PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 18 19 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:25 AM on August 26, 2009 :If evolution were true, evolutionists wouldn't have to keep making excuses for why gradualism is absent; we would all see it clearly. ...
We say 'look everything was fully formed, diverse and functional at first appearance in the fossil record. Big gaps are apparent between different created kinds'


First, there is evidence of gradual changes.  For example, thee hominid finds.  There is also evidence for relatively rapid change.  What there is not evidence for is some supernatural guy poofing creatures into being willy-nilly.  

As I noted earlier, the fact that you want to debate about trilobites which appeared and went extinct long before 6,000 years ago indicates that tacitly you've already accepted the basic arguments in favor of evolution.  At best, it appears that you have long periods of time where there were successive acts of supernatural creation and extinction.  That's not exactly what is says happen in Genesis.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:34 AM on August 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:47 AM on August 26, 2009 :
Apoapsis:
Quote from Lester10 at 06:47 AM on August 25, 2009 :
And sometimes scientists dogmatically hold on to basically incorrect presuppositions and believe what they have no evidence for and keep adjusting the model to keep it looking as if the basic presuppositions are in fact correct when they are in fact not.



What's your method of self-correction?


From 'Darwin's Enigma' - by Luther Sunderland

"It is permissable for scientists to attempt to salvage a theory that has flunked a test by making secondary modifications to the theory and trying to make it fit new facts not previously considered. A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses continually being made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific because it has not been modified enough."


Thanks Lester, it would be impossible to find a better example of prideful arrogance. -- The leading creationist organization says you are wrong but you can't admit it.

You left out this part:

If Answers In Genesis says you are wrong, can you admit it?

Quote from Apoapsis at 7:52 PM on August 24, 2009 :
Straight from Answers In Genesis:

Far Out Claims About Astronomy

The Shrinking Sun

In past years, certain selected data appeared to show a decreasing size for the sun. This suggested that the sun might be powered by gravitational collapse rather than nuclear fusion. Since gravitational collapse is not as efficient as fusion, the sun could not last for billions of years.

There also was an earlier problem with missing neutrinos, which are particles emitted by the solar nuclear fusion process. The neutrino deficit once seemed to support the notion that the sun is shrinking rather than powered entirely by fusion.

However, modern solar telescopes do not detect solar shrinkage. It seems that the original data merely indicated small oscillations or vibrations of the sun. Furthermore, the missing neutrinos now have been accounted for; newer instruments detect precisely the number of neutrinos expected from solar fusion. Although the sun may be undergoing a very small amount of gravity collapse, we can be confident that the sun produces energy by nuclear fusion, not an inward collapse.



BTW, the Theory of gravity is indeed a "Theory in Crisis", it should be replaced in the next 10 years or so.  The Law of gravity was replaced nearly 100 years ago.

1 Samuel 2:3 (New International Version)

3 "Do not keep talking so proudly
      or let your mouth speak such arrogance,
      for the LORD is a God who knows,
      and by him deeds are weighed.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:58 AM on August 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis

I answer things I have answers for. I don't speak if I have not investigated further. Quite clearly you are desperate for me to have prideful arrogance and it upsets you that I ignore your story about the shrinking sun. Unfortunately some creationist organizations disagree with others about various things for various reasons as do evolutionists very often disagree with one another. I have nothing to say about the shrinking sun until such time as I have something to say about the shrinking sun. I hope that that is ok with you. Thank-you.

BTW, the Theory of gravity is indeed a "Theory in Crisis", it should be replaced in the next 10 years or so.  The Law of gravity was replaced nearly 100 years ago.


It requires some modification to take other factors into consideration. That is not the same as the theory of evolution which cannot be tested, observed or repeated and requires continuous modification and which ignores the data when it is convenient to do so.

"Do not keep talking so proudly
     or let your mouth speak such arrogance,
     for the LORD is a God who knows,
     and by him deeds are weighed.


You should try reading your own quotes and learn by them.If I speak not at all, is that the same as pride and arrogance?



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:19 AM on August 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
That is not the same as the theory of evolution which cannot be tested, observed or repeated and requires continuous modification and which ignores the data when it is convenient to do so.


Lester has stated this so many times that he actually believes it!

ToE certainly does make predictions, and many successful ones at that.  Because it makes predictions, it can be tested.  And finally, it can be observed.

What proof?  Here's a good example, which has been mentioned previously numerous tiimes in other threads.  Why?  Because it has become a classic illustration what a powerful theory ToE really is.

Tiktaalik roseae.
The fossil record showed that 390 million years ago the only vertebrate creatures were fish.  There were, to be sure, fossils of lobe-finned fishes, but no evidence of land creatures.  30 million years later we see fossils of tetrapods, four-footed animals that walked on land.  ToE predicts that we should find a transitional fossil in the period between 360 - 390 million years ago.  A transitional fossil showing intermediate characteristics between lobe-finned fish (such as Eusthenopteron foordi - about 385 mya) and later tetrapod species (such as Acanthostega gunnari - about 365 mya).  ToE predicts that we should find a transitional fossil in strata about 375 million years old, and produced in a freshwater environment because both lobe-finned fish and ambphibians lived in freshwater.

Searching geology texts for maps of exposed freshwater strata of the right age, Neil Shubin (University of Chicago) and his colleagues chose Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Artic.  After five years of hard work and searching they found... Tiktaalik!  And Tiktaalik exhibited transitionary features between that of lobe-finned fish and amphibians.

From here:
Tiktaalik - University of Chicago


The discovery was published in the April 6, 2006 issue of Nature and quickly recognized as a classic example of a transitional form. Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik, "It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is."


So Lester, this is clearly an example of ToE making a prediction, the prediction being testable, and then being observable.

Creationism could never have made such a prediction, let alone be able to test it.  Lester, I would like to hear from you how Creationist explain Tiktaalik.

Also, Tiktaalik is just one example of successful predictions made by ToE.  There are plenty of other examples.



(Edited by orion 8/27/2009 at 4:07 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:00 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester,

This is a debate board.  If you don't want to debate something, don't use it as evidence for a young earth.  If you want to bring it up, it's fair game, especially any ancient list of PRATTs you copy and paste.

So, if you can't defend it, don't use it.

And why is it so unfortunate if creationist organizations disagree with each other?  Look at the actual data and decide for yourself.  You don't need anyone else to think for you, do you?

You have no clue how competitive science is.  The slightest hope of overturning any large part of accepted science has people salivating for their Nobel Prize.






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:30 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis -
You have no clue how competitive science is.  The slightest hope of overturning any large part of accepted science has people salivating for their Nobel Prize.


Apoapsis makes an extremely important observation about the way science works - the scientific method rigorous demands that hypotheses/theories be falsifiable and testable.  The ToE has passed every test thrown at it.  No other theory can explain what evolution can about Life, and the history of Life, on earth.  That's why it is so widely regarded as true as any theory can be regarded true by the mainstream scientific community.  

Far from a conspiracy among scientists, the ToE stands firmly by its own merits.  Anyone who could prove it false (using valid scientific methods) would be able to make quite a name for himself/herself.  It is a testimony to ToE that no one has been able displace it in the 150 years since Darwin presented his ideas on Natural Selection and Common Descent.

And ToE has only been strengthend by discoveries in other fields of science outside of biology!  Geology supports it.  Discoveries in Physics support it.  Chemistry supports it.  Astronomy supports it.  On and on.

The only ones who resist it is Creationists.  And they can't provide any evidence supporting their own idean - except to point to the Bible.  As for their claims disproving ToE - as Apoapsis says - nothing but PRATT.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:00 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism could never have made such a prediction, let alone be able to test it.  Lester, I would like to hear from you how Creationist explain Tiktaalik.


I'm afraid evolutionists make guesses based on a belief that evolution happened.
Tiktaaklik is nothing more than the follow up to the disastrous coelocanth and lungfish guesses for intermediates between fish and tetrapods. They went out to find a specific link in a specific place and they found a fish which they say is intermediate.

As Ahlberg and Clarck admitted: “In some respects, Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic”
Given the embarrassing position evolutionists found themselves in when it was discovered that coelacanths were deep water fish, one would think scientists would be more cautious in speculating about the shallow-water environment of the Tiktaalik.

But what about this fin that Shubin makes such a big deal about?
Ahlberg and Clack remarked: “It turns out that the distal part of the skeleton is adapted for flexing gently upwards—just as it would be if the fin were being used to prop the animal up” Further: “Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin.

Once we go beyond what the physical evidence reveals, we begin seeing phrases such as “it is possible,” “it probably happened this way,” “many have suggested,” “could very well have,” or “we believe.” All of which are subjective speculation on the author’s part.

Given the timing of the article and the news releases from the popular media, it is obvious that the announcement of this creature was a staged event—with the media having images and charts ready for publication long before the original scientific article was released. They wanted everyone to know that “the missing link” was no longer missing. The bold assertions made by the authors helped create media frenzy around this new creature with headlines declaring: “IT WAS one of the most important events of the last 400 million years: the moment our fishy ancestors began hauling themselves onto dry land.

So let me get this straight. It possesses characteristics that are very much like a fish, and yet all of the media outlets act like this creature was out walking on the land?! Before just blindly accepting the headlines presented in the media one should ask just what can we learn from a fossil dug out of the ground. Without a living specimen, can scientists know how a creature lived in the environment? Can we know the diet or the movements of the creature? Without preserved soft-tissue, can we determine what the internal organs looked like? The answer to all of these questions (and more) is a resounding “no.” Fossilized remains can only tell us so much about a creature.

These missing links tend to crawl out very quietly in comparison to the fanfare with which they are announced.

Simply put, these researchers found some fossilized remains of a unique aquatic fish that we had not yet discovered.

As Henry Gee has stated:
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific”

Creationists also make predictions. This is one of them:
Evolutionists will keep trying desperately to fill in the huge systematic gaps in the fossil record with questionable transitional forms. Where there should be tens of thousands of clear transitionals there will be one or two suspect cases that will be trumpeted in the media and will later on slink out the back door so that the impression remains with the general public that 'evolution is a fact.'
The fossil record as a whole decisively does not show gradual evolution. So dream on.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:06 AM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tiktaaklik is nothing more than the follow up to the disastrous coelocanth and lungfish guesses for intermediates between fish and tetrapods.


Tiktaalik is just a little more advanced as a transitional.   It nicely fills in between Acanthostega and more advanced tetrapods.  And it was predicted to exist long before it was found.

They went out to find a specific link in a specific place and they found a fish which they say is intermediate.


Because they knew the approximate time such a transitional fish would have to exist, and they knew how old the rock was there, and so they correctly predicted it would be there.   Pretty good, um?

As Ahlberg and Clarck admitted: “In some respects, Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic”['/quote]

And it has a flexible neck as land animals do (but fish don't).   And it has front fins that allow it to push itself up so that it's alligator-like head can peer out of the water.

Not quite as advanced as Acanthostega, but a nice transitional between less advanced lobe-fins and fish with legs.

Given the embarrassing position evolutionists found themselves in when it was discovered that coelacanths were deep water fish,[/quiote]

They are now.    But they've evolved a great deal since the earliest ones, which were much smaller, and found in shallow fresh water.

But what about this fin that Shubin makes such a big deal about?
Ahlberg and Clack remarked: “It turns out that the distal part of the skeleton is adapted for flexing gently upwards—just as it would be if the fin were being used to prop the animal up” Further: “Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin.


Intermediate, in other words.   Imagine that.

Once we go beyond what the physical evidence reveals, we begin seeing phrases such as “it is possible,” “it probably happened this way,” “many have suggested,” “could very well have,” or “we believe.” All of which are subjective speculation on the author’s part.


They used to say that there probably was a fish like Tiktaalik.   Now, that prediction is confirmed.   Scientists are cautious folk, and that's a good thing.  

Given the timing of the article and the news releases from the popular media, it is obvious that the announcement of this creature was a staged event—with the media having images and charts ready for publication long before the original scientific article was released. They wanted everyone to know that “the missing link” was no longer missing.


It's a good one, but just one of many.   And scientists are cautious.   They got all their stuff checked and double-checked before they published.  That's good, too.

So let me get this straight. It possesses characteristics that are very much like a fish,


And a few which are found only in tetrapods today.   It fits nicely into the line of transitionals between fish and tetrapods.

and yet all of the media outlets act like this creature was out walking on the land?!


I don't think so.   Later fish did.   But that's not surprising.  Some fish climb trees today.

And yes, we can verify all sorts of things from a skeleton.   Would you like to learn how we can do that?


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 07:51 AM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis makes an extremely important observation about the way science works - the scientific method rigorous demands that hypotheses/theories be falsifiable and testable.  The ToE has passed every test thrown at it.  


In some respects subtheories of evolution can be tested in a limited way. But the only physical evidence we have of the past, the fossil record, shows large systematic gaps. While there should be a clear picture of gradualism, there is not. A lot of major spokesmen for evolution have admitted to this problem even while remaining optimistic about the future.
The truth is, evolution is a religion about the past, taken on faith and any lack of evidence is met by optimism that in the future things will pan out according to plan. It seems to me that evolutionists are just desperate not to include a creator in the picture through pure bias and despite the obvious evidence of design in nature.

No other theory can explain what evolution can about Life, and the history of Life, on earth.


You mean nobody can make up stories like evolutionists can about what they believe happened in the past. Creation explains it far better.

That's why it is so widely regarded as true as any theory can be regarded true by the mainstream scientific community.


There's nobody in the mainstream scientific community that hasn't been led to believe (by the use of selective evidence) that evolution is a fact. It's repeated ad nauseum and unless one is prepared to investigate the claims objectively, the 'fact' of evolution will get cemented in much like a Jehovah's witness after a long period of indoctrination. It is made to look scientific when it really isn't. It's all about nonrepeatable events that are not well propped up by the fossil evidence.

Far from a conspiracy among scientists, the ToE stands firmly by its own merits.


No, it stands firmly on nothing and the only real alternative is creation which doesn't sound scientific enough to a culture seeped in 'science.'

It is a testimony to ToE that no one has been able displace it in the 150 years since Darwin presented his ideas on Natural Selection and Common Descent.


It's really very difficult to displace when the only alternative is creation. It says in the Bible that man is rebellious and wilfully blind or imagining he can hide from his creator by pretending he doesn't exist. That's the real reason it hasn't been displaced.

Geology supports it.  Discoveries in Physics support it.  Chemistry supports it.  Astronomy supports it.


Stories can be invented in every one of these disciplines that seem to support the theory but really don't. You have to try and draw a line between fact and fiction whenever you read anything to do with evolution.
Some clues:

"Scientists are not really sure which invertebrate turned into a fish" really means there is nothing linking the two so in the absence of clear evidence for gradualism, we will imagine that the evidence is bound to be forthcoming and use our fertile imaginations to supply stories in place of evidence.

"Scientists believe that...." means here comes a story about the past that can never in principle be confirmed.

The only ones who resist it is Creationists.  And they can't provide any evidence supporting their own idean - except to point to the Bible.


Biblical creation is our axiom; your axiom is evolution. For your evidence you point to the fossil record airbrushed, for our evidence we point to the fossil record unplugged.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:11 AM on August 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You just keep reading AIG, Lester.  You'll get any distorted answer you want from there.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 08:31 AM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You just keep reading AIG, Lester.  You'll get any distorted answer you want from there.


You're dreaming Orion, I hardly refer to AIG unless I'm gathering opinions on a particular topic and assessing what they have to contribute.

As for distortions, you just keep dreaming about what the fossil record shows (very clearly) and you can stay in evolutionist imaginary land where links will be forthcoming and even while the evidence clearly fits the creation model, evolution will be verified somewhere up the road. I don't wish that cult mentality on anyone but some people you just can't help.

Perhaps it's you that needs to break away, do your own personal research instead of relying on creo refutation sites. They like it when you trust them and they want you to remain a believer.

The truth is far more important than what you prefer to believe.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:10 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 5:51 PM on April 11, 2009 :

a number with staggering exponents, orders of magnitude too horrific to mention here. But I think it all boils down to their refusal to admit the existence of God.

You people are pathetically laughable...

"This stuff cannot occur naturally no matter how much time there is.  But by golly, my super-duper magical GOD can do it all just by thinking!!!"


Derwood, your ad hominem attack on Lester gives us insight to your character, subpar it seems.
Check out probability and statistics and see if you can get your numbers straightened out.




(Edited by gluteus_maximus 4/11/2009 at 6:17 PM).



Funny guy - not too bright, though....



(Edited by admin 9/3/2009 at 06:20 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:00 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Someone must have missed this...
Quote from Lester10 at 05:35 AM on April 10, 2009 :
Well his decision making wasn't good but he was pretty genetically superior if he lived for 900 odd years, don't you think?


Is there any non-biblical evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Lifespans have been INCREASING overall in recorded history, not decreasing.


You're forgetting selection. You're forgetting that a book has a meaning, and organisms don't.


According to your belief system they don't.


So, "meaning" is dependant upon belief systems?

"Meaning" is not an inherent characterstic?


Define "mutational load".


The mass of genetic mistakes that are accumulating on the human genome.


Talk about loaded words...

Did you know that beneficial mutations are also considered part of the mutational load?


You don't like our 'junk DNA', but you like your 'mutational load'.


Junk DNA is just non-coding DNA, nothing to do with the mutational load. As for junk, that's what evolutionists call anything that we haven't worked out the function for yet. Prediction: no junk, lots of function. Time will tell if I'm right. It's a recipe you see -intelligently designed code for life.


Unfortunately, you've swallowed the historical revisionism of creatinist propaganda ministers.

Even as Ohno coined the term "junk DNA", he did not claim that this DNA has no function, and before and after the phrase was coined, evolutionists were speculating about AND discovering functions in junk DNA - decades beforwe the creationist/IDists "predicted" it.

You people are not only decades behind the times, you are also actively engaging in historical revisionism to cover it up.

The fact of the matter is, there ARE portions of the genome that have no direct physiological function.  Just saying this because we don't know what it does yet?  No, saying this because you can remove it and suffer no consequences, the very definition of no function, I should think.


Mice thrive without 'junk DNA'
20/10/04. By the DOE Joint Genome Institute

Researchers have deleted 3 per cent of the mouse genome, but the mice show no apparent ill effects.



After completing the sequencing of the human genome, a question still lingers: is all the non-coding DNA (sometimes called 'junk DNA') – which makes up nearly 98 per cent of the genome – required, or is some of it potentially disposable?

US researchers have now shown that deleting large swaths of DNA sequence shared by mice and humans still generated mice that suffered no apparent ills from their genomes being millions of letters lighter.

The findings, by researchers at the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, were published in the 21 October 2004 edition of the journal Nature.

"In these studies, we were looking particularly for sequences that might not be essential," said Eddy Rubin, Director of the JGI, where the work was conducted. "Nonetheless we were surprised, given the magnitude of the information being deleted from the genome, by the complete lack of impact noted. From our results, it would seem that some non-coding sequences may indeed have minimal if any function."

A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analysed, ranging from viability, growth and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found.

The negligible impact of removing these sequences suggests that the mammalian genome may not be densely encoded. Similar-sized regions have previously been removed from the mouse genome, invariably resulting in mice that did not survive, because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal.

Adapted from a press release by the DOE Joint Genome Institute .


I'm like that. I have no expertise in anything, and i discuss. And i love it. I rely solely on my wits and imagination.


Well the imagination part is what makes you such a good evolutionist!


Blind obedience and an overestimation of your intellectual powers is what makes for a good creationist.


My Derwood, you really have hypnotized old Wisp here. What bigs ears you have Granny! Are you sure that's you, Wisp?

I'm not trying to impress anyone.  You surely are, but it is not working well.
I am just trying to correct pompous disinformation and ignorance being paraded as confident knowledge.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:02 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a long thread!

The dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species."
I think intelligent should be given a fair shake in acedamia


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 7:15 PM on September 12, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 7:15 PM on September 12, 2009 :
What a long thread!

The dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species."
I think intelligent should be given a fair shake in acedamia



It is. The scientific mode of academia is called investigation. Proponents of intelligent design refuse to do any. That's not academia's fault.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:24 PM on September 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 7:15 PM on September 12, 2009 :
I think intelligent should be given a fair shake in acedamia




IEEE Xplore: Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success

Here you go, a fair shake at academic recognition.  Knock yourself out.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:28 PM on September 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm... William Dembski is one of the authors.  But if I read it correctly the articles seems to be about search algorithms?  I don't think it has anything to do with ID.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:24 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just wanted to say glutius that you did a good job.

What you fail to understand is that evolution can do anything.  There are no limits because say for example if you have infinity to 1 improbability against something in area of biology, then evolution can morph into whatever it takes to completely swallow and defeat it.  You don't understand evolution!

But then you must be a fundamentalist Christian who is so blinded by your archaic faith that you think the super complexity of life is a problem for evolution.  

Why do you think life is so complex anyway?  If you really understand how evolution works then you would understand how simple life is!! I mean whatever it took for it to happen--that's what happened.  We've done it en vitro.

Finally, I fail to understand why you think so unscientifically.  Don't you know that creationism is religion.  I mean lawyers and judges say so all over America, even though some of them are listening to preacher type lawyers and starting to lax up a bit.  They are just saying we evolutionists are indoctrinating kids.  But I don't feel like I'm indoctrinated--I mean I've heard about evolution every day of my life and it never bothered me.



(Edited by AFJ 9/13/2009 at 01:27 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 01:20 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:24 AM on September 13, 2009 :
Hmmm... William Dembski is one of the authors.  But if I read it correctly the articles seems to be about search algorithms?  I don't think it has anything to do with ID.



Here's a review of the article:

The fundamental lesson here is that the Dembski-Marks approach to evaluating model assumptions is both arbitrary and a poor reflection of scientific reasoning. Model assumptions are not accepted or rejected based on a numerical measure of how many logical possibilities that are ruled out or how far probability distributions deviate from uniform measures. Rather, model assumptions are accepted or rejected based on predictive and descriptive accuracy, domain of applicability, ability to unify existing models and empirical knowledge, and so on.

A priori bias in the Dembski-Marks representation


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:04 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mustrum at 07:34 AM on August 26, 2009 :
 What there is not evidence for is some supernatural guy poofing creatures into being willy-nilly.  


Hi Mustrum,

How can there be scientific evidence of God when modern science disallows any thing supernatural.  In other words, the naturalistic rules of empirical science would disallow evidence of any claimed miracle or answered prayer.

Although research could be done, even by "pseudoscience" people to see if there was a correspondence between petition and results, this would never "prove" God.  But it could give reasonable evidence to the POSSIBILITY of supernatural causes.  Also the claims of miracles could be researched.  

However this could never even happen in the paradigm of modern science today.  So my question is if the the evidence is never allowed in, how will there ever be any indication of any supernatural claims, and the existence of God will remain unprovable by default.

Quote from Mustrum at 07:34 AM on August 26, 2009 :
As I noted earlier, the fact that you want to debate about trilobites which appeared and went extinct long before 6,000 years ago indicates that tacitly you've already accepted the basic arguments in favor of evolution.  At best, it appears that you have long periods of time where there were successive acts of supernatural creation and extinction.  That's not exactly what is says happen in Genesis.


Again the dogmatism of your statement is based on radiometric dating cases and established "expected ages" based on uniformintarian assumptions that:

1) All assumed "daughter" elements (lead206, rhubidium, argon, etc.) are a 100% result of nuclear decay.

2) All assumed "mother" elements are not a result whatsoever of contamination by ground water.

3) That the "expected values," and "statistical probabilities" in the calculations which give us half life values are correct variables.  SO IN UNIFORMINTARIAN AND EVOLUTIONARY PHILOSOPHY, PROBABILITY IS IGNORED EXCEPT FOR HALF LIFE CALCULATIONS!

Probabilistic Nature of Half-Life
...the half-life is defined in terms of probability. It is the time when the expected value of the number of entities that have decayed is equal to half the original number. For example, one can start with a single radioactive atom, wait its half-life, and measure whether or not it decays in that period of time. Perhaps it will and perhaps it will not. But if this experiment is repeated again and again, it will be seen that it decays within the half life 50% of the time.

Wikipedia
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 3:51 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What there is not evidence for is some supernatural guy poofing creatures into being willy-nilly.  


How can there be scientific evidence of God when modern science disallows any thing supernatural.


This question reeks of an ironic misinterpretation of science. Let's assume you're right and the only reason science can't answer Mustrum's question is because it refuses to answer the question...

Well, now what? What scientific method is there to test the spontaneous creation of life into being?

None, of course. The problem isn't that science "disallows" supernatural explanations. The problem is that it simply can't account for them. If you're right and science actually can address this issue, tell us how. How exactly do we test or experiment for something supernatural? How exactly do we test or experiment the supernatural method itself, to verify that a result is indeed due to something supernatural? What non-natural tools are there are our disposal that allow us to conduct such tests? How can we document and recreate the results?

The list of unanswerable questions goes on and on, but if you're so sure of yourself when you say that science actually can address these issues yet refuses to do so, then you should have absolutely no trouble explaining all of these problems away.













(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/13/2009 at 4:07 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:02 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 3:51 PM on September 13, 2009 :

1) All assumed "daughter" elements (lead206, rhubidium, argon, etc.) are a 100% result of nuclear decay.

2) All assumed "mother" elements are not a result whatsoever of contamination by ground water.


Problems fixed by isochron analysis.  If the point's don't line up in a straight line, the sample has been altered.



Basis for method

All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide. Thus, at the moment of crystallization, the ratio of the concentration of the radiogenic isotope of the daughter element to that of the non-radiogenic isotope is some value independent of the concentration of the parent. As time goes on, some amount of the parent decays into the radiogenic isotope of the daughter, increasing the ratio of the concentration of the radiogenic isotope to that of the daughter. The greater the initial concentration of the parent, the greater the concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope will be at some particular time. Thus, the ratio of the daughter to non-radiogenic isotope will become larger with time, while the ratio of parent to daughter will become smaller. For rocks that start out with a small concentration of the parent, the daughter/non-radiogenic ratio will not change quickly as compared to rocks starting with a large concentration of the parent.


Wikipedia: Isochron dating


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:38 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 4:02 PM on September 13, 2009 :

The problem isn't that science "disallows" supernatural explanations. The problem is that it simply can't account for them.


Let's take your second statement here--science can't account for them.  

Science can't "account" for alot of things.  How many times do you read "...for reasons scientists don't completly understand..."?  

Not being able to account for something is no justification for denial of it's existence.

An example would be cell wall dissipation after mitosis, during cytokenesis.  Afterward the cell wall "rebuilds."  This not understood--that is science can not explain or account for this--only observe it.

That being said, if a number of people can attest to a certain pattern of naturally unexplainable events, then a pattern of common events is empirical evidence, though it may not done in a lab.  I understand the reservations of scientists using personal testimony.

As I have stated before--what science can not admit--personal testimony or eyewitness account--a legal setting can.  

Or secondarily--it can be decided personally by each respective individual.  This is exactly what has taken place with some research scientists, professors, science teachers, chemists and other science people outside the sphere of biological and biochemistry research.  

This is where the problem lies.  And that is where an understanding that both evolution and creationism are an attempt to account for ORIGINS.  

Origins would be for obvious reasons historical science, because it contains past  events.  It should be looked at as a similar to archaeology or police forensics in that it is a reconstruction of the past.  

Both creationism and evolution are trying to build a case based on hard evidence.  The problem is both are able to use the same evidence many times to fit into their models.

Therefore each side, though it is able to present what they see as scientific evidence, the other side is able to shoot it down as either "unscientific because it is religious in nature" (the biggest argument of evolutionists) and contrarily as "an assumption based on a preconceived model and worldview."  

Neither side is able to be persuaded to turn from their point of view, because they both in effect have blanks to fill in their perspective models--so they believe that they will be able to eventually fill them in with more research.

Most likely, this didn't provide a satisfactory solution on proof of God, but it was a sincere attempt to analyze the limitations of science as well as the nature of the debate.




 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:05 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's take your second statement here--science can't account for them.  

Science can't "account" for alot of things.  How many times do you read "...for reasons scientists don't completly understand..."?

Not being able to account for something is no justification for denial of it's existence.


Science doesn't deny the existence of the supernatural. The argument has always been that you can't study allegedly supernatural events through a scientific lens.

Both creationism and evolution are trying to build a case based on hard evidence.  The problem is both are able to use the same evidence many times to fit into their models.


You've just established that science does not use personal testimony and anecdotal evidence. The reason science can't use that kind of evidence is that it isn't testable -- the defining linchpin of scientific investigation. Science and creationism certainly do not use the same evidence, then, because creationism is all too willing to rely on testimony and anecdotes.


You still have no answered my question. My question was how science is supposed to account for supernatural explanations: Where do they fit into a scientific model of investigation? If you can't answer this, then the problem is not that science has ever refused to account for supernatural explanations, but rather than it can't.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:44 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 6:05 PM on September 13, 2009 :

Science can't "account" for alot of things.  How many times do you read "...for reasons scientists don't completly understand..."?  

Not being able to account for something is no justification for denial of it's existence.



There is no denial of the existence of God,  there is the inability to assess.  If you want science to include God, produce a test, repeatable by anyone, that will provide a result that is yes/no on the existence of God.  Provide the test and results for peer review and duplication.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:03 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 6:05 PM on September 13, 2009 :

Science can't "account" for alot of things.  How many times do you read "...for reasons scientists don't completly understand..."?  


You say that as if humility is a bad thing.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:29 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 7:38 PM on February 20, 2009 :
Gluteous. You ask for new species. What would a new species be?

Waterboy made an interesting question. You are ignoring it.

When has one species actually woke up one day and had additional or different genetics.
One species, actually woke up... You're deliberately silly.

Let me also ask something else I came across and an interesting point.
Somehow i doubt it.
If man has been around in the state of "modern man" for a great length of time, how come there is no history that extends beyond 5000 years? Why are there no artifacts such as televisions and mp3 players from 75000 years ago?
Because we were back then as ignorant as you are today.

How many elephant species are alive presently?



The great pyramid of giza,Was built by ignorant people,Hardly.

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:16 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Trilobite eyes are very sophisticated,Quote-trilobite eyes are the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produce by nature-Top science news Feb.1974 p.72.Quote2-Eyes never exceeded in complexity,And acuity.-stephen j.gould natural history magazine.Feb 1984.p23 .thanks all  


(Edited by Think-Twice 9/27/2009 at 9:29 PM).
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:19 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Trilobite eyes evolved.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:17 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
I am God

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:17 PM on September 28, 2009 :
Trilobite eyes evolved.



awful post, downvoted.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:18 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Trilobite eyes evolved.


No, they didn't.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:55 AM on October 4, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One of those non-substantive posts of mine that, Darn it, Doc Lester jsut decided to ignore..
Quote from derwood at 4:02 PM on September 2, 2009 :
Someone must have missed this...
Quote from Lester10 at 05:35 AM on April 10, 2009 :
Well his decision making wasn't good but he was pretty genetically superior if he lived for 900 odd years, don't you think?


Is there any non-biblical evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Lifespans have been INCREASING overall in recorded history, not decreasing.


You're forgetting selection. You're forgetting that a book has a meaning, and organisms don't.


According to your belief system they don't.


So, "meaning" is dependant upon belief systems?

"Meaning" is not an inherent characterstic?


Define "mutational load".


The mass of genetic mistakes that are accumulating on the human genome.


Talk about loaded words...

Did you know that beneficial mutations are also considered part of the mutational load?


You don't like our 'junk DNA', but you like your 'mutational load'.


Junk DNA is just non-coding DNA, nothing to do with the mutational load. As for junk, that's what evolutionists call anything that we haven't worked out the function for yet. Prediction: no junk, lots of function. Time will tell if I'm right. It's a recipe you see -intelligently designed code for life.


Unfortunately, you've swallowed the historical revisionism of creatinist propaganda ministers.

Even as Ohno coined the term "junk DNA", he did not claim that this DNA has no function, and before and after the phrase was coined, evolutionists were speculating about AND discovering functions in junk DNA - decades beforwe the creationist/IDists "predicted" it.

You people are not only decades behind the times, you are also actively engaging in historical revisionism to cover it up.

The fact of the matter is, there ARE portions of the genome that have no direct physiological function.  Just saying this because we don't know what it does yet?  No, saying this because you can remove it and suffer no consequences, the very definition of no function, I should think.


Mice thrive without 'junk DNA'
20/10/04. By the DOE Joint Genome Institute

Researchers have deleted 3 per cent of the mouse genome, but the mice show no apparent ill effects.



After completing the sequencing of the human genome, a question still lingers: is all the non-coding DNA (sometimes called 'junk DNA') – which makes up nearly 98 per cent of the genome – required, or is some of it potentially disposable?

US researchers have now shown that deleting large swaths of DNA sequence shared by mice and humans still generated mice that suffered no apparent ills from their genomes being millions of letters lighter.

The findings, by researchers at the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, were published in the 21 October 2004 edition of the journal Nature.

"In these studies, we were looking particularly for sequences that might not be essential," said Eddy Rubin, Director of the JGI, where the work was conducted. "Nonetheless we were surprised, given the magnitude of the information being deleted from the genome, by the complete lack of impact noted. From our results, it would seem that some non-coding sequences may indeed have minimal if any function."

A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analysed, ranging from viability, growth and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found.

The negligible impact of removing these sequences suggests that the mammalian genome may not be densely encoded. Similar-sized regions have previously been removed from the mouse genome, invariably resulting in mice that did not survive, because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal.

Adapted from a press release by the DOE Joint Genome Institute .


I'm like that. I have no expertise in anything, and i discuss. And i love it. I rely solely on my wits and imagination.


Well the imagination part is what makes you such a good evolutionist!


Blind obedience and an overestimation of your intellectual powers is what makes for a good creationist.


My Derwood, you really have hypnotized old Wisp here. What bigs ears you have Granny! Are you sure that's you, Wisp?

I'm not trying to impress anyone.  You surely are, but it is not working well.
I am just trying to correct pompous disinformation and ignorance being paraded as confident knowledge.




Easier for the good doctor to stick to churning out pre-fab gibberish than to actually discuss substantive points, I guess.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:30 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester seems to have a short memory when it comes to xenoliths.

Quote from Apoapsis at 07:46 AM on March 4, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 02:37 AM on March 4, 2009 :


John G Funkhouser and John J. Naughton "Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii"
JPR73 p4601-7 Never heard their names.


So they weren't dating lava, they were dating inclusions.  You've been snookered by someone you trusted.  Many have left the faith when they find out that creationism is a tissue of lies.  Sad really.

Apoapsis
Reference?  Give me a JGR article and I'll read it.


Read "Thousands not Billions" by Don DeYoung
(I think-can't track down the book right now)
Generally these things don't get published because they upset the cookie cart. Maybe this did get published somewhere, I have no idea but I do know that it was a 10-year study. Is JGR the only measure of truth in geology? What if you are a long age doubter and can produce the scientific data to support your position? Will they publish or reject the information? I think you would be surprised at the real answers to these questions if you followed up without preconceptions.


If you can back up your research and demonstrate you've made no technical errors, you can get it published.




(Edited by Apoapsis 3/4/2009 at 07:48 AM).






(Edited by Apoapsis 10/5/2009 at 8:58 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:18 PM on October 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, show us where they were dating lava, instead of xenolithic inclusions.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:24 PM on October 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Without a living specimen, can scientists know how a creature lived in the environment? Can we know the diet or the movements of the creature?
Yeah! How can they know if the Tyranosaurus didn't actually walk in four feet and ate bananas? Silly scientists...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:45 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 9:30 PM on August 27, 2009 :
Lester,

This is a debate board.  If you don't want to debate something, don't use it as evidence for a young earth.  If you want to bring it up, it's fair game, especially any ancient list of PRATTs you copy and paste.

So, if you can't defend it, don't use it.

But that would limit Lester's bag o' tricks to simply writing 'Nuh uh!'


And why is it so unfortunate if creationist organizations disagree with each other?  Look at the actual data and decide for yourself.  You don't need anyone else to think for you, do you?


Ummm... Errrr...

Maybe his girlfriend ATimmy can come back - oh, right, he was all upset because I was jsut so mean to him that he ran off....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:26 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 12:16 AM on September 28, 2009 :
Quote from wisp at 7:38 PM on February 20, 2009 :
Gluteous. You ask for new species. What would a new species be?

Waterboy made an interesting question. You are ignoring it.

When has one species actually woke up one day and had additional or different genetics.
One species, actually woke up... You're deliberately silly.

Let me also ask something else I came across and an interesting point.
Somehow i doubt it.
If man has been around in the state of "modern man" for a great length of time, how come there is no history that extends beyond 5000 years? Why are there no artifacts such as televisions and mp3 players from 75000 years ago?
Because we were back then as ignorant as you are today.

How many elephant species are alive presently?



The great pyramid of giza,Was built by ignorant people,Hardly.
Not nearly as much as you, of course.

You need to learn how to quote (you quoted things you didn't address).

Well, you need to learn how to write first. You made a question with random capital letters and no question marks. Or perhaps it wasn't a question... I don't know. I can't guess from your deficient text.


(Edited by wisp 10/21/2009 at 3:22 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:21 PM on October 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Creationism could never have made such a prediction, let alone be able to test it.  Lester, I would like to hear from you how Creationist explain Tiktaalik.
I'm afraid evolutionists make guesses based on a belief that evolution happened.
That's not a belief. That's a scientific fact. And you can't explain how we predicted the Tiktaalik.
Tiktaaklik is nothing more than the follow up to the disastrous coelocanth and lungfish guesses for intermediates between fish and tetrapods. They went out to find a specific link in a specific place and they found a fish which they say is intermediate.
Yeah. Now you do the same with your giants and unicorns.
As Ahlberg and Clarck admitted: “In some respects, Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic”
Given the embarrassing position evolutionists found themselves in when it was discovered that coelacanths were deep water fish, one would think scientists would be more cautious in speculating about the shallow-water environment of the Tiktaalik.
Your red herring has already been addressed. Please, answer: how did we guess where to find what? We knew the place and the strata. How?
No red herrings this time, please. Never mind what you call it. I'm not even asking what a transitional would look like according to you. Just this: how did we guess where to find something that looks like we predicted? Why can't you do the same with giants and unicorns, or the ark for that matter? Why can't you find a trace of rapidly changing animals from Mt. Ararat to the rest of the world?
Once we go beyond what the physical evidence reveals,
Which matches our predictions. That's important.
we begin seeing phrases such as “it is possible,” “it probably happened this way,” “many have suggested,” “could very well have,” or “we believe.” All of which are subjective speculation on the author’s part.
Yes indeed. Your point being?
Given the timing of the article and the news releases from the popular media, it is obvious that the announcement of this creature was a staged event—with the media having images and charts ready for publication long before the original scientific article was released. They wanted everyone to know that “the missing link” was no longer missing.
Red herring. It wouldn't be relevant EVEN if that was true.
So let me get this straight. It possesses characteristics that are very much like a fish,
Just as predicted, yeah.
and yet all of the media outlets act like this creature was out walking on the land?!
To Hell with the media. We're talking science here.
Before just blindly accepting the headlines presented in the media one should ask just what can we learn from a fossil dug out of the ground.
You didn't learn that we can predict them.
Without a living specimen, can scientists know how a creature lived in the environment?
They can know lots of stuff. Even you know that it didn't fly, just by looking at it.
Wait... Do you??
Simply put, these researchers found some fossilized remains of a unique aquatic fish that we had not yet discovered.
Nevermind what you call it. Name calling won't get you out of this. It looks like predicted, it was found where predicted.
Creationists also make predictions. This is one of them:
This should be good...
Evolutionists will keep trying desperately to fill in the huge systematic gaps in the fossil record with questionable transitional forms.
...and it's not.
So your predictions are not about what we'll find, but about US? How pathetic is that?
Where there should be tens of thousands of clear transitionals
There are. But some are clear just to the knowledgeable and smart. Not our fault.
there will be one or two suspect cases that will be trumpeted in the media and will later on slink out the back door so that the impression remains with the general public that 'evolution is a fact.'
To Hell with the general public. Let's talk science.
The fossil record as a whole decisively does not show gradual evolution. So dream on.
Why should it? Many evolutionary changes (if not most) happen in relatively brief lapses of time, and in relatively small populations. We've told you this tons of times, and you just play dumb and go on with your strawman.


(Edited by wisp 10/21/2009 at 10:40 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:48 PM on October 21, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

This is a long thread!


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 5:18 PM on October 27, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not to change the subject drastically, but are the evolutionists here mostly atheists?




-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 8:01 PM on October 27, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 8:01 PM on October 27, 2009 :
Not to change the subject drastically, but are the evolutionists here mostly atheists?


I would say yes, although I'm not one of them.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 8:34 PM on October 27, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you reconcile believing in God and evolution at the same time?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 9:05 PM on October 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is God powerful enough to use evolution?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:17 PM on October 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a long thread!
Judging by the relevance and cleverness of that comment my guess is that we have another creationist.

Judging by his words i don't think he's the reading kind so, if he happens to stay, he probably won't read long replies.

That would be my guess. I can be totally wrong though.

Lester
Without a living specimen, can scientists know how a creature lived in the environment?

It's eyes are on top of its head, so i'd say it didn't swim anywhere near the surface of deep waters (where those eyes would be useless). It had shoulders and elbows, so as to support weigh.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist, Lester.

Fencer
Pharoah
Not to change the subject drastically, but are the evolutionists here mostly atheists?
I would say yes, although I'm not one of them.
I second that.

How do you reconcile believing in God and evolution at the same time?
Piece of cake: God isn't as lame and limited as Yahweh.

Some cool images:




Mudskippers look somewhat like tetrapod amphibian (frogs), but it's not that closely related to them (which is kinda obvious if you notice that they don't have a couple of limbs near the tail, which would come in handy for Evolution to rediscover tetrapodism). They're as related to frogs as they are to us. Their closest common ancestor is our ancestor too.

Mudskippers are actinopterygii (from the Greek aktinοs, "ray" and pterygion, "fin"). They are the dominant class of vertebrates. Fish, all of them.

On the other hand we (amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals) descend from Sarcopterygii (from Greek: "fleshy fins").

To our knowledge, coelacanths are the only sarcopterygii that survived extinction without ever leaving the water.


Oh, now comes the lame creationist question: if we descended from sarcopterygii how come this one is still alive?
From that question you'd think that creationists have no uncles.

Another silly question: How come their whole structure didn't change in so many million years?

A creationist donkey would ask: 'If my hoofs descend from five fingered limbs, then five fingered limbs are primitive. How come humans still have five fingers?'

Edit to add a video: Mudskipper faceoff!!


(Edited by wisp 10/27/2009 at 11:12 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:55 PM on October 27, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 9:05 PM on October 27, 2009 :
How do you reconcile believing in God and evolution at the same time?


Like most Christians do. Evolution is the mechanism by which God created. If you are referring to Genesis, perhaps a new thread is in order. In short, I, like many Christians, interpret Genesis as allegory/mythology and is not to be taken as a historical account for the origins of the universe.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:06 AM on October 28, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps God created the first cell and from there evolution took over?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 6:34 PM on October 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps God WAS the first cell!

Anyway, your useless hypothesis is in perfect harmony with the ToE, which is (i suspect) as close as you'll get from scientific thought.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:00 PM on October 28, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 6:34 PM on October 28, 2009 :
Perhaps God created the first cell and from there evolution took over?


I say no, for two reasons. One, evolution didn't take over for God. God is in control of evolution. I think God sustains the natural world and allows it to function by the natural laws/forces that He created.

Two, I don't think God magically created the first cell, but used natural means to do so. My guess is that through study of chemical evolution/abiogenesis we will understand the natural means by which God created the first cell.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 7:32 PM on October 28, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This wisp character right away calls my words "useless"
So much for a friendly forum.


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 8:57 PM on October 28, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp is a character. Due to the nature of the evo creo debate, one has to be able to withstand written punishment, some more than others. I've never been in a forum where everyone was nice to everyone else.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 9:37 PM on October 28, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 18 19 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.