Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8101 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-29-2014 12:37 AM
183 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: MFFJM2
Post Volume:
Total: 733,439 Year: 19,280/28,606 Month: 2,551/2,305 Week: 193/563 Day: 3/117 Hour: 3/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   the principles of world view
Mr Jack
Member (Idle past 303 days)
Posts: 3475
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 31 of 86 (496712)
01-30-2009 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by John 10:10
01-29-2009 10:58 PM


The problem that we Creationists will always have with the "belief system of evolution" is that you believe life evolved without a Creator, and we do not.

Once again; it's not a belief system. You can disagree with the science, you can argue the evidence, question the reasoning but for as long as you prattle about "belief systems" you're going to miss the point. Evidence: learn it, understand it, criticise it. If you're right, you'll win. That's how science works.

As a Creationist, I believe God created everything after their own kind, from the simplest life form to the most complex, able to live and reproduce new life forms after their own kind.

I look at the evidence, and conclude from the evidence that Evolution happened. You see the difference? You're saying you believe in Creationism and conclude about the causes of life accordingly; I don't "believe in Evolution", I conclude it.

As many life forms became extinct during the 5 major extinction periods, God created new life forms, rather than postulating that some life forms survived the major extinction periods, and continued the evolutionary process after each major extinction.

That's a fascinating suggestion, could you start a new thread with more details of your views on this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John 10:10, posted 01-29-2009 10:58 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 945 days)
Posts: 763
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 32 of 86 (496796)
01-30-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
01-29-2009 11:35 PM


Re: Explaining evolution, likely in vain
Again, the theory of evolution does not cover, nor does it depend upon, origins.

And from your scare quotes surrounding "so-called science of evolution" you are implying that the theory of evolution is not science. That is the latest creation "science" talking point, and it is false. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory because it follows the scientific method. Whether creationists like it or not, that's the way it is.

OK, why don't you start with the simplest life form of your chosing, put it in a test tube, shake it up for a few years, and see if a rabbit comes out. No, you can't do that because the theory of evolution says you have to wait millions/billions of years for meaningful changes to take place and real creatures to crawl out of that test tube.

That's precisely why the theory of evolution is not real science, nor ever will be. Real science is science that can be proven to be true in the time frame of a human's life span to a high degree of accuracy. "So-called evolutionary science" is worthless when it comes to true science, and produces no worthwhile good for mankind.

I've been working in the nuclear energy business for over 44 years. The science of nuclear fission was first discovered and proved in 1939 that atoms were fissioning to a very high degree of accuracy. By 1945 atomic weapons were developed from this nuclear science. In the 1950's, nuclear science was engineered into nuclear propulsion systems and nuclear power plants. Now over 20% of our electric energy comes for nuclear power, and about 80% in France.

That's what true science can and should do, learn what makes matter tick, and then transform that matter into all forms of useful products. When it comes to life, learn what makes plants, animals and humans tick, and then help them get well when they get sick.

True science does not deal with "theories of evolution" that can never be proven in a labortory or in the wild because they are not testable due to the tremendous time frames needed to show if they really work.

Yes, some people at this forum need to learn some basic education of what true science is all about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 01-29-2009 11:35 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 01-30-2009 6:21 PM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 01-30-2009 6:28 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 01-30-2009 6:39 PM John 10:10 has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 3943
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 33 of 86 (496800)
01-30-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John 10:10
01-30-2009 5:59 PM


Re: Explaining evolution, likely in vain
OK, why don't you start with the simplest life form of your chosing, put it in a test tube, shake it up for a few years, and see if a rabbit comes out. No, you can't do that because the theory of evolution says you have to wait millions/billions of years for meaningful changes to take place and real creatures to crawl out of that test tube.

That's an absurd strawman.

We can and have observed evolution happening, including not only new features forming over generations but also entirely new species arising from pre-existing populations, both in nature and in the lab.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with trying to evolve a rabbit from a "simpler" form of life. That you would resort to such a strawman suggests that you are either deliberately lying, are ignorant of the subject on the level of an 8-year-old who'se watched Pokemon to learn about evolution, or you're just an idiot.

I wouldn't take bets as to which is true.

That's precisely why the theory of evolution is not real science, nor ever will be. Real science is science that can be proven to be true in the time frame of a human's life span to a high degree of accuracy. "So-called evolutionary science" is worthless when it comes to true science, and produces no worthwhile good for mankind.

Literally all of modern biology is based on evolutionary theory. Nearly every biological technology we have, from medicines (especially antibiotics) to genetics to modern farming is based wholly on evolution.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea the amount of products you likely use every day that you have because of the Theory of Evolution, or which are affected by it. Ever hear of those "superbugs" we worry about in hospitals? They exist because of evolution - we applied selective pressure to various germs by using antibiotics, and so the few individuals with mutations allowing them to resist those particular antibiotics were able to thrive without competition. That's evolution. HIV is thus far impossible to cure because of it's extremely high mutation rate. That's evolution.

Every freaking year, biology students in Universities around the world perform real-world experiments where they directly observe evolution taking place, where they apply a selective pressure to a test population (usually flies) and watch the features of the population change over generations. That is evolution.

It has been proven to be highly accurate within the lifespan of a human being, as if such a definition meant anything anyway. You're simply haven't figured it out yet because you're clinging dogmatically to your ignorant beliefs.

I've been working in the nuclear energy business for over 44 years. The science of nuclear fission was first discovered and proved in 1939 that atoms were fissioning to a very high degree of accuracy. By 1945 atomic weapons were developed from this nuclear science. In the 1950's, nuclear science was engineered into nuclear propulsion systems and nuclear power plants. Now over 20% of our electric energy comes for nuclear power, and about 80% in France.

How long is the half-life of Uranium-238, genius? It's about 4.47 billion years. Is your own industry, which depends on science that occurs over an even longer timespan than evolution, not a "true science?"

Your ignorant comments merit only ridicule and scorn.

That's what true science can and should do, learn what makes matter tick, and then transform that matter into all forms of useful products. When it comes to life, learn what makes plants, animals and humans tick, and then help them get well when they get sick.

Which is exactly what the Theory of Evolution has done.

True science does not deal with "theories of evolution" that can never be proven in a labortory or in the wild because they are not testable due to the tremendous time frames needed to show if they really work.

Again, evolution has been directly observed both in the lab and in the wild.

Yes, some people at this forum need to learn some basic education of what true science is all about.

Indeed, some people do. I think being sent back to about the 7th grade would do wonders for your understanding of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John 10:10, posted 01-30-2009 5:59 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2009 7:05 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 37 by John 10:10, posted 01-31-2009 8:45 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 569 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 34 of 86 (496803)
01-30-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John 10:10
01-30-2009 5:59 PM


Re: Explaining evolution, likely in vain
OK, why don't you start with the simplest life form of your chosing, put it in a test tube, shake it up for a few years, and see if a rabbit comes out. No, you can't do that because the theory of evolution says you have to wait millions/billions of years for meaningful changes to take place and real creatures to crawl out of that test tube.

All I can say from the above is that you know nothing about evolution. Try doing a little studying about evolution from a non-creationist source before making inane comments.

Edited by bluescat48, : clarity


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John 10:10, posted 01-30-2009 5:59 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4648
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 35 of 86 (496806)
01-30-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John 10:10
01-30-2009 5:59 PM


Re: Explaining evolution, likely in vain
That's precisely why the theory of evolution is not real science, nor ever will be. Real science is science that can be proven to be true in the time frame of a human's life span to a high degree of accuracy. "So-called evolutionary science" is worthless when it comes to true science, and produces no worthwhile good for mankind. ...

Yes, some people at this forum need to learn some basic education of what true science is all about.

This is another recent creationist tactic, separating "true" science from, I presume, "false" science.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You are doing science if you follow the scientific method, whether creationists approve or not. You don't need credentials, rigorous training or fancy equipment; you do need to follow the scientific method.

Creationists, on the other hand, seem determined to destroy the evolutionary sciences. This recent sophistry of separating the evolutionary sciences from "true" sciences is just one such tactic. And you fell for it.

And its both nonsense and dishonest, start to finish. It is nothing more than an attempt to censor a science that creationists don't agree with for religious--not scientific--reasons. I've seen many posts on other websites suggesting that all of the evolutionary sciences be defunded (likewise you described evolutionary sciences as "worthless").

This is all a part of the creationists' stealth efforts to destroy any science they disagree with, and ultimately to impose their religious views on the rest of us. But it won't work; there was this little event called The Enlightenment, and the genie is out of the bottle.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John 10:10, posted 01-30-2009 5:59 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by John 10:10, posted 01-31-2009 8:59 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15746
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 36 of 86 (496810)
01-30-2009 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Rahvin
01-30-2009 6:21 PM


Card Carrying YEC's anyone?
Hey Rahvin,

That's what true science can and should do, learn what makes matter tick, and then transform that matter into all forms of useful products. When it comes to life, learn what makes plants, animals and humans tick, and then help them get well when they get sick.

Which is exactly what the Theory of Evolution has done.

I've always thought that creationists like John 10:10 should wear medical alert bracelets:

No evolutionary science needed
to cure me of any malady or injury,
only methods based on faith.

To refuse to do so would expose hypocrisy and materialistic selfishness.

It should reduce the medical costs for the rest of us, let them preserve their world view (which is on topic, yes?), and over time ...

The Amish do it, why not the YEC's (or do they have a lack of faith?).

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 01-30-2009 6:21 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 945 days)
Posts: 763
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 37 of 86 (496879)
01-31-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Rahvin
01-30-2009 6:21 PM


Re: Explaining evolution, likely in vain
Literally all of modern biology is based on evolutionary theory. Nearly every biological technology we have, from medicines (especially antibiotics) to genetics to modern farming is based wholly on evolution.

I don't know what medical school you crawled out of, but this statement is pure hogwash! Every biological technology we have today has come from the creativeness of doctors and scientists and engineers learning how and what makes the human body tick, and then correcting the problems when they don't tick right. This has nothing to do with believing in the "so-called theory of evolution" that life evolved.

How long is the half-life of Uranium-238, genius?

It's not the half-life of U238 that you should be looking at stupid if you want to understand fission. It's how and why U235 fissions with slow neutrons, and how U238 can be made into U239 so it can also fission. You may not know this, but U238 also fissions very well, but with fast neutrons. Maybe you are the one who should learn some real science?

Again, evolution has been directly observed both in the lab and in the wild.

Maybe in the wildness of your lab mind, but never in a real scientific lab where over time the whole evolutionary process is shown to be true to a high degree of accuracy.

Edited by John 10:10, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 01-30-2009 6:21 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by lyx2no, posted 01-31-2009 11:01 AM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 44 by bluescat48, posted 01-31-2009 1:17 PM John 10:10 has responded

    
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 945 days)
Posts: 763
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 38 of 86 (496883)
01-31-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
01-30-2009 6:39 PM


Re: Explaining evolution, likely in vain
This is another recent creationist tactic, separating "true" science from, I presume, "false" science.

You got that right! I believe in the true science that can be proven true over time to work, not the false science that life somehow evolved by a theroy of evolution.

Evolutionists are the ones who have developed something called the "theory of evolution," and then call it science. You may study to your heart's content the fossils of the past through scientific methods, and make all the assumptions you want as to how they came to be, but it's still a theory until you prove to a high degree of accuracy that the theory of evoultion is the true reason how life is the way it is today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 01-30-2009 6:39 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2009 9:42 AM John 10:10 has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15746
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 39 of 86 (496884)
01-31-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by John 10:10
01-31-2009 8:59 AM


Re: Explaining evolution, likely in vain
Hello John 10:10

... I believe in the true science that can be proven true over time to work, not the false science that life somehow evolved by a theroy of evolution.

Curiously what you believe has no impact on reality and how the real world behaves. When belief and opinion are contradicted by reality it is not reality that is wrong.

Of course you are free to believe anything you like. You can believe you are the Napoleon of Christians defeating the unwashed multitude of unbelievers.

Perhaps you would like to explain, and preferably refute (snide comment deleted), these pieces of information:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

quote:
Resources:

Relevance of evolution: Agriculture
Explore just a few of the many cases in which evolutionary theory helps us secure and improve the world's crops. Genetic diversity, disease resistance and pest control are highlighted.

Relevance of evolution: Conservation
Explore just a few of the many cases in which evolutionary theory helps us form conservation strategies.

Relevance of evolution: Medicine
Explore just a few of the many cases in which evolutionary theory helps us understand and treat disease. Bacterial infections, HIV, and Huntington's disease are highlighted.

From the origin of life to the future of biotech: The work of Andy Ellington
This research profile examines how scientist Andy Ellington has co-opted the power of artificial selection to construct new, useful molecules in his lab. The results of his work could help protect us from terrorist attacks and fight HIV and cancer.

Evolutionary biology: Technology for the 21st century Advanced
The evolutionary biologist Jim Bull gives his perspective on how evolution matters to society today: from producing polio vaccines to solving tabloid-style crimes.
(This article appears at ActionBioscience.org.)

Evo in the news: Evolution at the scene of the crime
This news brief, from March 2006, describes how DNA fingerprinting is being used to prosecute and exonerate the accused. DNA fingerprinting relies on the processes of mutation and genome evolution.

Evo in the news: Evolutionary evidence takes the stand
This news brief, from January of 2007, describes the role of phylogenetic evidence in a Libyan court case. Six medical workers have been convicted of injecting children with HIV-tainted blood - but the evolutionary history of the virus paints a different picture.

Evo in the news: Genealogy enthusiasts mine DNA for clues to evolutionary history Advanced
This news brief, from November 2007, turns an evolutionary lens on businesses that use DNA for genealogy research and, in the process, illuminates what their genetic tests really track.

Why study the tree of life?
This short video provides several examples of the practical applications of phylogenetics.
(This resource is available from the Peabody Museum of Natural History)

A look at linguistic evolution Advanced
We typically think of evolution occurring within populations of organisms. But in fact, evolutionary concepts can be applied even beyond the biological world. Any system that has variation, differential reproduction, and some form of inheritance will evolve if given enough time. Find out how an understanding of evolution can illuminate the field of linguistics.
(This article appears at SpringerLink)

Interview: Massimo Pigliucci on evolution's importance to society
This interview with State University of New York professor Massimo Pigliucci reveals some surprising applications of evolutionary theory: from treatment of human disease, to forensics, to software engineering.
(This article appears at ActionBioscience.org.)


The logical conclusion, is that if you think evolution, the theory of evolution and the science of evolution are false ideas, and that you have not benefited in any way from them, that you are living in a fool's paradise.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by John 10:10, posted 01-31-2009 8:59 AM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by John 10:10, posted 01-31-2009 1:26 PM RAZD has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 40 of 86 (496889)
01-31-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by John 10:10
01-31-2009 8:45 AM


Expecting an Answer Likely in Vain
Maybe in the wildness of your lab mind, but never in a real scientific lab where over time the whole evolutionary process is shown to be true to a high degree of accuracy.

As all of the component claims made by Evilutionist are observable in the lab occurring in parallel, why do you assume that given umpteen million years we'd not be able to observe them in series?

It has been observe in the lab that:

  • The mechanism for genetic duplication is imperfect.
  • The imperfect copy can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial in effect relative to reproductive survival.
  • Reproductive success is the gold standard of genetic perfection; in other words, there is no template for what a gene should look like.
  • There is no mechanism to correct "excessive" neutral and beneficial genetic variation.
  • Two successful genetic lines are not necessarily compatible.
  • Non-compatible genetic lines trend to greater non-compatibility.
  • Blah-blah-blah…

And it is possible that I've understated the case. If I'm not mistaken in what I've read in this forum, the entire list has also been observed occurring in series in the lab.

[impulsive curiosity]Please, to anyone who knows, how does one differentiate specialization in bacteria? [/impulsive curiosity]

Every Evilutionist on earth agrees with you that a germ turning into a puppy has never been observed; and this failure of observation has been explained to you four score times: Evilutionists clearly state that such an observation would falsify the Theory of Evilution — so it's not necessary for you to repeat said bit of drivel. But does this not make you question your understanding of what it is you rile against?

It is not yet possible to compress time in the lab (put a sock in it, you pedant physicists), so your requirement for real time, evolutionary superfamily emergence is not a fact on hand. Science only calls for a Theory to be "the best possible explanation" for the facts on hand. Evolution is, therefore, science.

Evilutionists have clearly defined their argument: X. It is X that you must rebut. They have even been so good as to tell you explicitly what would show X to be wrong. Which anti-X have you established?


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John 10:10, posted 01-31-2009 8:45 AM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by kuresu, posted 01-31-2009 11:41 AM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2009 11:41 AM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 50 by John 10:10, posted 01-31-2009 4:24 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1653 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 41 of 86 (496895)
01-31-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by John 10:10
01-29-2009 10:58 PM


Sorry to add to the pile-on (well, not that sorry), but it seems no one really went anywhere with this. Don't blame them.

You state this:

But I do not believe in the "so-called science of evolution" that has never been proven with a high degree of accuracy from start to finish in a single experiment where life forms evolve from single cells to fully grown creatures able to reproduce.

You are aware that unicellular organisms are fully capable of reproducing and are fully grown, right? You are fully aware of reproduction by mitosis, among various other methods, right?

You can criticize evolutionary theory when you actually have a basic understanding of biology, and then, evolutionary biology. Until then, you just look really silly stating that bacteria cannot reproduce (which is what you imply in your statement).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John 10:10, posted 01-29-2009 10:58 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1653 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 42 of 86 (496896)
01-31-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by lyx2no
01-31-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Expecting an Answer Likely in Vain
[qs][impulsive curiosity]Please, to anyone who knows, how does one differentiate specialization in bacteria? [/impulsive curiosity][/qs]

Wiki is a wonderful friend.

quote:

This lack of any clear species concept in microbiology has led to some authors arguing that the term "species" is not useful when studying bacterial evolution. Instead they see genes as moving freely between even distantly-related bacteria, with the entire bacterial domain being a single gene pool.
Nevertheless, a kind of rule of thumb has been established, saying that species of Bacteria or Archaea with 16S rRNA gene sequences more similar than 97% to each other need to be checked by DNA-DNA Hybridization if they belong to the same species or not [5]. This concept has been updated recently, saying that the border of 97% was too low and can be risen up to 98.7% [6].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept#Definitions_of_species

If I understand it correctly, if bacteria and archaea are more than 1.3% different they are different species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by lyx2no, posted 01-31-2009 11:01 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15746
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 43 of 86 (496899)
01-31-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by lyx2no
01-31-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Expecting an Answer Likely in Vain
Hey lyx2no2,

  • Reproductive success is the gold standard of genetic perfection; in other words, there is no template for what a gene should look like.
  • There is no mechanism to correct "excessive" neutral and beneficial genetic variation.
  • So as long as the organisms with new and old neutral and beneficial genetic variations continue to survive and breed with success such mutations will continue to spread and change and spread and change and ... etc.

    [impulsive curiosity]Please, to anyone who knows, how does one differentiate specialization in bacteria? [/impulsive curiosity]

    By the successful evolution of a new trait or ability. In one experiment that tracked the evolution of bacteria from a single ancestor through many generations, dividing later generations into different populations, all in one similar ecology that provided minimal nutrients plus a source of energy that the original single organism - and many generations afterward - was unable to use, some evolved an ability to make use of the second source of energy. Interestingly, only those that evolved later from a specific subset of later populations evolved the ability. Not only does this show a beneficial trait emerging (consumption of second nutrient), but the intermediate population evolved a neutral mutation that made the beneficial mutation possible.

    There are many instances of bacteria evolving new abilities - look at nylon digesting bacteria, chemical pollution digesting bacteria, and other instances where bacteria have evolve to use a resource that did not exist before man made, and discarded, it.

    Enjoy.


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 40 by lyx2no, posted 01-31-2009 11:01 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

      
    bluescat48
    Member (Idle past 569 days)
    Posts: 2347
    From: United States
    Joined: 10-06-2007


    Message 44 of 86 (496908)
    01-31-2009 1:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 37 by John 10:10
    01-31-2009 8:45 AM


    Re: Explaining evolution, likely in vain
    It's not the half-life of U238 that you should be looking at stupid if you want to understand fission. It's how and why U235 fissions with slow neutrons, and how U238 can be made into U239 so it can also fission. You may not know this, but U238 also fissions very well, but with fast neutrons. Maybe you are the one who should learn some real science?

    Big deal, I learned that in Jr High School. Also you left out the continuing stage of U239. U239 > Np239 + b- > Pu239 + b- It is Pu239 that is fissionable.

    Edited by bluescat48, : superscript


    There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

    Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 37 by John 10:10, posted 01-31-2009 8:45 AM John 10:10 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 51 by John 10:10, posted 01-31-2009 4:37 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

        
    John 10:10
    Member (Idle past 945 days)
    Posts: 763
    From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
    Joined: 02-01-2006


    Message 45 of 86 (496912)
    01-31-2009 1:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
    01-31-2009 9:42 AM


    Re: Explaining evolution, likely in vain
    Curiously what you believe has no impact on reality and how the real world behaves. When belief and opinion are contradicted by reality it is not reality that is wrong.

    Funny, I've been living and working in the real world of nuclear engineering for 44 years, designing, building, and repairing power plants. I understand why and how they function. Do you?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 39 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2009 9:42 AM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 46 by subbie, posted 01-31-2009 1:40 PM John 10:10 has responded
     Message 47 by Larni, posted 01-31-2009 1:45 PM John 10:10 has responded
     Message 58 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2009 5:29 PM John 10:10 has responded

        
    Prev12
    3
    456Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014