|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6223 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists Turn | |||||||||||||||||||
Trump won ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1555 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: I just listed a big bang site, lol no it isn't though probably the most used. ------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trump won ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1555 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: -pathlights That should explain why I feel this way, see it is nearly impossible for that to happen. ------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trump won ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1555 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Or howabout this guys inferences on The big bang theory. Including binaries:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?foru... No evolutionist has responded either I might add. ------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1782 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No evolutionist has responded either I might add. Might that be because evolution is biology, and the questions you're asking are cosmology? Does the phrase "division of fields" mean anything to you? But again, it's all just empyy assertion. He says that binaries can't form "by accident" but there's no evidence that's the case. It's just his opinion. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trump won ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1555 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
My opinion seems to be shared by many scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1782 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well, the two you've quoted. Now, I'm no cosmologist, and I haven't asked any, but I do read about astrophysics and stuff. And I've never heard anybody say that there's anything unexplainable about binary systems.
So far you haven't presented anything that would prevent two bodies from orbiting each other on their own. Is there some mechanism that you think prevents it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trump won ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1555 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
By random processes it is almost impossible to form binary objects. As sources I've quoted above for proof.
------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1782 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As sources I've quoted above for proof. But the sources you've quoted only offer opinion. Opinion isn't evidence. Your sources don't give any more evidence than you do. If you're going to say that binary objects are impossible, then all orbits are impossible. If it's your opinion that no objects come into orbit by themselves, well, I'll need to see evidence of God's own Hand putting them into place, right now. Because binary objects are being formed even now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trump won ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1555 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: Really? Where? It seems you are committing the crimes you accused me of. [This message has been edited by messenjaH the leader of evcforum, 09-01-2003] [This message has been edited by messenjaH, 09-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1782 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Really? Where? Out in space. Where else? Ok, I realize that's a non-answer. Unfortunately I have to go to work now so I can't look them up right now. Maybe somebody else could hit google for us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 1049 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Try in the Orion Molecular Cloud, or the Taurus or Serpens Molecular Clouds, or nearly anyplace else that astronomers look with infrared and millimeter wave telescopes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 6223 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Sorry coragyps i am not responding to your thread but merely launching a query. I have not had any creationists try to answer the questions in post#30 and I am wondering why.It is really not necessary to be correct. The point of it is to see what your world view is compared to that which has been thouroghly researched and tested over and over and acceptedas being the bets explanation of the data.Once I recieve some good level of response I will post the answers in order for you to see how even everyday events are taken for granted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6790 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
In fact sidelined, no creationist has answered or even attempted to answer your original question in the first post of this thread. Thus far 4 creationists have posted that they personally cannot fathom how evolution could account for the diversity of life...and then for whatever reason the thread went off track into cosmology...but regardless, it would seem that the creationists on this board are unable (and unwilling to try) to posit a
1. testable hypothesis of creation2. demonstrate how it is falsifiable 3. provide evidence supporting the hypothesis 4. how it better explains what is observed than competing theories thus far 1 and 2 have never been addressed. 3 has always been quotes from the bible or quotes from websites that quote from the bible4. consists of things like "evidence for ID is self evident" or "I cannot personally understand how this system could have evolved therefore it must have been god" type of arguments....the point is where are the creationists who ACTUALLY want to try to propose how to engage in science to support their position? Like god(s), I don't think they exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5510 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
messenJah,
Not a single one of your quotes supported your contention that orbiting bodies are unlikely. In fact, you provisded noithing to refute the standard astronomical model of stellar system formation, here. Mark ------------------"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6790 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
The beetle apparently does not need this gun as it is related to other beetles without such a defense mechanism..
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2002 Aug;24(2):228-48. Related Articles, Links Erratum in:Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003 Feb;26(2):334-6.. Phylogenetic relationships of the carabid subfamily Harpalinae (Coleoptera) based on molecular sequence data. Ober KA. Department of Entomology, 410 Forbes Building, Interdisciplinary Program in Insect Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. kober@uconnvm.uconn.edu The carabid subfamily Harpalinae contains most of the species of carabid beetles. This subfamily, with over 19,000 species, radiated in the Cretaceous to yield a large clade that is diverse in morphological form and ecological habit. While there are several morphological, cytological, and chemical characters that unite most harpalines, the placement of some tribes within the subfamily remains controversial, as does the sister group relationships to this large group. In this study, DNA sequences from the 28S rDNA gene and the wingless nuclear protein-coding gene were collected from 52 carabid genera representing 31 harpaline tribes in addition to more than 21 carabid outgroup taxa to reconstruct the phylogeny of this group. Molecular sequence data from these genes, along with additional data from the 18S rDNA gene, were analyzed with a variety of phylogenetic analysis methods, separately for each gene and in a combined data approach. Results indicated that the subfamily Harpalinae is monophyletic with the enigmatic tribes of Morionini, Peleciini, and Pseudomorphini included within it. Brachinine bombardier beetles are closely related to Harpalinae as they form the sister group to harpalines or, in some analyses, are included within it or with austral psydrines. The austral psydrines are the sister group to Harpalinae+Brachinini clade in most analyses and austral psydrines+Brachinini+Harpalinae clade is strongly supported. In addition there are more primitive i.e. ancestral versions of the bombadier beetle defense mechanism in some species... J Exp Biol. 2000 Apr;203 Pt 8:1265-75. Related Articles, Links Spray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (Metrius contractus). Eisner T, Aneshansley DJ, Eisner M, Attygalle AB, Alsop DW, Meinwald J. Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. te14@cornell.edu The bombardier beetle Metrius contractus discharges its defensive secretion as a froth that clings to its body. When attacked from the rear, it allows the froth to build up over the gland openings near the abdominal tip; when attacked from the front, it conveys the secretion forwards along special elytral tracks. M. contractus has two-chambered defensive glands typical of bombardier beetles, and its secretion, like that of other bombardiers, is quinonoid and hot. Its frothing mechanism, however, is unique for bombardiers and possibly illustrative of the ancestral glandular discharge mechanism of these beetles. M. contractus, thus, could be the least derived of extant bombardiers. Now why exactly is it impossible for this to have evolved?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025