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 ... 3 4 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So your body hurts huh, you sitting all day pontificating on your computer with bad posture? Our bodies suck right?, but a healthy body could fall into a pit and die, a tree could fall on you. You think evolution will build a perfect world? Perfection is relative so it will never be achieve in your view. But what we have is so complex and amazing but it evolution has a mind of it's own, that to me , is a leap of faith. You?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:26 PM on February 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No. Both my parents had bad backs. I take good care of mine, but it just sucks.

Our bodies suck right?
Yes, quite literally.

But not only that. They need stuff that other animals don't need. Our backs are not yet very fit to walking on two legs. Our legs aren't fit to walking on two legs.

Well, i won't go on and name the many problems with our bodies. I have done it before, and you won't answer to them anyway.
but a healthy body could fall into a pit and die, a tree could fall on you.
Are you going somewhere?
You think evolution will build a perfect world?
Most certainly not. It builds Evolutionary Stable Strategies (ESS). Entire species have died because of it's particular ESS. They didn't have the foresight to cooperate.

If you find a behavior in nature that's not an ESS, i'll recant my belief in Evolution.

Please. Find me just one.
Perfection is relative so it will never be achieve in your view.
Hum... You're right... This is strange... It's not your habit.
But what we have is so complex and amazing but it evolution has a mind of it's own, that to me , is a leap of faith. You?
Ok, English is not my native language, but i'm pretty sure that your phrase made no sense.

So, will you name emotions so i can explain its evolutionary sense to you?

Perhaps you don't care. If so, why ask?

You keep attacking Evolution (and all of your attacks are easily refuted), but you don't give us your beliefs.

Why? Just answer, man.
"I don't know" is a valid answer.



-------
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: 8:43 PM on February 26, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I told you, I answered you, but what question do you say I did not answer?

So evolution only builds stability huh? Not perfection? Why not perfection, did evolution think to itself, " I am only going to achieve stability"  
As for emotion of Love, explain that one.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:04 PM on February 26, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I haven't read all of this thread. But I've been down a few of these rabbit trails with wisp before.
Wisp, you keep going back (no pun) to the "poor design" of the human body to refute a designer. And yes, it's true, that our bodies are not what they should be. But that is not from faulty design. It is from random mutation that gives one person a bad back and one person a good back. Yes, I know, our upright design is inherently bad for our backs. Ironically you see this as a bad design because you are looking at it from an evolutionists perspective.
But I submit that we were designed with a purpose in mind. We represent a perfect balance between being composed of the same stuff as the rest of our environment and the shape to change and manipulate it.
I'll explain. We are what we eat. We eat ultimately from what the ground produces. So our composition is tied to the earth in the same way as all other life. One big giant symbiotic relationship. But our minds and bodies allow us to manipulate and control the earth and its contents in a way that would be impossible were we to have a different form. Our ability to stand, carry, climb, communicate, our dexterity, even our backwards retina all contribute to the total package for the purpose of dominion over the earth and all that is in it.
If we had evolved, than I would agree with you that evolution didn't do a very good job. But probably not for the same reason as you. If evolution is modification leading to increased ability to survive than it went very wrong way back somewhere. We should have never diverged from exo-skeletal sea creatures.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 9:35 PM on February 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have not told me what you believe.

Give us a timeline of life.

Were there any lions in the Garden of Eden? Did it have deep ponds with thermal vents at the bottom? Were there any lions in the Garden of Eden? How did Noah fit the 1200 estimated genera of dinosaurs into the ark? And if you don't believe that a species can become another, then what did Noah do with the many thousands of dinosaurs? Were they clean or unclean? Why are they not named in the Bible?

All of that interests me. And anything else you can think of (that makes sense, and has to do with the subject, please).

So evolution only builds stability huh?
Yeap.
Not perfection?
I don't know what you mean by 'perfection', but i guess not.
Why not perfection, did evolution think to itself, " I am only going to achieve stability"
Well, that would be a creator.
Evolution is obviously mindless. That's why most of the species that have ever lived, have died off.
As for emotion of Love, explain that one.
Haha! That's not an emotion! xD

Love would be a feeling, at best. And when you say "love" you can mean a lot of different things (some of them are emotions).

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you meant affection, or attachment.

Such emotions only evolve in gregarious animals.

Affection between mates only happen in those species that cooperate to raise the offspring.

(I dare you to find a non-gregarious animal with such emotions.)

It evolves in cases of kin selection.

You see, individuals are not the real evolutionary units. Genes are.

Genes that determine a close attachment to a relative are prosperous in the gene pool.

A family or a clan of relatives with genes for attachment will have a higher survival rate than other ones that don't, because they will help each other. They will take some risks to ensure the safety of the group.
Sometimes individuals sacrifice themselves for the group, if there are more copies of its genes than within himself.

50% of your genes are shared with any of your brothers (full brothers). So your brother is half as important as you are, to your genes.

The level of affection is directly related to the proximity of genes in a group.

In our modern world we have mostly lost clans of relatives. We're all pretty much mixed up. That's bad for the "kind" genes.

I'm afraid we're in a downward path towards extreme genetic selfishness.

timbrx
No, I haven't read all of this thread. But I've been down a few of these rabbit trails with wisp before.
Haha!
And yes, it's true, that our bodies are not what they should be. But that is not from faulty design. It is from random mutation that gives one person a bad back and one person a good back.
And who designed our randomly mutant bodies, i wonder?
Yes, I know, our upright design is inherently bad for our backs. Ironically you see this as a bad design because you are looking at it from an evolutionists perspective.
Well, you have to be right about this one.
But I submit that we were designed with a purpose in mind. We represent a perfect balance between being composed of the same stuff as the rest of our environment and the shape to change and manipulate it.
Beavers too?
I'll explain. We are what we eat. We eat ultimately from what the ground produces. So our composition is tied to the earth in the same way as all other life. One big giant symbiotic relationship. But our minds and bodies allow us to manipulate and control the earth and its contents in a way that would be impossible were we to have a different form.
Hey, your lack of imagination isn't evidence of that.

Our vitamin C deficiency... Is it God planned, or is it devolution?
Our ability to stand, carry, climb, communicate, our dexterity, even our backwards retina all contribute to the total package for the purpose of dominion over the earth and all that is in it.
The same could be said about the rest of the apes. Well, we communicate better, it's true.

Hum... Now that i think about it... God designed Adam BEFORE any plans of dominion over the Earth!

Actually God put a penis hanging from Adam BEFORE PLANNING ANY REPRODUCTION! Hahaha!

Sorry, but you have to agree with me that it's hilarious.

If we had evolved, than I would agree with you that evolution didn't do a very good job. But probably not for the same reason as you. If evolution is modification leading to increased ability to survive than it went very wrong way back somewhere.
Evolution did its best with what it had at hand, like it always does.

We do need to ingest our vitamin C, but we've developed a system for making the best use of the little vitamin C that we ingest. We also recycle some of it.
We should have never diverged from exo-skeletal sea creatures.
Evolution knows nothing about "should".

Do you really believe that God couldn't have set our retinas right, and make protective layers in a more intelligent way?

Do you really believe that we wouldn't have made good use of a moving lens?

You said that cephalopods probably "need" it. Well, my girl is short-sighted. She needs a moving lens.

Well, she and almost every old person, whose once bending lenses became stiff.

Poor design.

timbrx, i still don't know what you believe.



-------
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: 11:04 PM on February 26, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp - for heavens sake!  All that stuff about the Garden of Eden and Noahs Ark is NONSENSE!  Why do you want to talk about fairy tales?  You know its hogwash.  I know its hogwash.  No one seriously believes in that stuff.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:25 AM on February 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know. But i still want to see some answer/s.

Even "I don't know" would be appreciated.

I'm tired of only being able to discuss evolution, with people who only try to attack it, without exposing their real beliefs.

I love it when creationists try to give some joint answer.

They try so hard not to contradict each other...

Except for dubie and dijonaise, in the the thread Bible Inconsistencies
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=28511



-------
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: 07:21 AM on February 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem involved with defending evolution is that it involves understanding science.  That's an area that a lot of Americans don't really know anything about.  Heck, I bet a majority of Americans can't give a good explanation of what a scientific theory is, or tell you how the scientific method works!

It's easier for them to believe in fairy tales than to try to put the effort in that is required to have a basic understanding of science.  We all know that Bible is full of fallacies if taken literally.  No serious biblical scholor takes the stories in Genesis literally.  It's nonsense.  Origin myths, just like you find from every other ancient culture.  

Get real timbrx,  Get real Lester.  Get real gluteus.  If you want to believe that God made people - OK.  But not that Adam & Eve myth.  Because that's all it is - a myth.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:30 AM on February 27, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx…But I submit that we were designed with a purpose in mind. We represent a perfect balance between being composed of the same stuff as the rest of our environment and the shape to change and manipulate it…

Hmmm…So the creatures your god created are constrained by limitations placed on them by the environment your god created?”  Why do you suppose an omnipotent god (assuming your god is omnipotent) need to strike any kind of “balance” between his most favored creatures (assuming humans are your god’s most favored creatures) and the environment that he created?

timbrxI'll explain. We are what we eat. We eat ultimately from what the ground produces. So our composition is tied to the earth in the same way as all other life. One big giant symbiotic relationship.
  One big symbiotic relationship?!!! Are you sure that Cheetahs, Pandas, Dodo Birds, the Chesapeake Bay, etc… know about this symbiotic relationship?  

timbrx:But our minds and bodies allow us to manipulate and control the earth and its contents in a way that would be impossible were we to have a different form. Our ability to stand, carry, climb, communicate, our dexterity, even our backwards retina all contribute to the total package for the purpose of dominion over the earth and all that is in it.
Huh?  Are you telling me that our knees are perfect for our environments?  What about our hip bones?  Are you saying you can’t think of a better design for these joints?   Wow
What about female human mammary glands?  Do you suppose they are designed perfectly for an environment like ours that exposes humans to  so many carcinogens?  

timbrx If we had evolved, than I would agree with you that evolution didn't do a very good job. But probably not for the same reason as you. If evolution is modification leading to increased ability to survive than it went very wrong way back somewhere. We should have never diverged from exo-skeletal sea creatures.

Huh?  Are you saying an exoskeleton is optimal for every niche?  You mentioned dexterity…Do you think dexterity is enhanced by an exoskeleton?   I’ll give you a hint…Compare the dexterity of an Octopus with other mollusks that have exoskeletons. Does the Octopus have more dexterity than a clam? Snail? Nautilus? Oyster?


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:13 AM on February 27, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp   "genes for attachment " ???

Has this been discovered? Is it next to the "gay" gene?

Evolution knows nothing about "should".
Oh, you mean it didn't think we "should" have arms and legs?
I can't give you details about the Garden of Eden, perhaps some things are symbolic. But I can tell you that you DO NOT know the age of the Earth with any certainty.  Evolution is rife with plenty of doubts but you are one who has bet the farm on it.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:07 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus -
But I can tell you that you DO NOT know the age of the Earth with any certainty.  Evolution is rife with plenty of doubts

Why do you think that we don't have a good estimate of the age of the Earth?  Radiometric dating techniques are very well understood.  Samples from different sources (earth, moon, meteorites, etc) all give pretty consistent ages.  There is not much doubt that the earth is over 4 billion years old (about 4.5-4.6 seems to be the standard estimate).

And why do you think evolution is rife with plenty of doubts?  

Certainly there is debate among paleontolgists and biologists about specfic aspects of evolution.  For an example, a small number of paleontologists question whether birds are descendants of dinosaurs.  There may be debate about the relationship and classification of some hominid fossils.  But they don't question that evolution is a fact, and that natural selection is a major factor behind it.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:32 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 4:07 PM on February 27, 2009 :
But I can tell you that you DO NOT know the age of the Earth with any certainty.  


How many % error from 4 billion years would it take to get to your number?



-------
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: 7:37 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Radiometric dating assumes all decay rates have been constant over time. Without this consistency, all bets are off.
There exists conditions that render this dating method fallible, impurities in rocks, gases leaving and escaping over time etc. To site an example:

"To get one part in 10 million of argon in a rock in a thousand years, we would only need to get one part in 10 billion entering the rock each year. This would be less than one part in a trillion entering the rock each day, on the average. This would suffice to give a rock having an average concentration of potassium, a computed potassium-argon age of over 500 million years!"

And to note that testing NEW(younger then you) specimens from recent Volcanic eruptions rendered said specimens at millions of years old. Certainly calls dating techniques into question with even more examples of bogus results.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:18 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 7:18 PM on February 27, 2009 :
Radiometric dating assumes all decay rates have been constant over time.


The decay rate of every isotope I've measured has been constant.  Have you measured one that's different?  What new physics can you offer that would change a decay rate?


There exists conditions that render this dating method fallible, impurities in rocks, gases leaving and escaping over time etc. To site an example:

"To get one part in 10 million of argon in a rock in a thousand years, we would only need to get one part in 10 billion entering the rock each year. This would be less than one part in a trillion entering the rock each day, on the average. This would suffice to give a rock having an average concentration of potassium, a computed potassium-argon age of over 500 million years!"

And you think this would not be observed?  How would you get this argon in?  Where does it come from?

Obviously there are numerous methods for checking and cross-checking.  Fission track dating for instance uses the spontaneous fission of U238 in glassy materials.  When the atoms fission, the high energy fragments cause damage in the material which can be etched and counted.  Once you know the track density, you find the concentration of Uranium in the sample and calculate the age.  The half life of U238 is 8x10^15 years.  Very useful technique for cross checking other methods, and it's extremely useful in oil exploration as well as archeological artifacts.


And to note that testing NEW(younger then you) specimens from recent Volcanic eruptions rendered said specimens at millions of years old. Certainly calls dating techniques into question with even more examples of bogus results.


Can you show me an example where this did NOT occur while analyzing xenoliths (fragments of unmelted rock in the magma)?  In other words, find an example where the actual fresh lava was dated to millions of years.  




-------
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: 9:16 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by fredguff at Fri February 27, 2009 - 10:13 AM

timbrx…But I submit that we were designed with a purpose in mind. We represent a perfect balance between being composed of the same stuff as the rest of our environment and the shape to change and manipulate it…


Hmmm…So the creatures your god created are constrained by limitations placed on them by the environment your god created?”

Sure. I made a fish tank and filled it with salt water. I couldn't very well put fresh water fish in it, now could I.

Why do you suppose an omnipotent god (assuming your god is omnipotent) need to strike any kind of “balance” between his most favored creatures (assuming humans are your god’s most favored creatures) and the environment that he created?

Gee, uh I don't know, maybe so they can , you know , live?

timbrxI'll explain. We are what we eat. We eat ultimately from what the ground produces. So our composition is tied to the earth in the same way as all other life. One big giant symbiotic relationship.

 One big symbiotic relationship?!!! Are you sure that Cheetahs, Pandas, Dodo Birds, the Chesapeake Bay, etc… know about this symbiotic relationship?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe you should ask them. I bet they wouldn't think your questions are as obtuse as I do.

timbrx:But our minds and bodies allow us to manipulate and control the earth and its contents in a way that would be impossible were we to have a different form. Our ability to stand, carry, climb, communicate, our dexterity, even our backwards retina all contribute to the total package for the purpose of dominion over the earth and all that is in it.

Huh?  Are you telling me that our knees are perfect for our environments?  What about our hip bones?  Are you saying you can’t think of a better design for these joints?   Wow
What about female human mammary glands?  Do you suppose they are designed perfectly for an environment like ours that exposes humans to  so many carcinogens?

Yes, I'm saying that we are made to perfectly fit in to the role for which we were intended. This includes all of the unique and interesting things humans are capable of. Remember, I said total package?

timbrx If we had evolved, than I would agree with you that evolution didn't do a very good job. But probably not for the same reason as you. If evolution is modification leading to increased ability to survive than it went very wrong way back somewhere. We should have never diverged from exo-skeletal sea creatures.


Huh?  Are you saying an exoskeleton is optimal for every niche?  You mentioned dexterity…Do you think dexterity is enhanced by an exoskeleton?   I’ll give you a hint…Compare the dexterity of an Octopus with other mollusks that have exoskeletons. Does the Octopus have more dexterity than a clam? Snail? Nautilus? Oyster?

Fredgruff, you are a shining example of a person who is willingly ignorant. The allusion towards the very successful bivalve is to make a point. If evolution made any sense, it would be complete at a simple level. The simpler the better. For ANYTHING to evolve, it would have to retain lots of useless information until it somehow developed enough to make it useful. And don't go crawling under micro-evolution to hide from that. If your great great great grand kids were to evolve a third arm, it would start with you or your kids having a useless and probably unsightly appendage. (This is meant to be an illustration so that you can see how ridiculous I think believing in evolution really is.)


(Edited by timbrx 2/27/2009 at 11:39 PM).
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:35 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx - you still haven't showed how Creationism explains the fossil record.  You keep weaseling.  You make empty statements about how evolution can't be true, but you don't say how Creationism explains anything, other than imply God did it.  That may be okay for church, or bible study, but it's useless for science.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:18 AM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
you still haven't showed how Creationism explains the fossil record


Well evolutionists have yet to explain how the Cambrian big bang occurred? No tree of life there. How did billions of fish got buried with no pre-fish to be seen? You see the scenario that says that life was created and that a lot of stuff got buried in a big flood makes rather a lot more sense than your evolution of life scenario which starts after life apparently got going from the 'chemical soup' so-called. Nobody knows how but we just know that even with everything going against it, it must have.

The truth is that any story involving a creator is not a nice one for an evolutionist -they would rather make up their own 'scientific stories'.

Apoapsis
The decay rate of every isotope I've measured has been constant.


Yes they are now, but that does not mean to say that they always were. In fact we know they haven't always been because of the helium content in granite, so radiometric dating doesn't work. We also know it doesn't work because very (extremely) wrong dates have been worked out for rocks of known age showing quite clearly that we have no reason to trust it at all. The only reason evolutionists like radiometric dating is because it plays into their fantasy world of long slow evolution by naturalistic mechanisms alone.




-------
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: 09:03 AM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:03 AM on February 28, 2009 :
In fact we know they haven't always been because of the helium content in granite, so radiometric dating doesn't work.



Example?


-------
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: 09:29 AM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:03 AM on February 28, 2009 :
Well evolutionists have yet to explain how the Cambrian big bang occurred? No tree of life there.


They came from Vendian fauna.






-------
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: 09:34 AM on February 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

you didn't answer the question - how does Creationism explain th fossil record?  You skirted it by bringing up the Cambrian Explosion.

The Cambrian epoch is where we find some of the first hard-bodied fossils.  It covers a period of roughly 50 million years.  It is this period we see fossils from most of the major phyla.

Because of the sudden appearance of these larger fossils Creationists like to try to say that this is evidence of a Creator.  

Not at all.  It merely means that prior to the Cambrian period (prior to 545 mya) organisms were probably mostly soft bodied and/or small.  A much more likely explanation to Creationism is that something triggered organisms to grow in size and produce skeletons and shell.  One such trigger could have been that the oxygen in the oceans reached a critical level allowing for larger bodies.  About 600 mya also marks the end of a global glaciation period, so that probably had an important influence as well.  Just because science doesn't know the exact cause doesn't mean that there isn't a natural explanation.  

Besides, there are fossils of earlier life prior to the Cambrian.  You might find this interesting if you choose to read it.


Solution to Darwin's Dilemma - Precambrian fossils

Lester - you might try reading some real science rather than reading through the misconceptions and dishonest writings on Creationist websites.  There's a simple reason why Creationists ideas/research do not get published in scientific journals - their methods and hypotheses are flawed and their ideas are not supported by the facts.  

That is the hard truth that Creationists cannot accept.

Lester (on radiometric dating):
Yes they are now, but that does not mean to say that they always were. In fact we know they haven't always been because of the helium content in granite, so radiometric dating doesn't work. We also know it doesn't work because very (extremely) wrong dates have been worked out for rocks of known age showing quite clearly that we have no reason to trust it at all. The only reason evolutionists like radiometric dating is because it plays into their fantasy world of long slow evolution by naturalistic mechanisms alone.


Where is your proof that decay rates of radioactive isotopes was different in the past?  If true, I would think that would have severe implications for chemistry and physics.  As far as I know, there is no such evidence that decay rates are any different from 4 billion years ago to today.  

Lester - care to share your source on the helium content of granite disproving decay rates?  I would like to also see your source for your claims on why radiometric dating doesn't always work.

Put up, or shut up.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:04 PM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well evolutionists have yet to explain how the Cambrian big bang occurred?

Lot of theories on how the Cambrian explosion of life occurred.  Firstly, we now have fossil evidence that many of the organisms that first appearred in the Cambrian actually evolved from organisms in the Pre Cambrian.  
So science has theories about the Cambrian and every day they become stronger and those theories are all evolutionary.  What theories for the Cambrian do creationists have?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:55 PM on February 28, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx:Sure. I made a fish tank and filled it with salt water. I couldn't very well put fresh water fish in it, now could I.

You're not an omnipotent and omniscient god but you bring up an interesting point. How does your particular version of the Bible explain why the "almighty" came up with salt and freshwater fish?

timbrx:Gee, uh I don't know, maybe so they can , you know , live?

That's my point.   The "almighty" deity that you worship is constrained by the limitations of nature.  For the most part the evidence in nature (and the KJV Bible for that matter) demonstrate that the supernatural creature that you bow down to, is far from being omnipotent or omnisicient or omnibenevolent.

timbrx:Gee, I don't know. Maybe you should ask them. I bet they wouldn't think your questions are as obtuse as I do.

I don't have to ask them timbrx.  Cheetahs and pandas are on the verge of disappearing in the wild because of man (or maybe satan?).  Dodos were wiped out by human actions and the Chesapeake bay ecosystem is on the verge of a catasprophic collapse due to the actions of man.  None of this sounds "symbiotic" to me.

timbrx:Yes, I'm saying that we are made to perfectly fit in to the role for which we were intended. This includes all of the unique and interesting things humans are capable of. Remember, I said total package?
 Yeah I also see that you didn't address the imperfectly designed knees and hips of humans.  The fact is, these joints could have been engineered much more intelligently allowing humans to be an even more perfect "fit".   Alas...Your "omnipotent" God was probably nursing a Mardi Gras hangover when he designed the hip socket of humans.

timbrx:Fredgruff, you are a shining example of a person who is willingly ignorant. The allusion towards the very successful bivalve is to make a point. If evolution made any sense, it would be complete at a simple level.


Uhm no...Some niches, in order to be exploited,  require a level of complexity (like vision and mobility) that clams, mussels, scallops and other bivalves just can't provide. Oh wait I suppose a scallop is mobile.

timbrxThe simpler the better. For ANYTHING to evolve, it would have to retain lots of useless information until it somehow developed enough to make it useful.

Huh?   It is clear to me that the tails of many new world  monkeys have evolved from an appendage that provided ballance....to an appendage that the monkey could alos use too grasp branches to increase its mobility...to an appendage that can do the first two and also be used to grasp fruit for nourishment.  

timbrxAnd don't go crawling under micro-evolution to hide from that. If your great great great grand kids were to evolve a third arm, it would start with you or your kids having a useless and probably unsightly appendage.

I don't crawl under anything timbrx.   The fact is the evolution of prehensile tails(monkeys)and noses (elephants) can be explained quite nicely by evolution using EVIDENCE to explain the INTERMEDIARY steps.  Look it up.

timbrx(This is meant to be an illustration so that you can see how ridiculous I think believing in evolution really is.)

Your posts indicate that you clearly don't know much about evolution.  


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 09:46 AM on March 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp   "genes for attachment " ???
Yeap. Have a problem with that?

You have a gene that makes it more likely to scratch your ass than its allele (rival gene). It probably does other things, but i'll call it "gluteous scratcher".

You think i'm lying, right?

I'm not.

Has this been discovered? Is it next to the "gay" gene?
Yeah, next to the gay gene.

The equation is easy, actually. Everything we are and can do is determined or allowed by genes.

There's always some gene that would have made you scratch your ass less than you do, if it had made it into your genome.

So one could theoretically look for the gene that did make it (not necessarily found in your ass), and name it.

If you have more doubts about this subject, ask and i'll answer.

Evolution knows nothing about "should".

Oh, you mean it didn't think we "should" have arms and legs?
Haha! Of course not.

I can't give you details about the Garden of Eden, perhaps some things are symbolic.
Ok.

But Adam and Eve were real?
And every animal was in the Garden?

But I can tell you that you DO NOT know the age of the Earth with any certainty.
That's true. But i know with all certainty that it's much more than 6k years.

The current estimate is close enough for me.

Evolution is rife with plenty of doubts but you are one who has bet the farm on it.
Haha! We do the betting, and you get the food, the vaccines, the insuline (nah, you're not sweet enough to be a diabetic), etc.

Why don't you try to talk about specific problems you find in the TOE, instead of those generic claims that lead to nowhere?

We do have doubts. Because we have a puzzle here.

You, creationists, say that there's no puzzle. That it's a piece of cake. Every fossil should be clear, and unrelated to any other fossil from other species.

Except that species blur. And we have to carefully place the fragile little branches of the evolutionary tree, that keeps growing, and gets more clear as time goes on.

Radiometric dating assumes all decay rates have been constant over time. Without this consistency, all bets are off.
If something was capable of changing the decay rates, seems like it should be capable of affecting the whole universe uniformly in a way that would prevent us from noticing the difference. xD



-------
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: 5:46 PM on March 1, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"If something was capable of changing the decay rates, seems like it should be capable of affecting the whole universe uniformly in a way that would prevent us from noticing the difference. xD"

Not sure what this means. Are you saying  all decay rates have been constant over time?

Do you have proof that one species morphed into another?


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:17 PM on March 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus -

decay rates have been independently verified through astronomical means to several hundred million years.  There is nothing to suggest that decay rates were any different in the past.  

Also other geological processes, such as sedimentation and plate tectonics, have taken millions of years.  Trying to dismiss radiometric dating by saying that decays rates were different in the past (without proof) is ludricous.

species don't morphe - they evolve.  As axamples, why don't you look up hominid evolution and fossils from any reputable science web-site that is not connected to Creationism.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:41 PM on March 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 7:17 PM on March 2, 2009 :
Not sure what this means. Are you saying  all decay rates have been constant over time?


There is an electron capture decay mode of Beryllium that varies a few percent as a function of temperature, but the reason is well understood, and that isotope is not used for radiometric dating.  You can read about it here:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

People have looked very hard for changes.  Changes would result in effects that are observable.  These have not been found.

One of the best examples is the natural Oklo reactor in Gabon.  Almost 2 billion years ago, a deposit of uranium ore went critical, just like a modern power reactor.  The same wide variety of fission products was generated as is found in the spent fuel of a modern reactor.  And in the many millions of years since, all of the different products have decayed at the expected rates to result in exactly the predicted ratios.


-------
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: 11:09 PM on March 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Cambrian epoch is where we find some of the first hard-bodied fossils...It merely means that prior to the Cambrian period (prior to 545 mya) organisms were probably mostly soft bodied and/or small.


If evolution is true, that may just be what happened, but it is doubtful because in the big Chinese Cambrian find, perfectly preserved sponge embryos were found showing that soft bodied organisms do fossilize. So, is this a good excuse for the missing 'missing links' between precambrian and cambrian?
Only if you 'believe' in evolution. Absence of evidence is not carte blanche for filling in with what you imagine was there.

How do you explain geologic strata that are missing all over the world. It is very rare to find all the layers that should be there. Over approx 77% of the earth, seven or more strata are missing. In others they are in the wrong order for evolution. Sedimentary layers are dated by their fossils and fossils are dated by the layers they are found in and all this dating took place before radiometric dating came along so is this science or wishful thinking?


-------
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: 01:25 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"missing" data is not a problem for evolutionary scientists... only for creationists it seems.

Scientists try to predict what the missing data will be... thats what scientists do. If their predictions turn out to be good then confidence in their theories grows.

Confidence in evolution is running pretty high in scientific circles at the moment.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 01:42 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Trying to dismiss radiometric dating by saying that decays rates were different in the past (without proof) is ludricous.


The problems with radiometric dating are many. They do not work on sedimentary rock -only on igneous rock and metamorphic rock. Since most fossils are lodged in sedimentary rock, they cannot be radiometrically dated.
Radiometric dating depends on many unsupported assumptions not just the constancy of decay rates.
If the big bang was real, violating natural laws by creating energy and matter from nothing, then how do we know how decay rates may or may not have changed? For the evolutionist, it is just convenient to assume that it couldn't possibly have changed, because then they have their old age dates that support their evolutionary philosophy!
The helium in granite has been measured as well as it's escape rate and there is far too much still there, meaning that decay must have been faster in the past otherwise there is no better explanation. Evolutionists would never think to do that sort of research because their philosophy blinds them to other possibilities.  


-------
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: 02:33 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"missing" data is not a problem for evolutionary scientists...


No you're right, it isn't. That way they can fill in the spaces with whatever fits their preferred philosophy.

If their predictions turn out to be good then confidence in their theories grows.


Yes and if they never find anything, then they can keep on pretending that their imaginary links never fossilized for any number of reasons. Shouldn't science be based on what you can observe rather than on what you imagine was there but can't be observed?

Confidence in evolution is running pretty high in scientific circles at the moment.


The Jehovah's witnesses and the Roman Catholic church are also pretty popular.




-------
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: 03:24 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus_maximus
Not sure what this means. Are you saying  all decay rates have been constant over time?
So you won't answer to anything i've said... You'll just ask about one of the things i've said...

Do you have proof that one species morphed into another?
Science deals with evidence, not proof. And there's plenty.

You ignore the arguments, you ignore the evidence, you play dumb and avoid to answer. And your questions are a joke.

I'm tired.



-------
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: 05:09 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

decay rates have been independently verified through astronomical means to several hundred million years.


How do you independantly verify contradictory age estimates? Some of the highest rocks in the grand Canyon from the Uinkaret Plateau were dated at approx. 1,3 billion years using the rubidium strontium method; lead dating put them at 2,6 billion years and potassium argon at anything from 10 000 to 117 million years. If the rubidium and lead methods are correct, these high rocks would be older than those near the canyon's base.

From the "Journal of Geophysical Research" - it was reported that the lava from an 1800-1801 eruption  of the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii has been radiometrically dated using various minerals and methods from which ten different dates were derived, ranging from 140 million to 2,96 billion years.

Why would we trust these methods? Who gets to choose the correct age in ranges like this? I suppose the age that is closest to what evolutionists would like it to be, would have to be the winner.  


-------
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: 05:36 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

re Hualalai

The samples were collected by creationists trying to discredit radiometric dating... weren't they?


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 06:28 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:36 AM on March 3, 2009 :

From the "Journal of Geophysical Research" - it was reported that the lava from an 1800-1801 eruption  of the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii has been radiometrically dated using various minerals and methods from which ten different dates were derived, ranging from 140 million to 2,96 billion years. 


Give me the title and date and I'll read it.





-------
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: 07:28 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The dynamics of rapidly emplaced terrestrial lava flows and implications for planetary volcanism
The dynamics of rapidly emplaced terrestrial lava flows and implications for planetary volcanism

Stephen Baloga

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

Paul D. Spudis

Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas

John E. Guest

University of London Observatory, London, England

The Kaupulehu 1800–1801 lava flow of Hualalai volcano and the 1823 Keaiwa flow from the Great Crack of the Kilauea southwest rift zone had certain unusual and possibly unique properties for terrestrial basaltic lava flows. Both flows apparently had very low viscosities, high effusion rates, and uncommonly rapid rates of advance. Ultramafic xenolith nodules in the 1801 flow form stacks of cobbles with lava rinds of only millimeter thicknesses. The velocity of the lava stream in the 1801 flow was extremely high, at least 10 m s−1 (more than 40 km h−1). Observations and geological evidence suggest similarly high velocities for the 1823 flow. The unusual eruption conditions that produced these lava flows suggest a floodlike mode of emplacement unlike that of most other present-day flows. Although considerable effort has gone into understanding the viscous fluid dynamics and thermal processes that often occur in basaltic flows, the unusual conditions prevalent for the Kaupulehu and Keaiwa flows necessitate different modeling considerations. We propose an elementary flood model for this type of lava emplacement and show that it produces consistent agreement with the overall dimensions of the flow, channel sizes, and other supporting field evidence. The reconstructed dynamics of these rapidly emplaced terrestrial lava flows provide significant insights about the nature of these eruptions and their analogs in planetary volcanism.


Read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective and see what he says about xenoliths.

[b]Xenolith[b] Literally, a foreign chunk of rock within a rock. Some rocks contain pieces of older rocks within them. These pieces were ripped off of the magma chamber in which the main rock formed and were incorporated into the rock without melting. Xenoliths do not occur in most rocks, and they are usually recognizable by eye where they do occur. If unrecognized, they can result in an incorrect date for a rock (the date may be of the older xenolith).



-------
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: 07:49 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:33 AM on March 3, 2009 :
The helium in granite has been measured as well as it's escape rate and there is far too much still there, meaning that decay must have been faster in the past otherwise there is no better explanation.


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



-------
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: 08:04 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester: How do you independantly verify contradictory age estimates? Some of the highest rocks in the grand Canyon from the Uinkaret Plateau were dated at approx. 1,3 billion years using the rubidium strontium method; lead dating put them at 2,6 billion years and potassium argon at anything from 10 000 to 117 million years. If the rubidium and lead methods are correct, these high rocks would be older than those near the canyon's base.

Rebutted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

Lester: From the "Journal of Geophysical Research" - it was reported that the lava from an 1800-1801 eruption  of the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii has been radiometrically dated using various minerals and methods from which ten different dates were derived, ranging from 140 million to 2,96 billion years.

Rebutted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html#h15

lester:Why would we trust these methods? Who gets to choose the correct age in ranges like this? I suppose the age that is closest to what evolutionists would like it to be, would have to be the winner.


Lester, all you are doing is regurgitating creationist propaganda.  Finding those rebuttals was easier than ritually drinking “blood” from a chalice.  Whenever scientists run into a problem with dating their samples they throw the results out and try again.  It is only when they cross-check with multiple methods that they accept the dates as valid.   Why is this so difficult for you to understand?  

Here let me make it easy for you.  Please present to the board one sample of a dinosaur fossil that has been accepted by main-stream science with an incorrect date.   Please then explain why this date is incorrect.   Seriously Lester I’m asking you to present just one incorrectly dated sample that has been accepted by main-stream science. Can you do it?

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:00 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

if you read any of the scientific literature on radiometric dating you will find that each radiometric methods has its strengths and weaknesses depending on the inherent decay properties of the isotope and the rock that is being examined.  I'm not going to list them here.  Fredguff and apoapsis gave links above that discuss this.

The point is, geologists are very familiar with the limitations for each dating method, and use dating methods that are appropriate for the type of rock and conditions that being studied.  Also, radiometric dating methods are getting better - improving margins of uncertainty as shown in the following article.

Radiometric Dating Refined

Note that the dating method for Argon-Argon  was refined to reduce the uncertainty from 2.5 % to 0.25 %.  I wouldn't call an uncertainty of 2.5 % bad.  But now the methodogy is even better.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:19 PM on March 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy
re Hualalai

The samples were collected by creationists trying to discredit radiometric dating... weren't they?


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


It is possible they are 'undercover creationists' or Darwin doubters, I have no idea. If creationists are the only ones that question the multi -assumptions of radiometric dating, it is because they oppose the philosophy that dictates to evolutionists that they should not question that which is supportive of their worldview. On the other hand there are evolutionists out there that innocently question what they are expected to believe and, quite often, the moment they question they are accused of being creationists even when they have never heard of such a thing.
It's a convoluted business.

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.

Fredguff
Lester, all you are doing is regurgitating creationist propaganda.


And there's no chance that all you're doing is regurgitating evolutionary propoganda? I'm afraid that did not rebut anything for me.  I have read plenty other talkorigins rebuttals that have neither impressed me nor rebutted what they claim to rebut. According to evolutionists, everything that goes against evolution has been thoroughly rebutted - to the satisfaction of the evolutionist - who is, in my humble opinion, easily satisfied when it comes to retaining their worldview and 'scientific' respectability. Did you even read your rebuttals? If something is rebutted on talkorigins, does that mean that it is good enough for you?

Orion,
Also, radiometric dating methods are getting better - improving margins of uncertainty


No, actually the multitude of assumptions inherent in the technique remain and the discrepancies between different techniques remain and the extremely old ages for extremely young things of known age remain. Try explaining that without resorting to - "a creationist said it, therefore it is unscientific."


-------
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: 03:37 AM on March 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

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).


-------
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: 07:46 AM on March 4, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester: And there's no chance that all you're doing is regurgitating evolutionary propoganda? I'm afraid that did not rebut anything for me.  I have read plenty other talkorigins rebuttals that have neither impressed me nor rebutted what they claim to rebut.

Come on Lester, if all you got is “they are from talkorigins”, then you have nothing.  I read the articles and I believe the evidence the authors presented did a solid job of addressing and answering “your” concerns regarding the ages of the Grand Canyon Strata and Hawaii lava flows.   Please explain why you don’t agree.

What was about these rebuttals that you didn’t agree with?   Did the referenced scientists use bad or corrupted samples?  Did they ignore conflicting evidence?  Do you have issues with the sources they used?  Please elaborate.


Lester: According to evolutionists, everything that goes against evolution has been thoroughly rebutted - to the satisfaction of the evolutionist - who is, in my humble opinion, easily satisfied when it comes to retaining their worldview and 'scientific' respectability.

That’s because most of the concerns brought up by creationists are easily rebutted.  I mean can’t you guys come up with something new that I can’t google a rebuttal for in less than two minutes? Never mind all the clumsy copying and pasting that goes on in the creationist camp, if creationists are not misreading and cherry-picking data to suit their needs, they are forwarding straw-man arguments like “evolutionists believe that humans randomly evolved from inorganic mud” and arguments from ignorance  like  “bacteria flagellum are too complex to have evolved from a lesser structure... ”
When I hear the latter argument I think, “Well jeeze, at one time the human circulatory system was too complex for physicians to save humans from chronic heart disease--yet now life-saving by-pass surgeries are as routine as root-canals”.
And what happens when something like the human eye or bacteria flagellum is demonstrated to not be irreducibly complex?  Is the theory overturned or do you move the goal posts to a new biological system?

Lester: Did you even read your rebuttals? If something is rebutted on talkorigins, does that mean that it is good enough for you?

Actually talkorigins is a great site. I always read their rebuttals when I link to them and  I’m glad to have them as a reliable resource that can make complex subjects easily digestible.  I especially like the fact that they footnote all their sources. If you have issues concerning the specifics of the articles that I linked to at talkorigins, please elaborate.

Where are you trying to go with this anyway Lester?  I get the sense that you and some of the other creationists and Biblical literalists realize the futility of reconciling the multitude of unavoidable inconsistencies and outright falsehoods inherent in your literal interpretations of any of the numerous English translations of the Old and New Testaments.  I sense that you are motivated to poke holes in the theory of evolution with the hope that somehow you can convince yourself that if your literal translation can’t be “sacred” than nothing can be “sacred”.   I also think you are afraid to critically examine your religious beliefs.  Have you ever wondered how your bible was compiled and translated? Have you studied it’s history?  Have you ever questioned the validity of the various councils and politicians who had a role in putting your “book” together?  Have you ever thought about their motivations?  

Have you ever studied the writings of Augustine of Hippo?  If so, do you recall his opinion on literal interpretations of Genesis?


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 1:07 PM on March 4, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, I've answered your question, even mentioned what specfically and you've not responded to that.
What evidence specifically do you have that one species morphed into another? Do you have any half bird, half dinosaur?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:02 PM on March 4, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus -
What evidence specifically do you have that one species morphed into another? Do you have any half bird, half dinosaur?


How about Archaeopteryx?  
Archaeopteryx

And how about this?

Modern birds generally have keen eye-sight, but a poor sense of smell.  Theropod dinosaurs generally had a keen sense of smell.

"Our results tell us that the sense of smell in early birds was not inferior to that of meat-eating dinosaurs," says Therrien. "Although it had been previously suggested that smell had become less important than eye sight in the ancestors of birds, we have shown that this wasn't so. The primitive bird Archaeopteryx had a sense of smell comparable to meat-eating dinosaurs, while at the same time it had very good eye sight. The sense of smell must have become less important at some point during the evolution of those birds more advanced than Archaeopteryx."

Dinosaur sense of smell and bird evolution

Not all scientists support the idea of a dinosaur-bird connection.  Ornithologist Alan Feduccia is one such researcher.  That doesn't mean he doesn't believe in evolution!  It just shows that the issue is not yet settled.  He is more inclined to believe that dinosaurs and birds had a common ancestor.  He had this to say about Archaeopteryx:

Among other discoveries, Feduccia found by a careful examination that Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird and one of the world’s most famous fossils, could fly. Previously, many scientists thought the animal to be an Earth-bound dinosaur.

No theropod-bird link, some scientists say

I believe there were some important recent discoveries of what appears to be feathered dinosaurs in just the past year or two.  

Anyway, there is still some healthy scientific debate on the issue - which is good.  Scientific debate  encourages further research.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:24 PM on March 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 7:02 PM on March 4, 2009 :
Do you have any half bird, half dinosaur?






-------
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: 9:37 PM on March 4, 2009 | IP
Atomicus

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See how orion did that... he presented evidence... PROPER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... but he countered this by saying that some scientists have differing views on the matter. But as he points out, it's all healthy and encourages further research. His information was balanced, accurate and based on SCIENTIFIC FACT!

You see the difference here? This is what gets me about this whole debate. It's just so unbalanced and one-sided that it would almost be funny if it wasn't so painful sometimes to read what some of the creationists believe. The ability to draw upon this HUGE WEALTH of actual scientific research yet still acknowledge that research is still ongoing and that we don't have all the answers really speaks volumes. Do we see creationists doing the same? Ofcourse not. It's just copy-and-paste, regurgitation of a thousand-times-before-refuted aspects of evolution that they THINK support their misguided and idiotic beliefs. It never ceases to amaze me how narrow minded and ignorant these people are... here's hoping this forum can go some way to makng them realise their folly!

(Edited by Atomicus 3/4/2009 at 10:46 PM).
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:41 PM on March 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll ask again:
Do you have any problems with 'genes for attachment'?

Adam and Eve: Were they real?
And every animal was in the Garden?
Do species blur, or are they clear to you?

Wisp, I've answered your question,
Which one?
even mentioned what specfically and you've not responded to that.
What, the decaying rates? You just asked. You said nothing.

I did not say that the decaying rates were constant. I said that if any of them showed variation, it would probably be in harmony with an analogous variation from the rest of the decaying rates, the speed of light, the resonance of particles, etc, in such a way that we couldn't tell the difference. That's what i've said.

It's like the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations: things moving through the ether will behave in a way that will prevent you from measuring its movement through the ether.

What evidence specifically do you have that one species morphed into another? Do you have any half bird, half dinosaur?
Sigh...




-------
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: 03:23 AM on March 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:25 AM on March 3, 2009 :
How do you explain geologic strata that are missing all over the world.

Erosion.  Are you trying to say that erosion doesn't happen?
It is very rare to find all the layers that should be there. Over approx 77% of the earth, seven or more strata are missing.

The surprising part would be that it's complete for 23%.  That sounds high to me.
In others they are in the wrong order for evolution. Sedimentary layers are dated by their fossils and fossils are dated by the layers they are found in and all this dating took place before radiometric dating came along so is this science or wishful thinking?


It's wishful thinking if you think that's how it works, I think someone you trust is misleading you again.  Layers are identified by their fossils, they are dated by finding overlaying volcanic flows that can be dated.




-------
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: 08:51 AM on March 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10, you need to start asking real questions.

Stop assuming that what they told you is true. It's just not.

When they tell you "Evolutionists believe this!!!", with all the exclamation marks and all, you just come and ask: "Hey guys. I've been told that you believe this. Is that true?".

More often than not the answer will be "No."

All the best!



-------
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: 11:47 AM on March 5, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Wisp,
Stop assuming that what they told you is true.


I could say the same for you.

How do you explain geologic strata that are missing all over the world.


Erosion.


So some millions of year that were slowly formed, eroded away as well so that it looks as if they are missing? Why do the sedimentary layers look so neat and uneroded then? Why are some millions of years convoluted as if they were bent when they were formed -they had to be soft at the time otherwise they wouldn't look like that. They would have cracked.
What about where the layers are in the wrong order? Some show geologic evidence for overthrusts, landslides etc. but some show no evidence whatsoever.
Evolutionists identify rocks as 'Devonian' 'Triassic' etc. by their fossils. But fossils frequently do not appear in the order which evolution expects -for example marine fossils found in moutains around the world, even near the top of Mount Everest.
What about polystrate fossils? Upright trees going through coal seams -through 'millions' of years of coal seams?

Atomicus:
See how orion did that... he presented evidence... PROPER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... but he countered this by saying that some scientists have differing views on the matter. But as he points out, it's all healthy and encourages further research. His information was balanced, accurate and based on SCIENTIFIC FACT!


It's just a pity that this healthy debate cannot extend to those who have every good reason for believing that a creator was necessary for live to exist at all. Where non-evolutionists are concerned, there is no such respect for alternate points of view, only censorship and suppression of information. If there is nothing to fear, why get so excited? This should all burn itself out if your case is as strong as you and others like you maintain it is. Shouting "SCIENTIFIC FACT!" impresses me not at all.

It's just so unbalanced and one-sided that it would almost be funny if it wasn't so painful sometimes to read what some of the creationists believe.


Your brain washing causes that frustration. It is very difficult for you to deal with 'stupid' people when you have obviously been told repeatedly that your view is the only correct one. Perhaps this little article will help you.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/02/28/darwinists_on_design_jumping_to_confusio    


-------
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: 01:24 AM on March 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Wisp,
Hi.

Stop assuming that what they told you is true.
I could say the same for you.
You couldn't. For i ask creationists what they believe. I don't assume much (i HAVE to assume that they believe in God, for instance).

I don't say "Creationism says that Noah embarked 220 elephants!!".

I ask: What did Noah do with the elephants? How many did he embark? Only two? Did the elephants develop into 160 species after the flood event? Was it before that, but 157 of them died within the first 2k years of the world? Or they died in the flood and the Bible was exaggerating about embarking every walking species?

So no, you can't say the same about me.

So some millions of year that were slowly formed, eroded away as well so that it looks as if they are missing?
I don't see a problem with that.

Why do you?

You don't see any problem with your theory and the creatures i posted up there?

fossils frequently do not appear in the order which evolution expects
When? Where? Can you give us some reference for that?

-for example marine fossils found in moutains around the world, even near the top of Mount Everest.
Who told you that we didn't expect marine fossils in the Mount Everest? They lied to you.

What about polystrate fossils? Upright trees going through coal seams -through 'millions' of years of coal seams?
Yeah, trees.

There are several good explanations for several different types of upright fossils.

Regeneration is one of them, and it's quite obvious. Would you like me to find you some pictures?
Trees get partially buried (not enough to kill them), and have to develop a new set of roots. New sediments bury it again, and again the tree has to grow to compensate for the shortage of height, developing a new set of roots.

If you see them, you can't think of anything else. I mean, trees that are longer than they use to be, with roots in the middle of the long trunk... Doesn't take much imagination to guess what happened.

It's just a pity that this healthy debate cannot extend to those who have every good reason for believing that a creator was necessary for live to exist at all.
Care to cite just one of those good reasons? One that has not been debunked, preferably.

Where non-evolutionists are concerned, there is no such respect for alternate points of view,
If you say that the Earth is flat, that's not a point of view.
only censorship and suppression of information.
What information has been suppressed? From where?

You talk too general.

If there is nothing to fear, why get so excited?
Gullible young people buying into your myths is something to fear.
This should all burn itself out if your case is as strong as you and others like you maintain it is.
It should. But it doesn't. Not in the USA, at least. God is persistently opening American eyes regarding creation biology.

Shouting "SCIENTIFIC FACT!" impresses me not at all.
What about computers, vaccines, and genetic engineering? Do they impress you at all?

Your brain washing causes that frustration. It is very difficult for you to deal with 'stupid' people when you have obviously been told repeatedly that your view is the only correct one.
Am i brainwashed too? What if i told you that i just came by the basics of Evolution when i was a kid, and i learned a good part of the theory by myself, watching nature?

I saw what happened when dogs had offspring. I learned about races, and horses, donkeys, mules, dogs and wolves, citric fruits, related plants, and that sort of thing.

I learned about disasters that happened when a new species was introduced in a different ecosystem. I learned that in little islands mammals tend to be small, and reptiles tend to be large.

I learned about monotremes, marsupials and placental mammals. I learned that monotremes lay eggs. I learned that some dinos had feathers.

Did God create a brainwashing nature? Was He trying to test our faith?


(Edited by wisp 3/6/2009 at 06:35 AM).


-------
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: 06:35 AM on March 6, 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 ... 3 4 ... 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.