Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 481 of 687 (523556)
09-11-2009 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by ICANT
09-10-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Time changes
ICANT writes:
The clocks that are flying have been set to the ground clock.
All those clocks are in sync.
I said my clock had not been adjusted to run with the ground clock.
In fact it is the same as the ground clock.
Therefore the ground clock will see it running faster as will all the other satellite clocks.
My clock will see all those clocks runninc slower.
My clock has not been altered from ground conditions therefore the pulse rate has been changed by velocity and gravity.
Since the pulse rate of the atom has been altered it is not measuring duration properly as it is pulsing at less than a second.
So my clock and the ground clock can not both be correct.
One of them is wrong.
ICANT, for the love of all that's green and fluffy, try to get your head around this thought experiment:
four atomic clocks - the most accurate you can get - are flown in airplanes and later on compared to a clock which hasn't moved.
If relativity is right, and the amount of travel is enough to see time-dilation (remember, it's a tiny, tiny effect at non-relativistic speeds), those clocks will no longer be in sync.
Are you happy with this thought experiment? It's a testable hypothesis.
If you don't accept this posit of relativity, give up now, it IS exactly what einstein said would happen.
Now here's the kicker: this experiment has been performed.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/.../Relativ/airtim.html
Can you guess what the outcome was? Can you?
Now, toddle off to a library or a computer or somewhere quiet enough for some study with the tools necessary to become enlightened.
Flying clocks around the world in planes is *exactly* the same as putting them in orbit.
Yes the clocks were synchronized when in the same reference frame.
The clocks in orbit WILL show a different time from a clock on the ground.
YES they are all correct.
NO they don't both agree.
Do you understand yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 11:03 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:06 AM greyseal has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 482 of 687 (523565)
09-11-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by ICANT
09-10-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Time changes
Since the pulse rate of the atom has been altered it is not measuring duration properly as it is pulsing at less than a second.
It depends on who's observing it. It's relative. If you are observing it from the ground, yes. If you are sitting on the satellite watching it, no.
So my clock and the ground clock can not both be correct.
They can be and are both correct ... from the point of view of a particular observer.
They can be and are both wrong ... from the point of view of another observer.
There is no such thing as a time that is correct for all points of view. What's correct for an observer on the satellite is wrong from an observer on the ground. What's correct for an observer on the ground is wrong for an observer on the satellite.
If I understand what I read relativity say
You don't.
time stops when you reach the speed of light
You never reach the speed of light. Nothing with mass can. But you can get arbitrarily close to the speed of light, and slow time down until it almost stops relative to an outside observer that is not traveling anywhere near the speed of light. No matter how fast you go, you will think that your clock is running correctly.
If you can exceed the speed of light time will then run backwards and you will be traveling in time.
You cannot exceed the speed of light so the rest of your statement is meaningless.
But then we come to Godels postulate that if time did not pass it would be no time at all.
Godel's postulate, if it exists, has yet to be related to the real world.
It seems when the quantum gravity theory is worked out time will disappear.
You don't understand the most fundamental facts of relativity. Your assessment of what string theory promises is without any meaning whatsoever.
Let's see. So far you've claimed Kant (who never heard of relativity theory) found some problem with relativity theory, you've claimed that Godel found some problem with relativity theory (but the only trace of this is a short popular science article), you've found a nutjob who doesn't even understand basic Newtonian physics who claims there's a problem with relativity, you've claimed that nobody knows what spacetime is based on your theory that "why" and "what" are synonyms, and you don't even know the name of the most prestigious science prize (try googling "pulitzer prize).
In a medium famous for ignorant loons, you are one of the most ignorant and looniest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 11:03 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:12 AM JonF has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 483 of 687 (523571)
09-11-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by ICANT
09-10-2009 11:03 PM


Since the pulse rate of the atom has been altered it is not measuring duration properly as it is pulsing at less than a second.
So my clock and the ground clock can not both be correct.
One of them is wrong.
I'm a spaceship. Ground control sends me a message which says that by the time that we receive this message we will be 1 light year from earth. We send a reply which says "Hello World!". At this point we are travelling at 50% of the speed of light. So about 150,000 kms (relative to earth).
Now - we watch that signal moving away from us and we measure its speed: 300,000 kms (relative to us). Therefore, by addition the light must be travelling at 450,000 kms. This means that the signal will get to earth in less than a year.
Why does the earth receive the message, "Hello World!" exactly one year later by their reckoning?
I would love to hear how you square the constancy of the measured speed of light with your concept of 'duration'.
Or how about this. I have two lasers that fire 'at the same time' in opposite directions. They are aimed at clocks that are equal distance apart. When the clock receives a burst of laser light they will reset to 12:00. I put this arrangement on a train travelling at half the speed of light.
Clock..........L..........Clock
direction ------>
From inside the train my friend presses the 'on' button. He observes that the light reaches both clocks at the exact same time so they both read "12.00".
But I'm outside the train. The clock on the left is moving towards the laser beam and so the laser has less distance to travel. The clock on the right is moving away from the laser beam and so has to move further. So the clocks are not synchronised.
Or how about a laser on a train moving at very high speed. We measure time by measuring the distance the laser travels, and using speed = distance / time rearranged to time = distance / speed.
But as per the above experiment, two different observers measure the laser beam travelling different distances and so calculate that it takes a different amount of time for the laser to reach its destination.
Well, to quote you, "One of {us} is wrong." Who? Or maybe none of this happens and we get a different result. What do you think would happen and why? These kinds of questions might help us to get an understanding of your model of the cosmos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 11:03 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:16 AM Modulous has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 484 of 687 (523600)
09-11-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by ICANT
09-10-2009 5:44 PM


Re: Life from non Life
I will already have all the answers.
I sincerely hope you will, but I have to say, I doubt you (or I) ever will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 5:44 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 485 of 687 (523697)
09-12-2009 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by mike the wiz
09-10-2009 7:28 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
My point about science, is that at the very least you allude to the fact that I do not dismiss certain theories, such as gravity, because I assume you think I am biased.
Since evolution is even more solidly evidenced than gravity, it is an interesting question as to why you are picking on evolution. After all, we have a mechanism for evolution. We can make it happen right in front of our eyes at will.
We still have no idea what gravity is or how to make it happen.
Now, it is quite possible for scientists to disagree on aspects of science. After all, it isn't like scientists have no capacity for independent thought. The entire process of science involves the search for mistakes that other scientists have made.
However, you are confusing the debate two mathematicians might have over whether or not the six millionth digit of pi is a 2 for an argument over whether or not pi is an integer. There are plenty of debates in science regarding evolution, but they are not about the existence of evolution but rather the method by which it happens.
You don't question gravity because you experience it every day. You understand the sheer silliness of questioning it because you are constantly being affected by it. Doesn't matter that we have no idea what it actually is and no way to manipulate it, the evidence for it is overwhelming, right?
So why are you picking on evolution which has even more evidence behind it than gravity? It's because you don't see it every day. You don't wake up in the morning and see the evolution around you. It takes work, sophisticated equipment, and patience to see it, but it can be done and has been done so often that it is just as ridiculous to question it. Not only can we see it happen, we can make it happen at will. We know of mechanisms to control it. We know the reasons why it works. The evidence for it is even more overwhelming than anything that ever existed for gravity.
So why are you picking on evolution? What could possibly be the reasoning for hesitating?
quote:
Infact, all I am is extra-tentative.
No, you deny things that we have seen right in front of our own eyes. You deny things that can be reproduced at will. You don't merely withhold judgement regarding the explanation of certain events...you deny that the events ever happened in the first place.
quote:
but I won't go a step further and believe an abiogenesis happened
What on earth does abiogenesis have to do with anything?
This is a serious question. Why do you keep bringing this up? Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. There is no theory of abiogenesis. There is no evidence of abiogenesis.
Why are you doing your damnedst to equate the two?
quote:
Theories are accepted, and then not.
Indeed, but why? Why are theories rejected? This is a serious question. I want to hear your answer. Why do you think theories get rejected?
And what does that do to the previous observations that were made to justify the rejected theory?
quote:
So you shouldn't make out that I am rejecting science, or partaking in special pleading.
But that would require me to lie. Why do you want me to lie?
quote:
I think the fossil record shows dead things.
And nothing more? There is absolutely nothing to be learned about the body of a once-living thing by examining it and the environment in which it was found?
Are you really willing to let murderers out of prison, then? For the exact same techniques that we use to examine murder victims are used to examine fossils. If the science is bogus, why aren't you picketing the courthouse?
quote:
I don't think the fossils show evolution. I don't think they show time.
And thus, you reject science. Could you please explain why it is impossible to determine the age of a fossil?
quote:
I have been told, that one fossil can have two different dates
You have been told wrong.
quote:
and that those dates are majorly different.
And that isn't true. Who told you this? Why did you accept the claim? Did you do any research on your own regarding it? Did you look up the various journal articles regarding the physics, geology, and chemistry involved? Did you do any research of any kind at all?
quote:
There are other arguments and points, such as polystrate fossils.
Why do you think polystrate fossils are a problem? Again, who told you that they were? Why did you accept the claim? Did you do any research on your own regarding it? Did you look up the various journal articles regarding the physics, geology, and chemistry involved? Did you do any research of any kind at all?
Have you considered the possibility that the problem is not the science but rather your ignorance and gullibility?
quote:
That's ad logicam. You can only say that Behe was wrong, because mike the wiz was not, has not, ever mentioned irreducible complexity.
Huh? "Ad logicam" is the error that because the logic behind an argument is fallacious, the conclusion being justified by the argument is false.
What on earth does this have to Behe and his inability to show even the tiniest example of "ID" he claims is so pervasive? This isn't "ad logicam." This is basic science: Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. The default position is always for nothing, not something. Until you can show something, we have no reason to consider it being there, especially when other processes seem to be capable of giving us the results we see.
Why do you need chocolate sprinkles?
quote:
I did not mention gods, or God.
Please, let us not play dumb. This is the very reason why "intelligent design" exists in the first place: It's creationism without the big, bad g-word. Whether or not you didn't use the word "god" really is irrelevant. Are you seriously trying to convince us that you think it might have been aliens?
quote:
My claim, not Behe's, is that if the ToE claims this, is it fair that an example of a bacteria flaggellum adapting to a disease, really a great example of evolution.
Huh? "Great"? What is with the subjective sneering? Either it is evolution or it is not.
Your disdain is irrelevant. The claim is that the flagellum couldn't have evolved at all. The evidence shows that it did.
So where is your evidence of "intelligent design"? Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. I do not need to show that two and two make four in order to show that they do not make five. It would certainly be sufficient, but it is not necessary (you do understand the difference between necessary and sufficient, yes?)
So ignoring all the evidence we have for evolution, assuming we started from a completely blank slate, there is still no evidence for "intelligent design" anywhere to be found.
quote:
You thought this was proof of macro evolution
Huh? "Macroevolution" is simply evolution that happens above the species level. How would the flagellum be such a thing?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 7:28 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 486 of 687 (523703)
09-12-2009 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by mike the wiz
09-10-2009 7:47 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
You infact shown Haeckel's picture in a fairly modern biology book, which was what I claimed.
Incorrect. You did see the attribute, yes? It is not Haeckel's drawing. It's an adaptation of it.
This is Haeckel's drawing:
You're still missing the point: Haeckel's claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was a claim that during the development of the human fetus from a fertilized egg through to a newborn, it goes through stages not where it simply resembles a fish but is actually a fish.
This is Lamarckism through and through: That somehow the physical experience of an organism gets written into its body and is physically passed onto later generations.
But the underlying observation that developing embryos look an awful lot alike early on, is hardly false. It is trivial to show:
Are you complaining that it's a drawing rather than a photograph? Is your argument that no, embryos don't actually look similar in early stages? That the entire field of embryology is a complete and utter fraud?
Haeckel's claims were wrong. Nobody supports them anymore. But his original observations (duplicated by von Baer and what Darwin relied on...remember, Origin of Species was published in 1859, Haeckel didn't publish his ontogeny claim until 1866 and his drawings didn't come onto the scene until 1874) were right. Yes, he altered his drawings in an attempt to support his claim, but the actual observations are correct.
This is what Darwin had to say:
Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the Origin as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal, and the close resemblance of the embryos within the same class.
Von Baer made such observations 30 years before Origin of Species was published. Since all vertebrates are chordates, this isn't exactly surprising as these are the basic structures that are common to all vertebrates. Later study into genes such as emx, otx, and Hox genes explains precisely why: These are the ancient genes that regulate body plan and since all vertebrates have the same basic body plan and since the body plan is formed first during embryogenesis, it is expected that vertebrate embryos look alike early on.
It's called the "phylotypic" stage.
Note, this doesn't mean that everything about the embryo develops according to evolutionary sequence. Von Baer pointed out that the extraembryonic membranes come along early and such membranes are a feature of mammals. This doesn't make the general process false, though.
quote:
I did not say nothing can be learned from embryology, I am indicating that it is not helpful to show false embryos in a biology book, without stating that such a diagram is utter falsehood.
You mean the embryos don't actually look alike?
That's a serious question: Are you saying that embryos of various vertebrates don't actually look alike early on?
quote:
The branchial arches in a human embryo, become tonsils, etc...
And what do they become in fish?
quote:
anyone, whether Einstein or Bob the builder, can term them "gill slits".
But why do you think they were called that? What do these structures become in fish?
Think carefully.
From Life: The Science of Biology by Purves/Orians (my bio textbook from college):
Most of the chordates in teh sea, and all those on the land, are vertebrates. The remaining speciesthe invertebrate chordatabelong to two subphyla that are extremely dissimilar in outward appearance. They share certain similarities in their embryonic development and display, at some point in their life cycle, the three diagnostic characteristics of the phylum Chordata: (1) a dorsal, hollow nerve cord; (2) clefts in the wall of the thorat region, usually referred to as gill slits, which circulate water during feeding and respiration; and (3) a notochord, a unique, stiffening rod located along the back.
Same book:
Despite their strikingly different appearances, the invertebrate chordates all have a dorsal, hollow neverous cord, gill slits, and a notochord at some time during their life cycles. (a) Tunicates (subphylum Urochordata) resemble tadpoles as larvae, but the adults lose all the diagnostic chordate features except gill slits, which are highly developed into a large basket used to filter food from the water. The direction of water flow in a typical solitary tunicate is shown with arrows in this diagram. (b) The external form of a solitary tunicate is readily seen in this photograph of Molgula manhattenensis from Long Island Sound. (c) Lancets (subphylum Cephalochordata) are small, fishlike marine animals that also use their gill slits to filter small food particles from the water. When feeding they are mostly buried in sand with only the anterior ends of their bodies exposed. (d) The general body structure of a lancet is shown by this specimen; note the large gill basket and the stiff dorsal notochord that extends from the front end of the head (hence the name, Cephalochordata) to the tail.
So it seems that these same structures, these "gill slits" that you seem to have a problem with, become yet another structure in other animals.
Same book:
In the Devonian Period, generally referred to as the Age of Fishes (but recall that fishes are still the most numerous and species-rich of the vertebrates), an immense variety of new kinds of fishes evolved in the seas and fresh waters in company with the agnaths. Among the first to appear were the archaic placoderms (class Placodermi; see Figure 6 in Chapter 41). Their jaws were derived from some of the cartilaginous or bony hyoid arches that support the gill region (Figure 36.)
Are you saying there is no such structure as these gill slits and arches?
quote:
Does this mean that if something in an embryo of a none-human looks like a penis, I should call those "rudimentary penis", even if it becomes an arm or something?
Huh? Do you seriously not understand what the gill slits and arches become in fish? Do you truly not understand that these structures are present in ALL chordates?
quote:
So now it isn't what i claimed - pictures in a book, but infact the goal posts have spread out to become, "titles and the complete context surrounding the references"?
Incorrect. It has always been full and complete context. You seem to have forgotten, mike, that this is the internet and words stick around. We can easily look up what was said. Here it is, from Message 374
Prove it. What are the titles of these "modern biological textbooks"? And beyond that, what exactly is the accompanying text that is printed with the pictures should there be such a textbook that includes them?
Now, what exactly did you think I meant when I said, "accompanying text that is printed with the pictures," if not "context"?
quote:
I was bang on accurate the first time.
Incorrect. In the example that I gave of an educational source using the picture, there is no mention of "biogenetic law," "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," or any other such nonsense. Instead, it simply showed that embryos of vertebrates are very similar early on and then diversify.
Are you saying that isn't true?
quote:
Haeckel's pictures are indeed used in biology books.
But "what exactly is the accompanying text that is printed with the pictures"?
Surely you're not saying that vertebrate embryos don't look alike early on?
quote:
A "sorry mikey" would have been more mature of you.
But that would require me to lie. Why do you want me to lie?
Question: Why was it I was able to find what you were trying to justify? Why do I have to do your homework for you?
quote:
Do you think there is a biogenetic law? I don't.
Neither do I. What makes you think there is any textbook anywhere that advocates such? In the source that I quoted to you, where is the claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"?
See, this is why I asked you to provide "the accompanying text that is printed with the pictures." Your complaint is exactly as predicted: If the word "Haeckel" appears in the text, then it's immediately to be discarded.
Are you saying that vertebrate embryos are not similar early on?
quote:
You have to prove that certain rudimentary shapes are all logically "gill" arches.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
No, the shock isn't the demand that I have to justify my claim. It's that you think it hasn't been done. It's that you haven't done any research at all into the question. You haven't opened a single book on biology to look up embryological development to actually see the gill slits and arches and see how they develop in different chordates into different things.
What do you think the gill slits and arches become in fish?
Or are you saying that these structures don't exist?
quote:
This means an assumption that anything that looks like a gill is infact not a branchial arch, but a gill.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
You seriously believe this? You seriously think that biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist?
That's not actually a real structure?
quote:
If it was a gill at the beginning
But it's not a gill at the beginning. Just as the gonads are undifferentiated in the human embryo and don't become ovaries or testes until about the 53rd day of gestation, the gill slits and arches don't become gills until later on during gestation.
What do you think those structures become in fish?
Or are you saying those structures don't exist?
quote:
That mammals have branchial arches that develop into different structures
Hold it right there.
What do you think those structures become in fish?
quote:
t they were never gills anyway.
Indeed.
But what do they eventually become in fish? After all, at fertilization you're just a single cell. You have no bones, no skin, no blood.
What does that single cell eventually become?
Brainstem:
1. There are six groups of cell columns, one is added to the alar and one to the basal
plates.
2. Alar = GSA, SVA, GVA
3. Basal = GVE, SVE, GSE
4. SV = special visceral - these are cells that receive information from or innervate
striated muscle formed from gill arches. Ex: larynx, pharynx, muscles for vocalization,
uvula, and palate
5. The alar plate grows extensively laterally, and most proliferation comes from the alar
plate, sensory.
-- http://www1.indstate.edu/.../anderson/neurotext/dev1lec.html
This is what you're trying to argue against, mike. That all of these people have all made a horrendous mistake in watching these structures turn into gills in fishes but cartilage structures and the jaw in humans.
quote:
What do you expect me to do - go off of the fraudulent drawings?
Hold it right there.
What was fraudulent about them?
Be specific. What, precisely, was the problem with Haeckel's drawings?
Are you saying that vertebrate embryos don't like alike early on?
quote:
Perhaps back up the claim that these arches start out looking exactly the same in all mammals.
You do realize that this demand of yours is equivalent to demanding that I "back up the claim that the sky is blue," yes? Indeed, we do not take for granted that the sky is blue, but it is such a trivial thing to do that for you to hold your breath and throw a temper tantrum over it simply shows that you actively refuse to learn anything.
Did you bother to look anything up? During this discussion, have you tried doing any research? Did you look at a biology textbook? Have you researched anything regarding comparative embryology in general or gill slits and arches in particular?
I'm happy to back it up, but I get the feeling that you won't accept any of it. Not even if grabbed you by the scruff of the neck and shoved your face into a microscope to look at it.
quote:
If you reduce complexity, they will all look exactly the same at their rudimentary beginnings
No, not completely. There are differences between them. As mentioned above, mammals get the extraembryonic membranes. Fish, not being mammals, won't get them. But since fish and mammals are both chordates and since one of the defining characteristics of a chordate is the presence of gill slits at some point during development, then perhaps we might want to mention that fact when discussing biology.
quote:
therefore logically, that we all start out as sperm and egg could also indicate evolution.
Indeed. And ya wanna know why?
Because we don't all start out as sperm and egg. There are at least two other methods of reproduction out there that I can think of off the top of my head.
Your homework is to do some research and find out the various methods of reproduction that exist in the biological landscape.
quote:
Not very powerful reasoning to me!!
Considering how little knowledge you have demonstrated here concerning evolution in general and biology in particular, considering how little homework you do, considering how infrequently you bother ever trying to find out something on your own by visiting a library and doing some research, are you really surprised that you don't find it powerful?
Because it is.
quote:
At the beginning, in embryos, there are similarities. This is because if you reduce a 3D letter "t" and a 3D letter "l", as they get lesser and lesser, they will start to look alike. If we only have a line left for both, they will look exactly the same.
Are you seriously claiming that the world community of biologists have made a horrible mistake regarding basic anatomy? That the structures in mammals and fish don't arise from the very same embryonic tissue?
quote:
It's called a reduction of the make-up in regards to the same matter.
No, it's called complete ignorance on your part regarding embryology.
What books have you read on the subject? Have you done any research into this at all of any kind?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 7:47 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:21 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 489 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:32 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 490 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:48 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 487 of 687 (523704)
09-12-2009 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by ICANT
09-10-2009 7:52 AM


ICANT writes:
quote:
Is there 1 living creature on planet earth today that was not produced by a life form?
Huh? Did life only get started today? Are you seriously claiming that the biochemical landscape of today has been precisely consistent for all time?
Question: Are you saying there has always been life somewhere in the universe or do you think that there was a time when there was no life followed by a time when there was life?
If the former, then you are advocating panspermia. Are you?
If the latter, then you necessarily proclaim that life comes from non-life.
You just don't know how.
Which is it, ICANT? Panspermia or biogenesis?
[Note, that is not a typo.]

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 7:52 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 2:05 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 496 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:59 AM Rrhain has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 488 of 687 (523762)
09-12-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by Rrhain
09-12-2009 2:59 AM


My original claim in which you responded to me, was this;
mike the wiz writes:
We have seen in the past how people like Haeckel formed his monera, and told us that a simple form led to present forms yet now we know that all life is complex, and that a cell is just as complex as our bodies.(His supposed gills are nevertheless in modern biological textbooks despite them being fake).
My claim is therefore that his drawings are in modern biological textbooks. To prove this I have to show this is so, as you assumed me a liar. Here is a quote from a source; We have to assume both scientists are therefore also liars.
LINK
link writes:
Contemporary Opposition to Haeckel: Michael Richardson and Stephen Jay Gould
Michael Richardson and his colleagues in an August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology, shows that Haeckel fudges his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. Richardson and his colleagues compare Haeckel’s embryos to photographs of actual embryos from all seven classes of vertebrates and find that Haeckel’s drawings clearly misrepresent the truth.[37] As well, Richardon notes that vertebrate embryos vary significantly in size and in the number of somites. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argues that Haeckel ‘exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions.’ As well, Gould argues that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified. Despite the outright criticisms and denunciations of Haeckel’s drawings of embryological development, some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in modern biology textbooks. Gould ultimately argues that one has the right to be ‘both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.’"
Any "other" subjects or ideas about what I am saying, I do not need to defend.
If I said, "pies are tastey", and you thought I was saying; "pies are animals", would you expect me to now prove pies are animals?
Infact, I wasn't lying. My claim is true, Haeckel's fraudulent misleading drawings are in modern biology books, which is all I claimed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 2:59 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by Rrhain, posted 09-18-2009 7:48 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 489 of 687 (523763)
09-12-2009 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by Rrhain
09-12-2009 2:59 AM


You seriously think that biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist?
No, once again I am not saying that at all. Which proves you don't understand English.
I have looked at the photographs and the embryo of a dog and a human was very different to the drawings you show. The tail is not as long in humans. The actual photographs show different shapes for different embryos.
I believe the brancial arches do exist, but these rudimentary forms didn't always look the same exactly, in the photographs I saw in the seminar.
It's not that I deny the existence, it's that they are not gill slits. I blob that looks like a penis and becomes an arm, isn't a penis-blob even if you name it that.
My only point is that these aren't "gills" in humans, at any stage. That these might become gills in fish is logically irrelevant because we wouldn't call these "human lung arches", would we? If these rudimentary arches are 100% accurately the same as one stage, as human branchial arches, then prove this, otherwise I am not obliged to believe that these rudimentary shapes are the "same" things in fish, human, dog. Actual photographs are what is needed, as I repeat, I do not trust you in the least. If you can show a fish, a dog and a human photograph of embryos at the same stage of development, then i will change my mind. That is your homework, not mine, because it is you who wanted to persue this in detail when it wasn't the topic.
If you are so confident they will be like the drawings, then show us. The likes of Gould disagree.
I pointed out something sound when I said that if they never become gills at all, in anyway, in say, a human or a dog, then why should they be called gill slit? Why should we believe that slightly similar rudimentary shapes prove something about gills where there are no actual gills, only rudimentary shapes?
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 2:59 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by Rrhain, posted 09-18-2009 6:58 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 490 of 687 (523765)
09-12-2009 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by Rrhain
09-12-2009 2:59 AM


Incorrect. You did see the attribute, yes? It is not Haeckel's drawing. It's an adaptation of it
WAHAHAHAHAHA. It looks EXACTLY THE SAME.
A human embryo looks NOTHING like the depiction.
My friend, it's that mikey really did know what he was saying, that's your problem. If you care to look at a human embryo, you will at no time find it looking like the drawing you provided.
As you can see in the following picture, the grotesque exaggeration in your presented drawings, is that of the region of the brancial arches, whereas reality seems to show something different;
HUman embryo
I could not find a photograph of anything that looked like your drawing, with those protruding "gill slits" that don't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 2:59 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by Rrhain, posted 09-18-2009 7:11 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 491 of 687 (523766)
09-12-2009 1:56 PM


Can anyone notice the difference?
In the drawing, we get a worm with gills, but in reality, we can not see these arches, as being anything meaningful. All we see is a human in a rudimentary form becomeing.............a human. Can we at any stage see any gills?
Do all mammals start out as fish? Not from the photograph of a human!
As we can see, anything before these developmental stages are not going to tell us anything about a recognized structure such as gills.
Think; If you had never seen a human before, could you guess, from looking at these pictures, what a human was going to become? I know I couldn't. So then logically, how can such rudimentary "shapes" be called "gill slits" in the first place, when you could not relate such primal blobs to anything significant untill they are substantially formed.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2009 11:40 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 542 by Rrhain, posted 09-18-2009 7:33 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 492 of 687 (523769)
09-12-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by Rrhain
09-12-2009 3:06 AM


Instead of guessing what he is saying, and then offering a false dichotomy, how about actually reading his statement.
I.e. 100% of the "facts" show life coming from life, and that every single form is complex.
Therefore, are we obliged, through "no facts whatsoever", to believe in rudimentary biological forms. That is my question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 3:06 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by Rrhain, posted 09-18-2009 7:53 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 493 of 687 (524064)
09-14-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by greyseal
09-11-2009 7:20 AM


Re: Time changes
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
If relativity is right, and the amount of travel is enough to see time-dilation (remember, it's a tiny, tiny effect at non-relativistic speeds), those clocks will no longer be in sync.
Doesn't the clocks tick different if one clock is at sea level and one at 29,000' above sea level.
greyseal writes:
Flying clocks around the world in planes is *exactly* the same as putting them in orbit.
Not quite as the ones in orbit are a bit higher and effected a little more by gravity.
greyseal writes:
The clocks in orbit WILL show a different time from a clock on the ground.
Not the ones in the GPS satellites.
greyseal writes:
NO they don't both agree.
All the GPS satellite clocks agree with the clock on the ground.
My clock is the only one that does not agree with all the others. It does not agree because it was not adjusted for a different tick rate which is necessary for them to agree, because my clock in the satellite is 11,000 miles from the earth. The gravity effect on the clock is a lot less therefore it ticks faster.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by greyseal, posted 09-11-2009 7:20 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by JonF, posted 09-14-2009 12:29 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 508 by greyseal, posted 09-14-2009 3:46 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 494 of 687 (524066)
09-14-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 482 by JonF
09-11-2009 8:49 AM


Re: Time changes
Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
It depends on who's observing it. It's relative. If you are observing it from the ground, yes. If you are sitting on the satellite watching it, no.
Are you saying that my clock that was built in the earth frame and then put into orbit is not effected by earth's gravity if I am sitting in the satellite with it, (keeps perfect time) but if I am on the ground it does effect it (runs fast}?
JonFYou cannot exceed the speed of light so the rest of your statement is meaningless.
Tell that to two entangled particles. Their information is communicated instantly, no matter how far apart they are. That is why Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance".
JonF writes:
(try googling "pulitzer prize).
Isn't that what you would get for the greatest story of the decade even if it was science fiction.
Now if you could prove spacetime existed and what it was you would probably get a Nobel Prize in Physics.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by JonF, posted 09-11-2009 8:49 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by JonF, posted 09-14-2009 12:20 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 495 of 687 (524067)
09-14-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by Modulous
09-11-2009 9:21 AM


Re ICANT'S cosmos
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
But as per the above experiment,
When did any of these experiment's take place?
I didn't know we had spaceships and trains that could travel 93,000 miles per second.
Modulous writes:
These kinds of questions might help us to get an understanding of your model of the cosmos.
ICANTS position on the cosmos.
Space exists in eternity.
Things exist in space.
All these things were created and are held together by the life giving form that beget life on earth.
Time was invented by man to measure existence/duration.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2009 9:21 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2009 1:45 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024