian study where nothing dated older than 9640 years in the yucan peninsula. Page 12 tropical plants I mean if life was tropical and animals were on this planet millions of years how come nothing older than 9640 years. It proof that God exists for if evolution was viable something would of flagged up older given 14C can be measured over 50,000 years but none dated older than 9640 years. Oh....thats right it was those Russians they forgot to fudge the intrinsic evidence, etc... Can't you see the evolutionists have been lying to you? The truth is its a young earth, etc....

You don't even understand what radioactice decay is! Give me a quote instead of these bare links and I'll argue against you. Again, Im not doing your homework for you.

I thought the universe was speeding away faster than the speed of light

No, it's not. If that were so, we wouldn't be able to see any stars. Or anything else for that matter - the expansion of the Universe is constant throughout, so the space between your eyes and the computer screen would be moving apart faster than light could reach you.

which begs the question if nothing is really something or is it nothing.

What?! This doesnt even make sense.

The bible actually says that God alone is responsible for the spreading out of the heavens. He says this in his Word in the book of Job another example of the inerrancy of the written Word.

I have a book that says the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the Universe last Thursday with all of our memories pre-created, and it says it's infallible, too.

A book proves nothing alone, regardless of how old it is. And especially not when all of the evidence is against it.

On the fourth creation day where it says "he made" the stars also in my akjv bible "he made" is in italics meaning the translators wanted us to know these 2 words were added by the translators their words not Gods. Why is it that mans words always confuse and Gods Words seem to clarify, etc... I'm not trying to convert you but you seemed to be bringing the entire universe into a young earth. The Word does not say the entire universe (the stars) was created on the fourth day tthese words were added by the translators. While its obvious God made the stars its not correct to say he made them on the fourth day because these two words were added by the translators meaning they are not Gods Words.

So you admit that the Bible cannot possibly be infallible, as it has been subject to human translation and copying for a few thousand years.

Thats my take on how we both believe the universe itself can be interpreted to be older than 6000-13000 years old and if the universe is racing away faster than the speed limit of light then light being a property of space would it not too be stretched as nothing is being increased by the stretching of space ?

You're not making any sense here. I cant even debate this - it's like you strung a bunch of random words together with a few terms from physics you don't understand.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2008 2:32 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2008 6:03 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 56 of 138 (449292)
01-17-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
01-17-2008 2:32 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
You know what, this is all massively off-topic. If you want to debate all of this, feel free to start a new topic about it.

The topic here is the reaction of Creationists to a human/chimp hybrid.

I think our discussion has proven that Creationists will either not understand the implications in the first place and simply deny that it has anything to do with humans being related to apes, or will make up some crazy rationalization to account for it ("free will" allows man to play god, or "its not a real hybrid," or "but it doesnt have a soul").


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2008 2:32 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 58 of 138 (449335)
01-17-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by johnfolton
01-17-2008 6:03 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
In space your uranium is not protected by the sediment particle thus its winding up your partially decayed elements were how much they were wound up in space. This is why 14C in the upper atmosphere is changed by these cosmic energies proving you can not assume uranium is as old as the clock shows but thats what the evolutionists do time and time again because if they did not mitochondrial eve could not be assumed to be old.

That's not the way it works! I've explained it to you already. There is no "winding up." Radioactive isotopes don't need to be "charged" by anything. They're unstable atoms, and they decay at a predictable rate. Most of them, like Uranium, are unstable as soon as tehy are formed from nuclear fusion, and begin the decay process immediately.

No we believe we were intelligently designed suddenly as the fossil record attests.

But that's not what the fossil record shows. It shows gradually increasing compelxity with age, with new species branching off of pre-existing ones.

I mean if we were not created suddenly there would be billions of mistakes because of the complexity of design.

...unless there isn't a "design" at all, and evolution is the natural process by which new species arise from pre-existing ones. The ones that "dont work" dont survive to reproduce. We have all sorts of these "mistakes" today, in the form of birth defects. But because fossilization is an incredibly rare ocurrance, and birth defects are statistically rare as well, AND severe birth defects that we could actually detect in a fossil would likely cause the creature's early demise in conditions not well-suited for fossilization...your whole premise falls flat.

You have evidence that life came on the scene suddenly but refuse to accept this scientific fact.

We don't know how life originally occurred. We know how species began to increase in diversity after that point, but abiogenesis research just isn't "there" yet. I think it's got a damned good chance from what I;ve seen so far, but we haven't followed the whole process through yet.

This is why you try to make Mitochondrial Eve to be old but to do so you have to assume the mutation rates happened over long periods of time when the creationists have shown you in the natural mutation rates are occuring more frequent challenging your old earth delusions.

You're the deluded one. All of our measurement techniques point to an extremely old age for the Earth. They only "evidence" against it is a collection of musty old tomes based on stone-age mythology.

[qs]If light is stretching then its still going the speed of light because nothing is nothing then general relativity does not violate special relativity even though light by triangulation has went more miles per second than special relativity in normal space. Right?[qs/]

Wrong.

The space in front of the light would be stretching at a speed faster than light travels. It would be like trying to go the wrong way on an escalator that's moving at 100 MPH. You'll never get to the top, regardless of what happens to your body.

So space affects light but its not a violation of general relativity because once light enters our solar system it slows down to the speed limit of our normal space.

You have no idea what you're suggesting. The speed of light is a constant everywhere. Remember E=MC^2? If you change (C), nuclear reactions like those in stars get completely altered, and there wouldn;t be enough mass to make enough gravity to hold the stars together - in other words, speed up light, and stars start exploding. This is one of the reasons we know light is a constant speed everywhere in the Universe.

Does this make any sense like you say you would not beable to see the light if it was going away faster than the speedlimit of light, etc....So basically you have particles moving thru space bombarding uranium and all the other elements constantly that the stars themselves might well be made up of the same stuff that makes up the earth. Meaning there might of never been a big bang though its just one theory however these elements are just floating around through space bombarding each other could well be fusing the heavier elements right up to the point the earth was created 6000 to 13000 years ago in agreement with the creationists accelerated evidence in respect to mitochondrial eve.

I mean if cosmic rays can form 14C in the upper atmosphere pray what happens to the elements in space constantly getting hit by cosmic rays. I certainly don't see how you could believe their unwinding, but apparently you do because you don't believe the scientific evidence that in respect to Mitochondrial Eve if the accelerations happen much more frequently it supports a young earth, etc...

None. Of. This. Makes. Any. Sense.

Please go read a physics textbook.

No the translators explained it was their words.

...which means it's not the "Word of God." It's the "Words of Translators."

I see no reason to believe the bible is not God breathed and that Eve was the mother of all living.

Believe what you want, it doesn't really change the facts.

The reason no chimps have Eves mitochondrial evidence is chimps are not our common ancestor but were created by a common creator. With it now known that mutations to mitochondrial dna happens more frequently old suddenly becomes young, etc..

Nobody said chimps were our common ancestor. They're our cousins. Mitochondrial eve would have happened long after the split from our shared ancestor.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2008 6:03 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-17-2008 6:32 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 61 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2008 3:19 AM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2008 3:48 AM Rahvin has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 60 of 138 (449344)
01-17-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
01-17-2008 6:32 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
I did not. But that clears a few things up.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-17-2008 6:32 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 66 of 138 (449543)
01-18-2008 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
01-18-2008 3:48 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
I'm not even going to bother with this one any more. It's not worth the frustration.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2008 3:48 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 98 of 138 (450205)
01-21-2008 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by johnfolton
01-20-2008 10:40 PM


In short its like the creationists talk about the dividing of the marrow and the spirit and when people died in the old testament when they gave up the ghost they died. Its like this is a part of the inner workings Dr. Peter Gariaev is talking about how genetic engineers that the more they know the less they understand about the foundational inner workings of the genetic code.

It is the nature of all science and discovery that whenever a question is answered, even more questions will be able to be asked. Don't confuse this as an excuse for an argument from incredulity to have any hold - scientists don't claim to understand everything, or even individual subjects perfectly. All they claim is to have the most accurate model currently available, and a method of inquiry that ensures increasing accuracy over time in the modeling of the natural world.

I honestly have no idea what this has to do with "dividing marrow and the spirit" or "giving up the ghost."

P.S. I'm not a conspiracy nut but never had this happen probably just a computer glitch and its not worth the effort to retry to bring in theoretical stuff but thought the wave genetics part interesting and Peter Gariaev has a ph D and questions hybrids because of the ignorance of the genetic engineers.

And now an appeal to authority. A single person with a PhD and questions does not refute anything alone. And if you are even remotely suggesting that you had a "computer glitch" that prevented you from posting everything you typed because of the interference of "evilutionists," you are placed firmly in the "conspiracy nut" corner.

Add to this the fact that you're citing a man who complains about the "scientific establishment" and you fit even better in this category. The "scientific establishment" is very receptive to being disproven...as long as you bring the actual evidence, and not unsubstantiated claims.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by johnfolton, posted 01-20-2008 10:40 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014