|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Of things, in the Bible, that are "legendery, and not proven, but believed as fact?" Pretty much everything. Adam and Eve, The Flood, the captivity in Egypt, the cruxifiction story...
quote: You may repeat yourself endlessly and it won't the assertions true. The evidence does not exist.
quote: So the evidence is there for evolution. Glad you are coming around.
quote: Yes. It is typical of creationists to repeat themselves endlessly.
quote: And? What is the point? Apparently there is some connection to an exchange in post #48.
A myth is something that is legendery, and not proven, but believed as fact. At least, that's my definition. The mountains of evidence are just not there. ============Then you know how I feel about your Bible. ============ What does the number of followers or the length of time a religion lasts have to do with whether it is "something that is legendery, and not proven, but believed as fact?" Are you making the argument that age is a proof of truth? Then you should be Buddhist. It is an older religion. Or better still, Hindu, as it is even older. And both are still going strong.
quote: In a word, yes. The Vedas have molded civilization and history and have done so for much longer than the Bible has. Your arrogance is staggering and your ignorance of history is blinding.
quote: We have both. A. Everything is transitionalB. Mutation Wanna pose a tougher question?
quote: Yes, and one foot always falls in front of the other but you aren't limited to walking only one step.
quote: No one says that species evolve into a higher or lower anything. Populations just change.
quote: Creationist staple. Don't feel bad. No one else can support it either. Maybe you could look at the nylon-eating bacteria. What you have here is a mutation which allow this bacteria to digest nylon, a substance that did not exist until 50(?) years ago. Sure seems like new info to me. And it sure makes no sense in the 'can only lose information' context.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm quote: Sneaky, but you forgot part of the objection. Lets review.
There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool This is the part you did not address.
nor of this speciation at lightning speed. quote: First, you really must stop relying on not-science for your information. I looked up the bug in question, culex molestus, and found a more complicated tale than told at AIG. The change is so minor and is so fluid across the insects range that a lot of scientists don't consider it a seperate species. Not to mention:
Furthermore, intermediate forms with a mixture of molestus and pipiens traits were detected, suggesting that hybridization between the two forms was occurring. Now, I am quite happy with considering the insect a new species. The problem for you is that it is an insect and insects adapt rapidly. No secret there. Fifty years is a long time when you have a life cycle lasting three months. That one species of mosquito can make a minor change to adapt to the 'Tube' in a fifty years does not imply that 'the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and more' in a few centuries as your AIG article states. Lets see, at four generations per year you have 200 generations is fifty years at millions of individuals each generation and you come up with slight changes. With grizzly bears the female reaches maturity at four to seven years old, this means that on average in 200 years a grizzly populations goes through about 37 generations at a few hunded per generation. Comparing the two is silly and by extension, comparing any large animal with insect reproductive rates is silly.
They must have split many times into new species in the first few centuries thereafter, as the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and more.5 The observations on these underground mosquitoes are thus exciting news. quote: You are over simplifying the problem. You need for things to evolve from what is on the arc. Since the arc won't hold very many animals-- a few thousand tops-- you have a lot more change that you imagine.
quote: Please note that this is every bit as speciated as the mosquito example used by AIG. You are equivocating. You seem to be confusing Genus and species. First you make the point that the are in the Genus Cannis, then go on to define Kind as scientist define species. Which is it?
quote: This is absurd. WE CAN MEASURE THE RATE A MOUNTAIN GROWS. How exactly is it that erosion outstrips uplift if we can measure the uplift and get a positive number? Think about it. You are directly and blatantly contradicting what can actually be measured.
quote: oh, does it really? How long?
"Banks and Holzer [1] have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 106 ions / cm2.sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +- 1.5) x 106 atoms / cm2.sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." --- Dalrymple, 1984, p. 112 [1] Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind. Geophys. Res. J. 74: 6317-6332. [2] Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals. Geophys. Res. J. 77: 6194- 6201. quote: Don't be an idiot. This has been explained to you.
quote: Impossible that you would find a polystrate fossil without the assistance of the flood.
quote: Want to show me a whole tree or animal stretched out over many layers? And don't cite AIG. Actually, large parts of tree wouldn't be too odd. Trees petrify and after that they are pretty durable. I can even see bone being exposed and recovered. And lets think about gophers. Burrowing animals traverse many layers as they dig. Should one die in its hole it could leave a fossil across several layers. But what I want to see is something significant.
quote: LOL..... that is funny. How is it that you know? You just like this one? Ok. Now, prove it.
quote: BS. Anyone know where that MSH thread is where this came up?
quote: You have got to be joking.
quote: So you can't prove what you say then? There isn't any real science to it?
quote: The ONLY thing I could find about this was that Cram's opals aren't quite right. Nonetheless, the real point is that what we can do in the lab does not mean it could be done the same way outside the lab. We can make diamonds with a big hydraulic press, but is that how diamonds are made in the earth? Nope.
quote: Look. Support this crap or shut up. You are just making thing up to buttress your myth. I am very close to deciding not to bother with you.
EvC Forum: why creation "science" isn't science Thick Salt Beds (11) Thick salt beds formed by evaporation of sea water are a common feature of geologic columns in many parts of the world. The "young earth geologists" interpret almost all classic stratigraphic units as deposits produced during the flood year: hence, they must also account for interbedded salt formations as part of those events (Figure 6). Some of the more extensive salt formations with the U.S. are in the Jurassic of the Gulf Coast (Worrall and Snelson, 1989), the Silurian of the New York to Chicago region (Alling and Briggs, 1961; Smosna and Patchen, 1978), and the Permian of the Paradox Basin of Utah (Baars and Stevenson, 1982). In the center of the Paradox Basin these salts reach a depositional thickness of 1.5 km (Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Atlas, 1972) with at least 29 separate cycles of salt deposition (Hite, 1960). To deposit just these beds in a single year would require the salt to form at an average rate of 4 meters per day (17 cm per hour or 2.8 mm per minute) - and this by evaporation during a world-wide flood event!
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm quote: LOL.....
quote: You cannot have looked and remain so ignorant about so many relevant fields.
quote: Bloody hell.
EvC Forum: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.. quote: So you are quite happy selectively using your brain rather than using it all the time?
quote: No one was there to see God write the Book. There is no reason to believe that he did. So why should I care? It is myth.
quote: So you don't know what the scientists are doing? Maybe you should find out? Astronomy is based on exactly the same type of evidence as evolution-- observation and inference. Please make up you mind about what constitutes evidence.
quote: Which is why overwhelming numbers of scientists consider evolution to be the best theory we have? You can't be serious.
quote: Of course you haven't bothered to look, and likely don't even know what to look for. This means you are blindly spouting nonsense. Assertions don't make a thing true. Try it. Say "I don't have zits" about a hundred time and then see if magically becomes true.
quote: No one will tell you that there are not canyons in the MSH ash, but pyroclastic mudflows do not look like sedimentary rock and metamorphic rock. The MSH analogy is moronic.
quote: You did make it up. See, if you had a leg to stand on you would have given me a reference to a ice age climatic model, but you don't bother with details like evidence eh?
quote: This doesn't even address the point I made.
quote: Make your own arguments.
quote: ummmm... it has.
quote: Yup, and when you date something that is 250 million years old it hardly matters.
quote: In what universe?
quote: Why? Flood geologists have never been able to make this idea work.
quote: Uh-huh. And baked everything. The energy release would boil the oceans several times over.
quote: Yes, in the right time frame!!!! Why didn't they notice the flood?
quote: An addition of traits via some mutation doesn't really constitute a change in the average traits of the populations. Only when a selective force is involved do you have the average traits change.
quote: If, as you say, you are here to learn then start backing up what you say with hard evidence. AIG doesn't count. Look, for every one AIG 'researcher' there are thousands-- probably ten of thousand-- of scientists in the various related fields who will tell you that the stuff at AIG is crap. AIG is so flawed its silly. It is the Monty Python's Flying Circus of Science, but not nearly so clever.
quote: You mean your 'kind' definition that places kinds at the species level? Creationists don't typically do that because then you are forced into accepting that hundreds of millions of animals were on a boat just larger than the biggest of the old sailing ships.
quote: And the significance is?
quote: Why? The emergence of a new species does not mean the parent species dies out. You can have branching.
quote: What?
quote: Imagine you give someone a machine and instructions on how to use it. Then give them a test to perform. The people do the tests incorrectly and blatantly so, then publish that the machine is unreliable. The machine, not the methods are unreliable. AIG does just this with the radiometric dating. Only one example of many.
quote: Just cite the source and you won't have this problem.
quote: And seventy years ago it didn't exist. It was a virus called SIV. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by Admin, 01-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Peter, It wouldn't hurt you to actually make a case once in awhile. Here we have typical PeterB bombast and nothing more. Why should I care? Got references maybe? I am, by the way, aware that the date HIV first differentiated from its parent population(s) is disputed. Some people put it at 50 years ago, some at 70, some at 200, some at 700, some at several thousand. Whatever the case, I don't see anyone denying that it did speciate. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Please note that the operative phrase is 'not proven' rather than 'disproven.' There is a difference. 'Not proven' is where you have not enough evidence to prove something true. Something that is 'not proven' may eventually be proven true or false. 'Disproven' is where some bit of evidence directly contradicts an assertion.
quote: Sorry bud, more AIG fantasy.
quote: Funny that only those who start out believing in the flood ever see the evidence for it.
quote: Josephus is not convincing. The language is vague except for the part that was inserted 400 years after the fact. How do I know this? Part of the passage concerning Jesus does not appear in the oldest copies of the relevant works.
quote: None of whom ever knew Christ. They all wrote long after the fact.
quote: Oh? Which ones?
quote: Ah, the creationist staple-- denial.
quote: But more than 600 years before the advent of christianity... You are a christian right?
quote: Got your facts wrong again. The oldest book of the Bible-- Job- dates to somewhere around 1500 BC. The rest of the Bible is much younger-- Genesis, as you know it, dating from about 1000 BC, for example. The Rig Vedas date from around the same time. That is, THE WHOLE THING dates from around 1500 BC, not just the oldest fragment of it.
quote: Actually, I didn't.
quote: Enormous amounts of mathematics and technology and science that you think are western were actually borrowed from Hindu and Buddhist traditions. In fact, parts of your Bible prolly came from them as well.
quote: Seems like the exploitation of a continent did that.
quote: Now you have opened the door for me to point out the atrocities done in Jesus' name. See, if you can use the 'good' the Bible has done and use prevailing social structures and climates as proof, then I can use the nasty bits as proof that the Bible causes hell on Earth. Will you accept that as fair play? I doubt it. I suspect that you'll tell me that I can't criticise the Bible for the actions of people. Well, that being so, you can't use the actions of people to prove the Bible to be good. Get it? Be careful of the doors you open.
quote: Money.
quote: Dating the Bible is no easy trick either, but most things that old are like that.
quote: Wow. You don't know you Bible history do you?
quote: Try reading Lost Discoveries by Dick Teresi.
Lost Discoveries explores the mostly unheralded scientific breakthroughs from the ancient world - Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, Africans, New World, and Oceanic tribes, among others, and from the non-European medieval world. By example, the Egyptians developed the concept of the lowest common denominator and the Indians developed the use of zero and negative numbers. The Chinese observed, reported, and dated eclipses between 1400 and 1200 B.C. The Chinese also set the stage for later Hindu scholars, who refined the concept of particles and the void. Five thousand years ago, Sumerians were able to assert that the earth was circular. Islamic scientists fixed problems in Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology. The Quechuan Indians of Peru were the first to vulcanize rubber. quote: And we are the worse for it as well.
quote: LOL... yes, 150 years ago. Guess that is current for a creationist though.
quote: How many bones do you find as you walk around outside? Why is this? Could it be that most bones don't survive to be found? Gee....
quote: Of course, you don't even know how paleantologists piece together the evidence. There is a lot of measurement, and lot of math and not nearly as much guessing as you seem to believe. It is actually quite logical. You should try it, if only to avoid arguing about something you know nothing about.
quote: creationist staple!!!! What we've got ain't never good enough. LOL.... Sorry but we only have what we have.
quote: LOL......
quote: Actually, most mutations are pretty much neutral as concerns an organisms chances of survival.
quote: What is an "information increasing" mutation? Any copy error produces a gene that is DIFFERENT from the gene that was copied. Different information is new information.
quote: You know the answer. What I think you don't realize is just how little change is needed to cause huge changes of body type.
University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science quote: So what? There is no great chain of being. Evolution is change. It isn't a plodding increase in complexity.
quote: So mutations can lead to adaptive change. Wham! You are an evolutionist.
quote: Wait. A bacterial population that couldn't digest nylon has developed the ability to digest nylon and this is not new to the bacteria? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I hope you will eventually learn to cite sources. Besides, AIG is wrong agian.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm#update ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
OK. I am officially protesting the removal of the 'reply quote' button.
Back to business........
quote: It doesn't matter. Arguing from lack of evidence is a logical fallacy. There are countless things for which "there is no evidence against"-- invisible monkeys, flying goats, vampires, ghosts, Valhalla, etc... None of these things have evidence against them, but none have any supporting evidence either. Until you have supporting evidence, a claim is in a limbo of meaninglessness along with anything I or anyone else can make up.
quote: Not to be harsh but how would you know? You are clueless about 90% of the science involved.
quote: ummmm.... I used bears because they were in this article. Did you have a point?
quote: It is a bad idea to describe evolution then follow up by saying it ain't so.
quote: Wait. So it isn't genetics but genes are involved? Come on, buddy, think this stuff through.
quote: Friendly advise. Massive quotes like this and frequent responses via url-pasting will quickly get on everyone's nerves. Please try to make your own arguments. So, for the record, I am skipping the bits where you respond only via quote of url. Cite sources but make your own arguments.
quote: Maybe you should reformulate this statement.
quote: Yes indeed. The nature of fossil preservation is no big secret. Complaining that it doesn't work like we want it to is just silly.
quote: Bacteria don't eat bone. In fact, very little does. The damage to bone is a side effect of being eaten by large predators. Now, being underground an animal practically is buried already, thus it is somewhat protected from large predators. Why is this not logical?
quote: Yes. The problem is that AiG doesn't bother with the truth that I am aware of. AiG is a propaganda machine. What they call science is ridiculous. Copy a few articles and take them to a university. Have a professor in a relevant field take a look. Have two professors. Take it to a hundred. Eventually, I hope you'll realize the truth.
quote: Bud, there were several versions of the same story and none of them were backed up by anything substantial. No supporting evidence, the claim is crap. If you are ok with this, fine, we'll move on but you will be admitting that the claim is unfounded. Otherwise, prove it.
quote: Sorry. It isn't. Who are the professional scientists who review the information? The editors? Sorry, that doesn't count as peer review.
quote: None of this is terribly groundbreaking nor earth-shattering. Why the focus on opal anyway? Reading about the stuff, I find that it is something of a sedimentary rock that forms in spaces between other rocks something like the way stalagmites form-- kinda sorta. I also find that some scientists think it only takes thousand years to form not millions, so it is not really a disproof of an old earth as you want it to be. skipping more url redirection....
quote: You can take this up here, for the sake of consolidating threads.
EvC Forum: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.. quote: Yes, now you are getting it. The evidence for atoms is inferential. We can't see them but we can infer their existence. It is the same process biologists use whether you like to believe so or not.
quote: So... a guy saw another guy write a book and this is proof that God wrote it? Absurd.
quote: Which is why AiG is not a scientific organization.
quote: Fabulous cop out, but you require a global conspiracy of scientists spanning hundreds of years to make this hold water. Finding real live actual evidence that overturns a prevalent theory is every scientist's wet dream.
quote: Common, but incorrect statement. Many argue about particular bits but not about the whole though the ToE has had some radical alterations since it was first proposed.
quote: I have not been to MSH. I have read outside of AiG though. Pyroclastic flows are not sandstone. Why is that contraversial?
quote: Now I know you are making stuff up. The key factor in tree ring formation is seasonal variation not mean colder temperatures. Ice ages were colder all the time not just in the summer.
quote: False. It has been detected in some coal though.
quote: Dated by what means? C-14 is wildly inaccurate past 50,000 years or so.
quote: No it doesn't. You misunderstand half-life. Half should disappear ins one half-life, another half of the remaining material should disappear in the second half life, and so on... C-14 becomes inaccurate around 50k years and older.
quote: Radioactive decay in the uranium-thorium isotope series. Fossil fuels that show c-14 correlate decently with radiation in the material.
Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits quote: Yes, because C14 does not work at 45m years old. It becomes wildly inaccurate... wow... right about the age it gave. You apply the wrong test and you get a bad answer. Go figure.
quote: I don't know what you are talking about. Got more info?
quote: You don't have time during a one year flood for this sort of dynamic. Too much is happening too fast.
quote: So Noah gets off the ark with his seven passengers and a couple of days later sumer pops up with a population of a few million? How can I take this seriously?
quote: I don't like them because they have been refuted countless times but keep spreading the same garbage to new minds.
quote: Simple and more complex is misleading. Both species evolve but in different ways. Some ways work. Others don't.
quote: If you mean that isolated population will tend to change relative to other populations, then yeah. This happens. You choice of words make me think you feel there is some intelligent force molding species.
quote: Then we've got the order wrong. It happens. This isn't a negation of the concept though.
quote: So whatever evidence you are presented you will dismiss it then? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Lets see. You made the statement that there is no evidence against a mythical large gene pool as if this lack of evidence is some kind of meaningful proof. I pointed out that it isn't. You respond with a childish "well you are too." If god created life in a perfect state, what happened? Why is there no evidence? Why does all the evidence point away from this idea? Why do you think a large gene pool equates to 'perfect' anyway?
quote: Another childish jab.... You appear to know next to nothing about geology, physics, biology .....
quote: You don't get to define evolution. If you do, then attack your own definition you are attacking a straw man. That is, you aren't attacking the ToE at all, but your misrepresentation of it instead.
quote: Then you ought to be able to take a wolf and breed it into a collie in a few years.
quote: Bud, the burrowing animal idea was meant as one possible way to get a 'polystratic' fossil. It wasn't meant to explain the whole fossil record.
quote: You won't find much argument that burial of some kind is a very good thing for a future fossil.
quote: Why does that picture look edited? It also does not look like it is standing up. Something is wrong here.
quote: I've been pointing out deceptions since we started this discussion. You'll never see the evidence unless you open your eyes.
quote: It isn't interesting. It is a string of deceptions like so much else you post as evidence.
quote: It doesn't show anything, just asserts. This is getting silly.
quote: But where are the publications they released on the coal forming process? That is the question. I can't find anything, but I can find creationists claiming that Argonne did this and that.
quote: Bacteria have hemoglobin. But who am I kidding, you have already been given a great deal of evidence and simply ignore it.
quote: For every one of them you can find a thousand scientist who disagree. That is why it isn't scientific. The vaste majority of learned opinions are thrown out. Only the creationist ones get to stay.
quote: Imagine a sandbox full of flour and another full of cured concrete. Run a waterhose onto the flour and see how long it takes to cut a canyon. Now, turn around and argue that the same would happen if you ran the waterhose over the concrete. It is ridiculous.
quote: Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits quote: See what I mean about you not knowing anything about the relevant science?
quote: I'm surprised you knew that.
quote: Or you say, "I still don't have enough info." Who took the samples and what were the methods used?
quote: And? A time frame would be helpful. Referencing one mythical event with another doesn't help much. At most you have a few hundred years for the population to hit many millions. That isn't enough time.
quote: LOL.... Evolutionary progression? Did you really say that? Wow....
quote: Sorry. Where is the problem with changing one's mind to match the evidence? ... deleting preaching.... ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 01-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Nice post, Ipetrch.
I'm bumping your post. Maybe tnb won't run for cover as he appears to threatening to do. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Oh come on now.... just trying to provoke you.
quote: Think about the half-life issue, about which you have nobly admitted to being in error. Any argument built on this error must be discarded. You'll find that creationist arguments are all based on similar errors, but you must continue this discussion or you will continue to believe things which simply are not true. You don't want that eh? If you could be wrong about the c-14, what else do you misunderstand? Did not you cite an ICR article as evidence of the c-14 half-life? On what else have you been misled?
quote: Oh? What errors? It matters.
quote: Carbon dating can't date to millions of years. Other dating methods can. Some half-lives: Potassium 40 1.25 billion yrs Rubidium 87 48.8 billion yrs Thorium 232 14 billion years Uranium 235 704 million years Uranium 238 4.47 billion years Carbon 14 5730 years
quote: Yes, and scientists are aware of this fact and can account for it. For the most part, it seems to have been fairly stable though until the atom bomb experiments in the '50s.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1997/c14note.html quote: Hang on. Your second sentence violates the first one. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024