Microbe Wakes Up After 120,000 Years

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090615/sc_livescience/microbewakesupafter120000years
Senior Writer
LiveScience.com jeanna Bryner
senior Writer
livescience.com – Mon Jun 15, 11:46 am ET

After more than 120,000 years trapped beneath a block of ice in Greenland, a tiny microbe has awoken. The long-lasting bacteria may hold clues to what life forms might exist on other planets.

The new bacteria species was found nearly 2 miles (3 km) beneath a Greenland glacier, where temperatures can dip well below freezing, pressure soars, and food and oxygen are scarce.

"We don't know what state they were in," said study team member Jean Brenchley of Pennsylvania State University. "They could've been dormant, or they could've been slowly metabolizing, but we don't know for sure."

Dormant would mean the bacteria were in a spore-like state in which there's not a lot of metabolism going on, so the bacteria wouldn't be reproducing much. It's possible the bacteria could have been slowly metabolizing and replicating.

"Microbes have found ways to survive in harsh conditions for long times that we don't yet fully understand," Brenchley told LiveScience.



To coax the bacteria back to life, Brenchley, Jennifer Loveland-Curtze and their Penn State colleagues incubated the samples at 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) for seven months, followed by more than four months at 41 degrees F (5 degrees C).

The resulting colonies of the originally purple-brown bacteria, now named Herminiimonas glaciei, are alive and well.

"We were able to recover it and get it to grow in our laboratory," Brenchley said. "It was viable."

Such vigor is partially due to the microbe's small size, the scientists speculate. Boasting dimensions that are 10 to 50 times smaller than Escherichia coli, the new bacteria likely could more efficiently absorb nutrients due to a larger surface-to-volume ratio. Tiny microbes like this one can also hide more easily from predators and take up residence among ice crystals and in the thin liquid film on those surfaces.

H. glaciei is not the first bacteria species resurrected after a possibly lengthy snooze beneath the ice. Loveland-Curtze and her team reported another hardy bacterium in the same area that had survived for about 120,000 years as well. Chryseobacterium greenlandensis had tiny bud-like structures on its surface that may have played a role in the organism's survival. Another bacterium survived more than 32,000 years in an Arctic tunnel, and was brought back to life a few years ago.

The harsh conditions endured by these microbes serve as models of other planets.

"These extremely cold environments are the best analogues of possible extraterrestrial habitats," Loveland-Curtze said, referring to the Greenland glacier. "The exceptionally low temperatures can preserve cells and nucleic acids for even millions of years."

And studying such microorganisms may provide insight into what sorts of life forms could survive elsewhere in the solar system.

The new bacterium is described in the current issue of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.



At least 120,000 year old earth!?!?

[sonic21]

Where's Michael Crichton when you need him?

[z0sa]

At least 120,000 year old earth!?!?

What dating method they used is not included in your version of the article.

Indeed, a rather convincing inference about whatever method (if you want to call "Ummm.. it's 120,000 years old or so" a 'method') can be made by the lack of definitive knowledge on the subject the scientist(s) exhibit throughout the article:


We don't know what state they were in

They could've been dormant, or they could've been slowly metabolizing

Microbes have found ways to survive in harsh conditions for long times that we don't yet fully understand

This last one I ask you to take into special consideration:

The exceptionally low temperatures can preserve cells and nucleic acids for even millions of years.

Didn't you just admit there's no knowledge or proof concerning how it would survive so long? Where is the proof of this, besides in your overactive imagination??

Almost surely, this is simply a frozen remnant from the recent ice age. No doubt though, they somehow found it reasonable - despite admitting no knowledge concerning how the bacteria got there, what it was doing there, or how it managed to survive so long - to date the bacteria based on their glaciation measurements.

At least that's my assumption. It is impossible to know for sure considering they completely excluded this and other vital information, expecting the mouthbreathers to buy it up front and in your face without a question - which most apparently do. Simply put, these incredibly convenient exclusions pepper article after article.

[BlackSwordsMan]

god made this earth 5000 years ago
these scientist are stupid

[1369]

http://www.houseofhorrors.com/macready.gif

Thinks this is a very bad idea...

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

What dating method they used is not included in your version of the article.

Indeed, a rather convincing inference about whatever method (if you want to call "Ummm.. it's 120,000 years old or so" a 'method') can be made by the lack of definitive knowledge on the subject the scientist(s) exhibit throughout the article:





This last one I ask you to take into special consideration:


Where is the proof of this, besides your overactive imagination??

Almost surely, this is simply a frozen remnant from the recent ice age. No doubt though, they somehow found it reasonable to date the bacteria based on their glaciation measurements.

You are correct in that there is no mention of date testing in the article and therefore is a valid point.

[jman3000]

They're probably aging it based on the depth they found it. Just like rock formations, I reckon the further down a glacier you go, the further back in time you're looking.

It's crazy that something could survive 120,000 years beneath 2 miles of ice.

[z0sa]

They're probably aging it based on the depth they found it. Just like rock formations, I reckon the further down a glacier you go, the further back in time you're looking.

Glaciers and rocks are very, very different. You simply cannot compare them oncesoever. Suffice to say that method is inoperable.

Second, you say 'deeper=further in time for glaciers.' This is not true whether you are studying rocks or glaciers. Glaciers form when ice and snow is formed faster than it can melt. Eventually, gravity begins pushing these small chunks down and a type of snowball effect occurs. However, especially early in a glacier existence, the ice and snow which make up the firmament is constantly freezing and thawing. This creates 'firn', granular ice that, over decades, forms into sheets of glacial ice. However, glacier ice is less dense than normally forming ice due to its granular nature, creating tiny pockets of air. Additionally, still goes through cycles of thawing and refreezing. These could possibly have let our little friend (the microbe) in after much glaciation had occurred, which is why your assumption is inherently incorrect.

[SnakeBoy]

http://www.houseofhorrors.com/macready.gif

Thinks this is a very bad idea...

Dammit! You beat me to it :lol.

[Udokafan05]

Walt Disney will soon be back

[Wild Cobra]

They're probably aging it based on the depth they found it. Just like rock formations, I reckon the further down a glacier you go, the further back in time you're looking.

It's crazy that something could survive 120,000 years beneath 2 miles of ice.
There are ways of determining the age with relatively good accuracy. It's too old for Carbon Dating, but there are other isotopic balances used. Paleoclimatology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology) has developed well enough to understand an approximate date.

[jman3000]

Glaciers and rocks are very, very different. You simply cannot compare them oncesoever. Suffice to say that method is inoperable.

Second, you say 'deeper=further in time for glaciers.' This is not true whether you are studying rocks or glaciers. Glaciers form when ice and snow is formed faster than it can melt. Eventually, gravity begins pushing these small chunks down and a type of snowball effect occurs. However, especially early in a glacier existence, the ice and snow which make up the firmament is constantly freezing and thawing. This creates 'firn', granular ice that, over decades, forms into sheets of glacial ice. However, glacier ice is less dense than normally forming ice due to its granular nature, creating tiny pockets of air. Additionally, still goes through cycles of thawing and refreezing. These could possibly have let our little friend (the microbe) in after much glaciation had occurred, which is why your assumption is inherently incorrect.

O Yah ... iz forget. earth is only 5k yrs old. my bad.

:rolleyes

[jman3000]

ha... I've never used that smilie before. It was a lot less pleasing than I've imagined.

[pppp]

No offense, but you americans crack me up!

I do respect all opinions but only in the US is this issue of "evolution" and "5,000 -10,000 year old earth" so...present...

It really is fascinating from an outsider POV :corn:

[DarkReign]

god made this earth 5000 years ago
these scientist are stupid

Exactly.

[DarkReign]

No offense, but you americans crack me up!

I do respect all opinions but only in the US is this issue of "evolution" and "5,000 -10,000 year old earth" so...present...

It really is fascinating from an outsider POV :corn:

Its willful, blissful ignorance and the Bible Belt's endearing influence on everything.

[clambake]

this microbe........was it created in gods image?

[Richard Cranium]

http://www.houseofhorrors.com/macready.gif

Thinks this is a very bad idea...

:lol

[Blake]

Glaciers and rocks are very, very different. You simply cannot compare them oncesoever. Suffice to say that method is inoperable.

Second, you say 'deeper=further in time for glaciers.' This is not true whether you are studying rocks or glaciers. Glaciers form when ice and snow is formed faster than it can melt. Eventually, gravity begins pushing these small chunks down and a type of snowball effect occurs. However, especially early in a glacier existence, the ice and snow which make up the firmament is constantly freezing and thawing. This creates 'firn', granular ice that, over decades, forms into sheets of glacial ice. However, glacier ice is less dense than normally forming ice due to its granular nature, creating tiny pockets of air. Additionally, still goes through cycles of thawing and refreezing. These could possibly have let our little friend (the microbe) in after much glaciation had occurred, which is why your assumption is inherently incorrect.

how old do you think Methuseleh really was?

young earth/old men

[z0sa]

No offense, but you americans crack me up!

I do respect all opinions but only in the US is this issue of "evolution" and "5,000 -10,000 year old earth" so...present...

It really is fascinating from an outsider POV :corn:

Thanks for speaking for the 5.5 billion people outside of the USA, and not just yourself.

you're a douche. Regardless of where you're from.


Its willful, blissful ignorance and the Bible Belt's endearing influence on everything.

I was an atheist originally.

[z0sa]

how old do you think Methuseleh really was?

young earth/old men

According to the Bible, Methuselah was 969 years old.

How does this have bearing on an earth tens of thousands of years old?

[z0sa]

O Yah ... iz forget. earth is only 5k yrs old. my bad.

:rolleyes

nothing tangible here. It's like arguing with fucking grade schoolers.

"oh, you're an idiot for not having MY opinion."

I put your silly assumptions to rest. Don't bring your uneducated guessing bullshit back to this thread if you don't want to be made a fool.

[Blake]

According to the Bible, Methuselah was 969 years old.

How does this have bearing on an earth tens of thousands of years old?

eh. I just think it's ironic that Bible literalists believe in a young earth and men that could live to 900 years of age,

[Blake]

I put your silly assumptions to rest. Don't bring your uneducated guessing bullshit back to this thread if you don't want to be made a fool.

assumptions? :lol

if it wasn't for the Bible, nobody would really assume that the Earth was only 5-10k years old.

[z0sa]

eh. I just think it's ironic that Bible literalists believe in a young earth and men that could live to 900 years of age,

point taken.

[z0sa]

assumptions? :lol

What would you call his assertions?


if it wasn't for the Bible, nobody would really assume that the Earth was only 5-10k years old.

Nobody believes the earth is 5000 years old. No one. We all agree there. Very few believe it is 10,000.

Less than 50,000 is a decent number.

And the only reason people began assuming 'deep time' occurred because of a book as well - Origin of Species. Without deep time, evolution would be basically impossible, so they decided deep time must have occurred. How is this methodology any different than assuming the earth is young because of a holy book? In fact, until some time after Darwin's theory was published, a young earth was the only model of earth.

[Blake]

In fact, until some time after Darwin's theory was published, a young earth was the only model of earth.

:lol you really think geologists, physicists and astronomers all make sure their calculations of the earth's age are consistent with Darwin's model before they publish their findings?

fyi, the young earth model was mostly proposed by the church leaders before Darwin's time.

you have no clue what you are talking about as usual.

[z0sa]

:lol you really think geologists, physicists and astronomers all make sure their calculations of the earth's age are consistent with Darwin's model before they publish their findings?

You think they don't? :rollin That's 90% of research dumbass - making sure it coincides with the rest of the field's body of work. Only in rare cases does a finding occur which does not correlate with others.


fyi, the young earth model was mostly proposed by the church leaders before Darwin's time.

There weren't scientists before 1900? Because that's around the time scientists started seriously theorizing deep time occurred.

Oh, you really didn't know that? That multiple scientists before Darwin had differering origins concepts from the church? That scientists eve after Darwin, using his theory, still tried to correlate it with a young earth?

I know why. You're a pompous jackass.


I have no clue what I'm talking about as usual.

If you did, you would know how huge correlating your research with others is in any field of study, especially these types.

[Blake]

You think they don't? :rollin That's 90% of research dumbass - making sure it coincides with the rest of the field's body of work. Only in rare cases does a finding occur which does not correlate with others.

no, they don't look at Darwin's model to formulate their theories.

There were plenty of models from geolgists and physicists that came along before Darwin that had the Earth aged into the millions.


There weren't scientists before 1900? Because that's around the time scientists started seriously theorizing deep time occurred.

wrong. deep time models came around the early to mid 1800s.


Oh, you really didn't know that? That multiple scientists before Darwin had differering origins concepts from the church? That scientists eve after Darwin, using his theory, still tried to correlate it with a young earth?

I know why. You're a pompous jackass.



If you did, you would know how huge correlating your research with others is in any field of study, especially these types.


you're an ignorant idiot.

debating things with you is pointless.

[z0sa]

no, they don't look at Darwin's model to formulate their theories.

They did for quite some time.
Which is the point I am making.
Good job missing the point entirely.

Science is not one discovery by itself, ignorant one. One discovery is the sum total of every discovery before it equalling more than its parts.


There were plenty of models from geolgists and physicists that came along before Darwin that had the Earth aged into the millions.

Whether the earth is billions of years old or just tens of thousands, their efforts were hopelessly wrong.


wrong. deep time models came around the early to mid 1800s.

How was I wrong? I said it wasn't until 1900 that a NEED for deep time occurred. And, again, these deep time models were incredibly inaccurate. You can't use them as evidence due to their inconsistencies.



i'm an ignorant idiot.

Obviously. You don't even know about scientists working together to make discoveries, across entire fields of study in different parts of the world, and from different time periods where different discoveries were made. You fail.


debating things with you is pointless.

son, you do absolutely no debating, in any thread.

You make your points while disregarding others'. That's not a debate, that's you in your little world thinking you know it all.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Does that make the microbe the messiah?

[jman3000]

120,000 year old microbe >>>>> Messiah

[jman3000]

A hole just opened up and I'm now in the depths of Hell. Son of a bitch.

[Dr. Gonzo]

120,000 year old microbe >>>>> Messiah

I don't know man. Was the microbe nailed to a cross and poked with a spear?

[Blake]

They did for quite some time.
Which is the point I am making.
Good job missing the point entirely.

Science is not one discovery by itself, ignorant one. One discovery is the sum total of every discovery before it equalling more than its parts.



Whether the earth is billions of years old or just tens of thousands, their efforts were hopelessly wrong.



How was I wrong? I said it wasn't until 1900 that a NEED for deep time occurred. And, again, these deep time models were incredibly inaccurate. You can't use them as evidence due to their inconsistencies.




Obviously. You don't even know about scientists working together to make discoveries, across entire fields of study in different parts of the world, and from different time periods where different discoveries were made. You fail.



son, you do absolutely no debating, in any thread.

You make your points while disregarding others'. That's not a debate, that's you in your little world thinking you know it all.


naw, you just side step my question or point with an off topic blurb.

keep on thinking the world < 100,000, dumbass.

[z0sa]

naw, you just side step my question or point with an off topic blurb.

Just because you have no idea how to debate, nor an idea of what constitutes one, doesn't mean I ever stopped.


keep on thinking the world < 100,000

more "my opinion is better than yours" shit.

Can't say I expected more from someone whose entire goal in any given thread is to state what he has to say and call people stupid for disagreeing.

[Blake]

What would you call his assertions?



Nobody believes the earth is 5000 years old. No one. We all agree there. Very few believe it is 10,000.

Less than 50,000 is a decent number.

And the only reason people began assuming 'deep time' occurred because of a book as well - Origin of Species. Without deep time, evolution would be basically impossible, so they decided deep time must have occurred. How is this methodology any different than assuming the earth is young because of a holy book? In fact, until some time after Darwin's theory was published, a young earth was the only model of earth.

it's pointless to debate with you because your facts are wrong.

What part of "people were already assuming 'deep time' before Darwin" don't you understand?

you are an idiot. If you need proof of that, let me know.

[Blake]

Can't say I expected more from someone whose entire goal in any given thread is to state what he has to say and call people stupid for disagreeing.

you mean the same way you called pppp a douche bag for his opinion?

now you're a hyopcrite and an idiot. congrats.

[z0sa]

it's pointless to debate with you because your facts are wrong.

My facts aren't wrong. Indeed, your misinterpretation of them casts its own shadow.


What part of "people were already assuming 'deep time' before Darwin" don't you understand?

No one assumed deep time back then, it was nothing more than an obscure theory with no mainstream scientific backing. Deep time IS assumed today because of the popularity of Darwin's theory. Period. Nothing you can say or misinterpret will change these truths.


I am an idiot. I prove it everyday.

Which is why I don't ignore anyone, especially self-centered egotistical douches like yourself. It's rather comical, even humorous, and watching you attempt to easily write off my arguments is even funnier. You're out of your league debating these issues with me.

[z0sa]

you mean the same way you called pppp a douche bag for his opinion?

now you're a hyopcrite and an idiot. congrats.

You consistently miss point after point. Your prediction and critical thinking skills are strangely unhoned.

"pp" said only in the US is this an issue - he never presented an opinion, instead stating it factually including a bolding of the word 'only'. There's tons of proof against said argument.

Even without proof and using only your own slight human knowledge, it is impossible to speak for 5.5 billion people as sharing your 'opinion.'

Hence why he is a douche.

[clambake]

i planted all the fossils.

[Rappin Granny]

Blake 2

Z0sa 5

[ShoogarBear]

ShoogarBear 34,407
elpimpo 17,174

[jman3000]

I don't know man. Was the microbe nailed to a cross and poked with a spear?

Being dead for 120,000 years and coming back is a lot more impressive than being dead 3 days and coming back.

Check mate.

[E20]

Anybody here like the smell of their pubes?

[Blake]

Being dead for 120,000 years and coming back is a lot more impressive than being dead 3 days and coming back.

Check mate.

naw. lemme know when the microbe can turn water into wine.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone who actually studies the Bible knows the Torah does not have it at 6,000 years old. Adam in the beginning of Genesis means "mankind" and wasn't the proper name variant "Adam" as until the stories of Adam and Eve. The Earth was created in six timeframes, not specified as days. It's the poor translations of all english version Bibles that are in error.

There are two different Chaldean words used between the two "Adams" of the english translations. The geneology of Adam measures back to the few thousand years, but mankind existed long before the Adam that Jehovah took care of.

[Blake]

Anyone who actually studies the Bible knows the Torah does not have it at 6,000 years old. Adam in the beginning of Genesis means "mankind" and wasn't the proper name variant "Adam" as until the stories of Adam and Eve. The Earth was created in six timeframes, not specified as days. It's the poor translations of all english version Bibles that are in error.

There are two different Chaldean words used between the two "Adams" of the english translations. The geneology of Adam measures back to the few thousand years, but mankind existed long before the Adam that Jehovah took care of.

what's your point?

[pppp]

you mean the same way you called pppp a douche bag for his opinion?

now you're a hyopcrite and an idiot. congrats.
:lol

You consistently miss point after point. Your prediction and critical thinking skills are strangely unhoned.

"pp" said only in the US is this an issue - he never presented an opinion, instead stating it factually including a bolding of the word 'only'. There's tons of proof against said argument.

Even without proof and using only your own slight human knowledge, it is impossible to speak for 5.5 billion people as sharing your 'opinion.'

Hence why he is a douche.

Well thank you.

I'm not judging anyone, I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm only stating a fact. Why do u feel the need to attack me?

I actually travel around the world all year (i'm an internal auditor - I travel around the world 9/10 months a year). How often have you gotten out of Texas in the last 10 years? I'm no geopolitics expert, but that's my humble observation...

Among industrialized countries (US, Japan, Germany, China, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Canada,...) ONLY IN THE US IS THIS ISSUE SO PRESENT and it is fascinating....

:corn:

[pppp]

(...) There's tons of proof against said argument.
Enlight me....

Even without proof and using only your own slight human knowledge, it is impossible to speak for 5.5 billion people as sharing your 'opinion[/B].'

Hence why he is a douche.
See that's the point: It's not an opinion or a judgment (good or bad). It's just an observation:

"Evolution", "Age of earth", etc. IS NOT such a hot issue as it is in the US in ANY other "industrialized" country. And that's a fact man.

[z0sa]

Enlight me....

Thre will be no enlightening of someone who thinks they neither made an opinion nor a judgment when you previously ill-spoke. Even if you care nothing for insulting creationists, you insulted Americans.


See that's the point: It's not an opinion or a judgment (good or bad). It's just an observation:

"Evolution", "Age of earth", etc. IS NOT such a hot issue as it is in the US in ANY other "industrialized" country. And that's a fact man.

no, it's not. I predicted this douchey rebuttal. It's half the reason I called you a douche before you further exhibited like above.

First you never said 'industrialized' countries. You said the entire world. Flipflop!

Second, don't ever call your outlandish opinions facts again.

Third, maybe you travel 24 hours a day, douche. You've probably brought up origins arguments at your job every day, huh? In all those different countries? Kept up with every article, speech, symposium, and essay on both sides of the issue? Talked with science leaders on both sides? Conducted polls yourself? All while somehow fulfilling your duties?

Let's start somewhere easier, yet another thing you haven't accomplished: Have you contributed anything meaningful to this forum that would allow me to take you seriously?

Let me answer all above questions for you: No. No, you haven't. No, you can't speak for anyone else but your own little self. No, you followed up with no proof (the burder of proof is on you, dumbass, so don't go asking ME for proof).

[Blake]

Thre will be no enlightening of someone who thinks they neither made an opinion nor a judgment when you previously ill-spoke. Even if you care nothing for insulting creationists, you insulted Americans.

he didn't insult Americans.


First you never said 'industrialized' countries. You said the entire world. Flipflop!

what non-industrialized country is this a hot topic in?


Second, don't ever call your outlandish opinions facts again.

hypocrite.


Let's start somewhere easier, yet another thing you haven't accomplished: Have you contributed anything meaningful to this forum that would allow me to take you seriously?

You still haven't. Nobody takes you seriously.


Let me answer all above questions for you: No. No, you haven't. No, you can't speak for anyone else but your own little self. No, you followed up with no proof (the burder of proof is on you, dumbass, so don't go asking ME for proof).

actually you said "There's tons of proof against said argument", so you put the burdern of proof on yourself.

yet as usual, you fail to provide it.

you just flat out fail, idiot.

[pppp]

Thre will be no enlightening of someone who thinks they neither made an opinion nor a judgment when you previously ill-spoke. Even if you care nothing for insulting creationists, you insulted Americans.
How did I insult Americans?? when??

It's not OK for me to speak for 5.5 billion people but it's OK for you to speak for 300 mil americans? Congrats on your hypocrisy...

no, it's not. I predicted this douchey rebuttal. It's half the reason I called you a douche before you further exhibited like above.

First you never said 'industrialized' countries. You said the entire world. Flipflop!
I compare what's comparable and what interests me. Do you wanna be compared to Vatican or Saudi Arabia? They do talk a lot of this theological stuff there....


Second, don't ever call your outlandish opinions facts again.
What if I do Mr Internet tough guy? :lol

Third, maybe you travel 24 hours a day, douche. You've probably brought up origins arguments at your job every day, huh? In all those different countries? Kept up with every article, speech, symposium, and essay on both sides of the issue? Talked with science leaders on both sides? Conducted polls yourself? All while somehow fulfilling your duties?

Let's start somewhere easier, yet another thing you haven't accomplished: Have you contributed anything meaningful to this forum that would allow me to take you seriously?
Did I hurt your feelings? :lol
I'm just saying this kind of debate is more present in the US than in other comparable countries...

Ah and the post count argument! that's pretty weak! :lol

Let me answer all above questions for you: No. No, you haven't. No, you can't speak for anyone else but your own little self. No, you followed up with no proof (the burder of proof is on you, dumbass, so don't go asking ME for proof).
:rollin weak again...where are the "tons of proofs"?

And do I have to understand that you haven't gotten out of Texas in the last 10 years? or ever? :lol

Fascinating indeed :corn:

[z0sa]

he didn't insult Americans.

you're too stupid to realize it.




what non-industrialized country is this a hot topic in?

Shouldn't be asking the person making the assertions? You truly have no idea what you're speaking about.


You still haven't. Nobody takes you seriously.

You're entitled to your opinion.


actually you said "There's tons of proof against said argument", so you put the burdern of proof on yourself.

You don't understand a bit of how a debate works, therefore, don't act like you do.


yet as usual, you fail to provide it.

Only to those incapable of understanding the english language.


I just flat out fail, and I'm an idiot.

Trust me, for all my creationism defending, you have plenty more people who think you're a flat out faggot, bro. You're internet tough guy act just doesn't work, because you can't back it up. You're a retard.

[z0sa]

How did I insult Americans?? when??

I guess you can't read, or think you're opinions are so right they can be stated as facts.

And again, I will call you a douchebag for acting as such.


It's not OK for me to speak for 5.5 billion people

No, it's not. By continuing to do so, and make broad assertions about said number of people, you completely disregard any shred of accountability you may have possessed.


but it's OK for you to speak for 300 mil americans? Congrats on your hypocrisy...

Yo, smart guy, you spoke for every culture and nation around the world. I never tried speaking for all America.

Besides, you insulted Americans - and I'm American. It's not hard logic to understand, genius. Your thinly veiled sarcasm and stupid bolding/popcorn smilie made your intentions utterly clear.


What if I do Mr Internet tough guy? :lol

Just because you're an easily intimidated fool doesn't mean I acted like an "internet tough guy" in any way, shape, or form. I simply called you out for stating your ridiculously wrong opinions as verifiable fact. You can do whatever you want, but don't expect not to be ridiculed.


Did I hurt your feelings? :lol

You're childish.


I'm just saying this kind of debate is more present in the US than in other comparable countries...

Again, this is not a fact. You haven't specified what other countries your speaking of which either. Again, keep your outlandish opinions to yourself.


Ah and the post count argument! that's pretty weak! :lol

Where did I mention posts? Again, you're easily intimidated.

What i DID mention is the fact you are stating you travel from country to country all year debating this issue while somehow doing your job as well. All of which could be untrue. Your lack of proof regarding the issue at hand casts a large shadow of doubt on anything else you have to say.


weak again...where are the "tons of proofs"?

The burder of proof is not on myself. When you bring something tangible to the table, I'll proceed with a rebuttal.


And do I have to understand that you haven't gotten out of Texas in the last 10 years? or ever? :lol

You're 110% wrong.


Fascinating indeed :corn:

At least this is more of a debate. Not Blake's constant miscues.

[Blake]

you're too stupid to realize it.


if you were offended by what he said, you are a puss.

and obviously he is too stupid to realize it.


Shouldn't be asking the person making the assertions? You truly have no idea what you're speaking about.

I asked a simple question to you.

What non-industrialized country is this a hot topic in?

You having tons of proof should make it a piece of cake to answer this.


You're entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is that you are an idiot.


You don't understand a bit of how a debate works, therefore, don't act like you do.

I understand that you are losing this debate again, no matter how many times mouse puts up a scoreboard that says otherwise.


Only to those incapable of understanding the english language.

nope. It is very clear that you have not posted any sources to your claims in this thread.


Trust me, for all my creationism defending, you have plenty more people who think you're a flat out faggot, bro. You're internet tough guy act just doesn't work, because you can't back it up. You're a retard.

I don't care what people think of me. You are taking this thread way too personal....

which is what you constantly do every time someone calls you out on your "facts".

You are a dipshit.

[Blake]

At least this is more of a debate. Not Blake's constant miscues.

:lol

you are arguing whether or not you've been out of Texas?

I know you will disagree, but if you think that is a decent "debate", you honestly have no clue what a debate consists of....

of course, most of us get it already.......I'm just wondering when it will sink in for you.

[Blake]

I

No, it's not. By continuing to do so, and make broad assertions about said number of people, you completely disregard any shred of accountability you may have possessed.


then stop speaking for the rest of us Americans, hypocrite.

:lol

this is going bad for you, even by your standards.

[z0sa]

if you were offended by what he said, you are a puss.

In your opinion.


and obviously he is too stupid to realize it.

I dunno if he is too stupid to realize his 'facts' are actually opinions, but I do know he is being facetious.




I asked a simple question to you.

I'm not inclined to answer anything you ask me.


What non-industrialized country is this a hot topic in?

So you're agreeing its a hot topic in other countries besides the USA? In case you forgot, that was my entire point. Nice offtopic blurb attempt though :td


You having tons of proof should make it a piece of cake to answer this.

Tons of proof does indeed exist. Its common knowledge, in fact. In fact, due to how debate is structured, so much knowledge exists against such an incredulous claim, that it is the burden of pppp to back it up. I know you don't know shit about a real discussion, hopefully this helped.


My opinion is that you are an idiot.

You say this at least 3-4 times in every thread someone disagrees.

Eventually, you'll come to terms with your own idiocy and realize what a d-bag you tend to liken yourself to.




I understand that you are losing this debate again

If you're talking about jman3000's horrible attempts, you're obviously wrong. You can't even get your own points straight and still call others idiots. pppp has simply failed to bring anything at all to the table.


no matter how many times mouse puts up a scoreboard that says otherwise.

And you say I'm getting butthurt over this topic :lmao

You've been on the defensive since oh, your second post in this topic.


nope. It is very clear that you have not posted any sources to your claims in this thread.

Should I need to (should I come against worthy competition) I will. Every attempt to discredit my statements has been laughable, at best (they've all come from you).

Besides the fact pretty much everything I've said can be learned in a high school science textbook :toast


I don't care what people think of me.

Suuuure you don't.


You are taking this thread way too personal....

This thread has given me nothing but smiles thus far.


which is what you constantly do every time someone calls you out on your "facts".

I can no longer follow your train of thought, it's all over the page. Maybe you need an essay writing course.


I am a dipshit.

I'm aware.

[z0sa]

:lol

you are arguing whether or not you've been out of Texas?

I know you will disagree, but if you think that is a decent "debate", you honestly have no clue what a debate consists of....

of course, most of us get it already.......I'm just wondering when it will sink in for you.

this post here should sum up all you need to know about Blake.

Misunderstands AND misinterprets my post.

Brings it upon himself to somehow call me out when he don't got an idea what the fuck i'm talking about.

I'll continue putting in your place, since you wish.

First, I said this is "more" of a debate. Me owning you isn't a debate at all, so evolving "more" of a debate wouldn't take much.

Second, debating requires you to actually believe you can be proven wrong. Believe it or not, I'm waiting for someone to do just that, or bring something new to the table to make me change my argument. That's what debate is, grasshopper. PPPP seemed to exhibit debate-worthy behavior, therefore a debate may have actually begun.

[z0sa]

then stop speaking for the rest of us Americans, hypocrite.

do you always compare apples to oranges without the slightest idea you're doing so?

I can speak in defense of americans if I wish. I happen to be one. It goes both ways.

What if I said, "No one in Egypt believes evolution occurred." Would you call me out for an incredulous claim and demand I back it up?

Now what if I said, "You Egyptians crack me up. ONLY in Egypt does anyone debate evolution ever occurred."

'pp' is of some nationality, perhaps france or egypt or India or wherever. If he had spoke for his one country AND backed it up with evidence from colleges/universities, research institutes, etc I would not have said shit. Even without backing, I may have just taken his word for it if it seemed legit.

[Blake]

this post here should sum up all you need to know about Blake.

Misunderstands AND misinterprets my post.

Brings it upon himself to somehow call me out when he don't got an idea what the fuck i'm talking about.

I'll continue putting in your place, since you wish.

First, I said this is "more" of a debate. Me owning you isn't a debate at all, so evolving "more" of a debate wouldn't take much.

Second, debating requires you to actually believe you can be proven wrong. Believe it or not, I'm waiting for someone to do just that, or bring something new to the table to make me change my argument. That's what debate is, grasshopper. PPPP seemed to exhibit debate-worthy behavior, therefore a debate may have actually begun.

what country is this a hot topic in?

[pppp]

http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv360/pppp_2211/jackson4.gif

[Blake]

what country is this a hot topic in?

I thought sure that someone with tons of proof would be able to answer this easily.

[z0sa]

I thought sure that someone with tons of proof would be able to answer this easily.

Creationism, in various forms, is both advocated and under attack by scientists from every culture. Surely you know this. It is most likely where you borrow your false pretense of invincibility on the issues at hand, over various posts in different threads.

Therefore, it is interesting to consider that you believe it is not a hot topic for every scientist around the globe, in every country, especially the ones studying pertinent fields (there are many).

Perhaps some quotes from various scientists will help you remember on the issue?


Dr. Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr[1] von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977), a German rocket physicist and astronautics engineer became one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology in Germany and the United States. Wernher von Braun is sometimes said to be the preeminent rocket engineer of the 20th century.

He had this to say:

"...the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Oh yeah, is he German? Oh yeah, Germany isn't part of America.

How about someone extremely prominent from England, and taken from a British site?


A.E. Wilder-Smith F.R.S.C., Ph.D was a Countess Lisburne Memorial Fellow in cancer research for London University and a member of the British Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the New York Academy of Science. He held the Chair of Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois, Chicago, where he was elected 'Best Teacher' four times and won the 'Golden Apple' award three times.

Check out this self-written testimonial of this brilliant (he had 3 Ph. D's) scientist's conversion (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony3.php).

So, we know its an issue in Europe.


Ever heard of a guy named Young-Gil Kim, Blake? Didn't think so. The guy is well-known in the high-tech world, though. He's invented various high tech alloys used for many different purposes and oh yeah, he's a creationist.

Maybe you should educate yourself with this article he wrote concerning Creationism in Asia. (http://www.icr.org/article/creation-science-korea/)

Yeah, there's something else in Asia that you may have not heard of ... or ever looked for, and our new friend Young-Gil Kim also happens to be residing Chairman of the Korea Association of Creation Research (http://www.creation.or.kr/). The pages are in Korean, but a quick glance to the top left confirms it is the website.

Hm, so there's creationists all over the world? Oh yes. In fact, there are over 150 scientists, all with Ph. D's in many fields, who hold active membership in the KACR. An additional 300 scientists, with Master's degrees in various engineering and science fields, partake as well.

It's becoming quite overwhelming for the "mainstream" science crowd to quiet us down. In fact, way back in 1979 Larry Hatfield, writing for pro-evolution magazine Science Digest, had this to say:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."


I don't need Mouse for this one.

z0sa 1

blake 0

[z0sa]

Encore?

Richard Milton, who is no creationist: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started."

Oh, what fields of study does our microbe fall into, hmm?
Which neo-Darwinist ideas? Like deep time? Macroevolution? The Geologic Column? Whatever method they used to date this 120,000 year microbe?

Soo.... creationism and its various concepts don't pose an issue in the entire world other than America? You anti-creationists just keep me laughing.

[Blake]

Creationism, in various forms, is both advocated and under attack by scientists from every culture. Surely you know this. It is most likely where you borrow your false pretense of invincibility on the issues at hand, over various posts in different threads.

Therefore, it is interesting to consider that you believe it is not a hot topic for every scientist around the globe, in every country, especially the ones studying pertinent fields (there are many).

Perhaps some quotes from various scientists will help you remember on the issue?



He had this to say:

"...the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Oh yeah, is he German? Oh yeah, Germany isn't part of America.

How about someone extremely prominent from England, and taken from a British site?



Check out this self-written testimonial of this brilliant (he had 3 Ph. D's) scientist's conversion (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony3.php).

So, we know its an issue in Europe.


Ever heard of a guy named Young-Gil Kim, Blake? Didn't think so. The guy is well-known in the high-tech world, though. He's invented various high tech alloys used for many different purposes and oh yeah, he's a creationist.

Maybe you should educate yourself with this article he wrote concerning Creationism in Asia. (http://www.icr.org/article/creation-science-korea/)

Yeah, there's something else in Asia that you may have not heard of ... or ever looked for, and our new friend Young-Gil Kim also happens to be residing Chairman of the Korea Association of Creation Research (http://www.creation.or.kr/). The pages are in Korean, but a quick glance to the top left confirms it is the website.

Hm, so there's creationists all over the world? Oh yes. In fact, there are over 150 scientists, all with Ph. D's in many fields, who hold active membership in the KACR. An additional 300 scientists, with Master's degrees in various engineering and science fields, partake as well.

It's becoming quite overwhelming for the "mainstream" science crowd to quiet us down. In fact, way back in 1979 Larry Hatfield, writing for pro-evolution magazine Science Digest, had this to say:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."


I don't need Mouse for this one.

z0sa 1

blake 0

:lol

the first two guys you posted died 10 and 20 years ago. How does you quoting the works of two dead guys and taking a quote from a creationist in 1979 make this a current hot topic around the world?

Nobody is denying that there are creationists around the world.

Again, you misunderstood the question, which I'm not sure how to word any other way.

Here's a chart to help you out with this:



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060810-evolution_big.jpg

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.

Chart courtesy Jon Miller, et al./Science



I'll go ahead and wager you still don't understand what's being asked when I say "in what country is this currently a hot topic in"?

Really don't need a page long answer. One country with a source to back up exactly how it's a hot topic is all I'm asking for.

Pretty simple.

z0sa = -3 on answering a simple question.

[Blake]

Encore?

Richard Milton, who is no creationist: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started."

Oh, what fields of study does our microbe fall into, hmm?
Which neo-Darwinist ideas? Like deep time? Macroevolution? The Geologic Column? Whatever method they used to date this 120,000 year microbe?

Soo.... creationism and its various concepts don't pose an issue in the entire world other than America? You anti-creationists just keep me laughing.

last we heard from Richard Milton was about 10 years ago.

Encore!

zosa: -4 at answering a simple question.

[z0sa]

:lol dumbass here admits there's creationists all around the world, but not that creationism is a hot topic. How can it not be if there's hundreds of prominent creation scientists around the globe? You think two opposing view points in science just go away after a while? They're constantly butting heads. And this is perhaps science's biggest issue, and rift.

Darwinism/Evolution vs. Creationism has been a huge issue for quite some time, Blake. It won't ever not be. That includes the times you convinced yourself it's a non issue. It's what your evolutionary scientists want you to do, but it won't work anymore.

Let me spell out for you what you're too dense to grasp from the evidence I laid out for you.

1) many well educated, prominent individuals TODAY support creationism and reject one or more of the many ideas Darwinism presents. This is no reflection on their actual religion, if they follow one.

2) I gave you two extremely prominent individuals, who both professed creationism (even YE creationism) in different countries than america in the last quarter century. I know you're impatiently stupid, but prominent scientists don't make huge discoveries or get directly quoted about their beliefs very often. The fact two such exist in recent memory is more than sufficient to prove PPPP's assertion very wrong. Remember, today these scientists' have considerable contributions scientists still work off. Their words and works continue on today, whether you like it or not.

You just have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Answer honestly.

[Blake]

:lol dumbass here admits there's creationists all around the world, but not that creationism is a hot topic. How can it not be if there's hundreds of prominent creation scientists around the globe? You think two opposing view points in science just go away after a while? They're constantly butting heads. And this is perhaps science's biggest issue, and rift.

Darwinism/Evolution vs. Creationism has been a huge issue for quite some time, Blake. It won't ever not be. That includes the times you convinced yourself it's a non issue.

Let me spell out for you what you're too dense to grasp from the evidence I laid out for you.

1) many well educated, prominent individuals TODAY support creationism and reject one or more of the many ideas Darwinism presents. This is no reflection on their actual religion, if they follow one.

2) I gave you two extremely prominent individuals, who both professed creationism (even YE creationism) in different countries than america in the last quarter century. I know you're impatiently stupid, but prominent scientists don't make huge discoveries or get directly quoted about their beliefs very often. The fact two such exist in recent memory is more than sufficient to prove PPPP's assertion very wrong.

In what country is this a hot topic in?


You just have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Answer honestly.

I absolutely do.

You have absolutely no idea what country other than the U.S. this might be a hot topic in, do you? Answer honestly.

zosa: -5 at answering a simple question

[z0sa]

zosa: -4 at answering a simple question.

your question is irrelevant. I already proved creationism ("'evolution' and the '5000-10000 year stuff'") is an issue in other countries.

You lose.

[z0sa]

In what country is this a hot topic in?



I absolutely do.

You have absolutely no idea what country other than the U.S. this might be a hot topic in, do you? Answer honestly.

zosa: -5 at answering a simple question

honestly, you're dense. it moved from "its not an issue anywhere but the USA" to "where is it a hot topic????".

I clearly proved my point. Everyone but you understands it. It doesn't need to be a new discovery or differently advocated within the past 2 months to keep garnering scientific interest. The fact hundreds and hundreds of scientists openly associate themselves with it, rather than relative obscurity or popular science ideals, is evidence to its pertinence. Each new discovery these scientists claim pushes creationism to the forefront. These discoveries occur all over the globe, by many nationalities.


No offense, but you americans crack me up!

I do respect all opinions but only in the US is this issue of "evolution" and "5,000 -10,000 year old earth" so...present...

Is that so?

[z0sa]

See, the problem here is honestly miscommunication. You have your 'normal' person. He believes everything in the OP's article without a second thought, because "scientists know way more about this shit than I do." He has no idea there is any conflict, or very little and its taught about in damning words at his local church, so he ends up phasing it out or just not ever going again. And that is a normal world view, even in Bible-thumpin USA. We're a secular West at a glance, but it goes a lot deeper than that.

Everyone of the world's nations is filled with religions and their followers. Many religions seek to reconcile faith with science. Take the Catholic Church for isntance. While a growing number of churchgoers are disregarding Darwinism, the Church itself adopted evolution within its ideals long ago. There are creationists who believe in an ancient earth as well, you know, but here is where the miscommunication occurs: PPPP states that these issues concerning th age of the earth/evolution don't exist. While I know, and have proof, that they do, the mainstream scientist ignores them in many cases, completely excluding the idea of creationism and any other alternate viewpoint than a totally naturalistic one. Today's scientist truly believes our deep seated religions and their views of creation, and even special creation, are faked.

Indeed, this has come to the point where scientist's have been given too much free ground to work with, far too many ideas that have been included and taught as factual without sufficient evidence, like the OP's article for instance. Nature is responsible for everything, but it seems the evidence doesn't always point that way. So scientists make it point that way. Milton touched on it in the previous quote - that there's a growing concern over the validity of various neo-Darwinist concepts. I hope the amount of creationist scientists continues to grow.

btw blake, I'm done with this thread. cod 5 was calling like 3 hours ago.

[Blake]

honestly, you're dense. it moved from "its not an issue anywhere but the USA" to "where is it a hot topic????".

are you mental?

it moved there because of the statement you are leaving out about there being tons of proof about it being issues in other countries.

I'm asking "in what other country is this a hot topic/issue/whatever the fuck you want to call it?"

Is it really that hard to answer this? Is this really that far beyond your capabilities?


I clearly proved my point. Everyone but you understands it.

I get your point, which is a side point that doesn't answer the question.

"In what other country is this currently as big an issue as it is in the US?"


It doesn't need to be a new discovery or differently advocated within the past 2 months to keep garnering scientific interest.

2 months? The guys you've been quoting haven't done shit in the last decade.......and one of them died in the 70s.


The fact hundreds and hundreds of scientists openly associate themselves with it, rather than relative obscurity or popular science ideals, is evidence to its pertinence. Each new discovery these scientists claim pushes creationism to the forefront. These discoveries occur all over the globe, by many nationalities.

In what other country is this a hot issue?

do I need to clarify "general populace"?

what other parts of the question do you need clarification on?


Is that so?

In what other countries is this issue of "evolution" and "5,000 -10,000 year old earth" so...present...?

zosa: -6 at answering simple question

[Blake]

your question is irrelevant. I already proved creationism ("'evolution' and the '5000-10000 year stuff'") is an issue in other countries.

You lose.

all you did was list a few creationist researchers, some of whom have already died off.

The question is relevant because you claimed there are tons of proof.

I'm asking for the proof.

In what other countries is this currently an issue?

[Blake]

PPPP states that these issues concerning th age of the earth/evolution don't exist.

PPPP, did you state that these issues concerning the age of the earth/evolution don't exist?

Miscommunication.


While I know, and have proof, that they do

no, you clearly don't have any proof.



Today's scientist truly believes our deep seated religions and their views of creation, and even special creation, are faked.

yesterday's scientist based flat earth theories on the Bible.

It is really any wonder that today's scientist is skeptical of deep seated religions?

especially when there are nut jobs like you.


Indeed, this has come to the point where scientist's have been given too much free ground to work with, far too many ideas that have been included and taught as factual without sufficient evidence, like the OP's article for instance.

when you did your testing on the microbe, what age did you come up with?



Nature is responsible for everything, but it seems the evidence doesn't always point that way. So scientists make it point that way. Milton touched on it in the previous quote - that there's a growing concern over the validity of various neo-Darwinist concepts. I hope the amount of creationist scientists continues to grow.

beh. Even Michael Behe has come around to the idea that the Earth is billions of years old and agrees with Darwin's idea of common descent.


btw blake, I'm done with this thread. cod 5 was calling like 3 hours ago.

zosa: still at -6 for answering simple question

[pppp]

your question is irrelevant. I already proved creationism ("'evolution' and the '5000-10000 year stuff'") is an issue in other countries.

You lose.
you didn't prove anything. I live in Europe (so if I follow your hypocrite pov, I can "speak for them" :lol) and IT'S NOT A HOT TOPIC HERE.

Any European on this board will tell you this, regardless of his/her opinion.

Hell, I've been raised there and only discovered this issue when I first came to the US at age 24....

[pppp]

PPPP, did you state that these issues concerning the age of the earth/evolution don't exist?
Miscommunication.
I Never said so. My exact words were "only in the US is this issue so present".

[Happy Devil]

pppp-2

Blake-6

Z0sa-4

[Blake]

I Never said so. My exact words were "only in the US is this issue so present".



only in threads like this are z0sa's miscommunication issues so......present.

[Blake]

pppp-2

Blake-6

Z0sa-4

:lol

I lost track of who owns the happy devil troll........I think it's Chalupa......

[The other side]

pppp-2

Blake-6

Z0sa-4


:tu

[JoeChalupa]

:lol

I lost track of who owns the happy devil troll........I think it's Chalupa......

:lol :nope

[LnGrrrR]

What dating method they used is not included in your version of the article.

Indeed, a rather convincing inference about whatever method (if you want to call "Ummm.. it's 120,000 years old or so" a 'method') can be made by the lack of definitive knowledge on the subject the scientist(s) exhibit throughout the article:





This last one I ask you to take into special consideration:


Didn't you just admit there's no knowledge or proof concerning how it would survive so long? Where is the proof of this, besides in your overactive imagination??

Almost surely, this is simply a frozen remnant from the recent ice age. No doubt though, they somehow found it reasonable - despite admitting no knowledge concerning how the bacteria got there, what it was doing there, or how it managed to survive so long - to date the bacteria based on their glaciation measurements.

At least that's my assumption. It is impossible to know for sure considering they completely excluded this and other vital information, expecting the mouthbreathers to buy it up front and in your face without a question - which most apparently do. Simply put, these incredibly convenient exclusions pepper article after article.

I think the point the OP meant to make was... holy cow it's really freaking old bacteria. :)

[JoeChalupa]

Stories like this always fascinate me.

[Rappin Granny]

LnGrrrR (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14319) 2

Blake 6

z0sa 6

pppp 4

[Wild Cobra]

I don't remember the percentages, but it's pretty high the number of genes that all life on earth has in common, including old DNA tested. I wonder how this compares.

[DarkReign]

http://smu.edu/smunews/darwin/images/cover-scientific-american-jan2009.jpg

I just got done reading this one (my grandfather owns a subscription and passes them onto me when he gets a chance, so I am always really behind).

Had nothing to do with this thread. Just real good information with leading biologists from every corner of the globe, who can strangely have faith in God and not be ignorant and deranged enough to think evolution doesnt happen.

Carry on.

[z0sa]

http://smu.edu/smunews/darwin/images/cover-scientific-american-jan2009.jpg

I just got done reading this one (my grandfather owns a subscription and passes them onto me when he gets a chance, so I am always really behind).

Had nothing to do with this thread. Just real good information with leading biologists from every corner of the globe, who can strangely have faith in God and not be ignorant and deranged enough to think evolution doesnt happen.

Carry on.

Yo, there's hundreds of scientists 'ignorant' and 'deranged' enough to believe evolution doesn't happen (those terms are outlandish at best - I mean, deranged is thinking we were frogs IMO). Dunno what sciences you study or anything, but they probably know more on the subject than most do. Feel free not to pass judgment on the humans you like to think are excluded from existence simply because they don't share your 'popular' opinion. Now, I will carry on.


Additionally, notice the bottom left of that article, "Creationists latest tricks". This is January 2008 issue, and DarkReign testifies it concerns leading biologists from around the globe. Therefore, the question must also be risen: if Creationism is not an issue around the globe, why is it immediately brought up nowadays even by evolution advocates on their own magazine? If it wasn't a veritable 'hot topic' like Blake thinks, why would it be on the front page of a magazine, concerned exclusively this January issue with evolution, with contributors from around the globe?

Because it is an issue? :dizzy Some here don't seem to understand that when large amounts of scientists completely disregard 'well-known' facts and theories like evolution, a huge rift is created. It's well documented, and Creationist numbers are growing. You can shove your fingers in your ears and scream 'you're ignorant idiots!' all you want, kinda like you accuse us of doing, but its okay. We're growing and we will be for a very long time to come. That's global, by the way, and no, not all of us believe the earth is young, or that we didn't evolve, or any other combination of ideals, but the fact remains we continue on.

[sabar]

I would say that the vast majority of scientists with a faith of some sort either believe it on a spiritual level (there is an afterlife, there is a divine purpose to life existing, etc.) or just believe it on a universal scale (God initiated the big bang, God creates universes, some higher power made the rules of physics).

Likewise, I would say the number of scientists that seriously believe the earth was made in 7 days or is 5000 years old or that evolution doesn't happen would be in the extreme minority or followers of pseudo-science.

I'm sure there is some sort of study that has been done on this, but the entire issue is moot anyways. The world is getting more secular with each generation and soon the bible will just be regarded as nothing but mythology. In the past 50 years alone modern countries have gone from being very pro-christian church every-sunday-types to people that have separated from their church and follow their own beliefs or none at all. 20-33% of people in developed countries now follow no religion. This would of been pure blasphemy just a few generations ago.

If not within our lifetimes, then certainly in our children's, God truly will be dead.

[sabar]

Also, the only issue with creationism is how it is used politically to try to get religious views in the classroom or as pseduo-science. Of course it will be talked about.

It should be noted that this is only an issue in the United States. Since the U.S. tends to lag a bit behind Europe in cultural trends I imagine we will be caught up in 10-15 years.

I'll just quote wiki sources on Europe, the most secular area by far:

According to a study published in Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28journal%29), a survey of the United States, Turkey, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-Science_survey-81)

According to a PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS) documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that "five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old." The documentary further states that "Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement."[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-82) Taking these claims at face value, Young Earth Creationism is very much a minority position in developed countries.

A 2008 Canadian poll revealed that "58 percent accept evolution, while 22 percent think that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years."[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-83)


Religion still retains very high importance in the middle east, the far east, Africa, and some parts of South America. Some people from Argentina probably have some knowledge of the happenings down there.

[DarkReign]

Additionally, notice the bottom left of that article, "Creationists latest tricks". This is January 2008 issue, and DarkReign testifies it concerns leading biologists from around the globe. Therefore, the question must also be risen: if Creationism is not an issue around the globe, why is it immediately brought up nowadays even by evolution advocates on their own magazine? If it wasn't a veritable 'hot topic' like Blake thinks, why would it be on the front page of a magazine, concerned exclusively this January issue with evolution, with contributors from around the globe?

Two words.

Scientific American

You know, that country that for all its greatness and achievement, still lags behind every industrialized nation in every imaginable category in education.

Coincidence that a topic like creationism finds its deppest roots in the most fertile (that is, ignorant) grounds?

[z0sa]

Two words.

Scientific American

point taken, but it doesn't draw much from my argument if it truly concerns biologists all around the globe. In the context it would appear they would only mention the most universal topics on the front page considering they don't write an entire issue about evolution, with leading contributors from around the globe, every month. It's not hard to come to this assumption, either, but whatever - apparently everything creationist scientists do only concerns America, despite huge numbers in other countries (according to Blake's graph) which believe we did not evolve onceosever.

Yeah, at least 15% and more for just about every one of those countries is extremely large numbers against something taught in every classroom and university in the West as fact. According to Blake's graph, it can be said every single nation in the West is teeming with literally millions of creationists. Over 20% deny human evolution in just about every country, with tens of millions more undecided.. Good find Blake. Good to know there's literally tens of millions of us in the Industrialized World, with more leaning our way every day undoubtedly. Not just in America, either! :tu:tu

Ahh, good to see more and more are humans who don't buy evolution no matter how hard they forcefeed it to us.

[spurspf]

Zosa is a creationist, no matter how hard he tries to deny it.

[DarkReign]

Ahh, good to see more and more are humans who don't buy evolution no matter how hard they forcefeed it to us.

I dont think thats what it means, z0sa.

Evolution happens. It is readily observable, depending on species complexity (from bacteria to homonid), environment and mating habits will determine how long it usually takes or if its even necessary. We are at the very pinnacle of existence, the chances of humanity evolving further on a grand scale could only be measured in millenia, if not eons (barring some dramatic introduction of an outside force (disease, etc)).

For instance, and I only parrot what I read (i am no biologist, thus i never participate in these threads), certain species of birds can rapidly evolve to their environment in a few generations. Length and curve of beaks, length and girth of legs/feet, length and span of wings, etc.

One species of bird can literally be seen evolving in a little less than 1/4 of our lifetime.

Point is, to categorize evolution in with the likes of astrology is to deny mathematics as organized science. Yes, there are holes, especially when you get to the genetic levels, this is readily apparent.

But to say it doesnt happen or that we (humans) are some special circumstance that was created outside the mechanism of the rest of nature suggests only our own willful ignorance and further cements our position in flat-Earth thinking.

We are not special. Our mechanisms of creation are not unique to the animals of Earth. While our path and subsequent rise up the food chain are certainly unique, and up to this point completely singular to the known universe, this does not mean that we exist outside the same method of control and natural progression. To say that our existence is something other than natural is to say we are not natural.

Im not comfortable with that idea on theological grounds and certainly uncomfortable with the general malaise and lack of inquisitivness necessary to start chalking up my species existence to the work of an unmeasureable, all-knowing being of supreme intellect. I find creationism and all its forms an indictment on the human engine of critical thinking. One can only approach quandries with certain abject biases before those biases clutter and sometimes destroy the spirit of discovery. Im glad the learned community agrees.

[z0sa]

For instance, and I only parrot what I read (i am no biologist, thus i never participate in these threads), certain species of birds can rapidly evolve to their environment in a few generations. Length and curve of beaks, length and girth of legs/feet, length and span of wings, etc.

This is Adaptation, and I think me and you have both agreed before this definitely exists. I don't know what kind of world we'd have if animals couldn't adapt their environment.

But like I said then, those birds changing beaks and feet and wings and overall size, etc - their DNA never fundamentally changes or mutates. All the info to adapt and survive, if possible, has been pre-written. Besides the fact this clearly denotes a designer, it really doesn't prove anything about macroevolution.

[Blake]

If it wasn't a veritable 'hot topic' like Blake thinks, why would it be on the front page of a magazine, concerned exclusively this January issue with evolution, with contributors from around the globe?

Because it is an issue? :dizzy

In what other country is this as big an issue as in the United States?

[DarkReign]

If "God did it" was an acceptable answer to most scientific problems, we would not have thermal dynamics, relativity, gravity and a myriad of other elementary school book material to teach our children. Even worse, we would not have the thousands of physicists, astronmers and mathematicians we have today who pursue areas of their study to the extreme boudaries where the rules and laws they were taught their whole life come into question because it is quite truly undiscovered territory at the fringe.

Often times, they are very very wrong. But when they are right, they can plot the galaxy to within a couple thousand meters of one another, calculate the possible expansion of our Sun and plot the trajectory of an inbound object as it passes through the various gravitional forces acting upon it as it passes by the great planets and their satellites.

It is important for the sciences to pursue their chosen areas of discpline with great vigor and without "God did it" thinking, because "God did it" will become the defacto answer to every roadblock encountered throughout the journey, stunting our growth and creating an easy answer to complex questions.

Moreover, it creates a centralized power outside our control, subject to interpretation...loathe be the day someone rests the power of interpretation from the masses and God forbid, centralizes that interpretational power over the masses.

Drones in a hive, we will be.

[Blake]

According to Blake's graph, it can be said every single nation in the West is teeming with literally millions of creationists. Over 20% deny human evolution in just about every country, with tens of millions more undecided.. Good find Blake. Good to know there's literally tens of millions of us in the Industrialized World, with more leaning our way every day undoubtedly. Not just in America, either! :tu:tu



Thanks, but it's not my graph. It's National Geographics's graph. Good to know you are finally reading.

Nobody is saying that there aren't people and scientists around the world who are creationists like you.......that's not the question.

The question is "In what country is this currently an issue like it is here in the United States."

You said you had tons of proof. Still waiting.....

[DarkReign]

Sorry for typing errors, Im not editing them out.

[Blake]

This is Adaptation, and I think me and you have both agreed before this definitely exists. I don't know what kind of world we'd have if animals couldn't adapt their environment.

But like I said then, those birds changing beaks and feet and wings and overall size, etc - their DNA never fundamentally changes or mutates. All the info to adapt and survive, if possible, has been pre-written. Besides the fact this clearly denotes a designer, it really doesn't prove anything about macroevolution.

So animals are designed to adapt and change to their environment, but it's out of the realm of possibility that they evolved? Why?

What's the problem that people like you have with God having come up with the process of macroevolution?

In what other country is this as big an issue as the United States?

[z0sa]

In what other country is this as big an issue as in the United States?

first, it's where is it an issue. Obviously, tens of millions of people think its an issue.

then, it's where is it a hot topic. hundreds of scientists with impressive credentials advocating it against all mainstream science makes it so for any country's scientists.

now it's where is it as big of an issue as in the USA.

I won't comply with your constantly shifting magnitudes.

[z0sa]

If "God did it" was an acceptable answer to most scientific problems, we would not have thermal dynamics, relativity, gravity and a myriad of other elementary school book material to teach our children. Even worse, we would not have the thousands of physicists, astronmers and mathematicians we have today who pursue areas of their study to the extreme boudaries where the rules and laws they were taught their whole life come into question because it is quite truly undiscovered territory at the fringe.

Often times, they are very very wrong. But when they are right, they can plot the galaxy to within a couple thousand meters of one another, calculate the possible expansion of our Sun and plot the trajectory of an inbound object as it passes through the various gravitional forces acting upon it as it passes by the great planets and their satellites.

It is important for the sciences to pursue their chosen areas of discpline with great vigor and without "God did it" thinking, because "God did it" will become the defacto answer to every roadblock encountered throughout the journey, stunting our growth and creating an easy answer to complex questions.

Moreover, it creates a centralized power outside our control, subject to interpretation...loathe be the day someone rests the power of interpretation from the masses and God forbid, centralizes that interpretational power over the masses.

Drones in a hive, we will be.

You know, I agree. "God did it" usually is never an acceptable answer, and shouldn't be. I agree that nature's laws are nearly 100% prevalent.

But when we talk of unobservable history and its origins, and its interpretation, I'm not sure "God did it" is such a horribly bad observation in some cases. Many things, like all of life, are so well designed, so crying out of creation, that it requires you to reach far outside the box to correlate it with a purely naturalistic worldview.

While I offer no 'rebuttal,' your posts definitely moved me. Believe it or not, communication with the other side just doesn't happen for creationist advocates, and I wish it did. But we have to meet each other somewhere in the middle.

[Blake]

first, it's where is it an issue. Obviously, tens of millions of people think its an issue.

In what country?


then, it's where is it a hot topic. hundreds of scientists with impressive credentials advocating it against all mainstream science makes it so for any country's scientists.

Nobody asked for a list of scientists. Scientists opinions do not automatically make it an issue in any particular country, no matter how many times you try to draw on that faulty conclusion.

I'm just asking for the name of a country.


now it's where is it as big of an issue as in the USA.

In what country is it an issue?


I won't comply with your constantly shifting magnitudes.

Naw, the question is the same. I'm trying to re-word it for you to make it as simple to answer as possible. for your sake, I'll start back with the question the way it was originally worded:

"In what country is this an issue?"

cmon.......tons of proof.......still waiting.

[Blake]

But we have to meet each other somewhere in the middle.

:lol

no we don't. Nobody has to meet you anywhere.

There is absolutely zero evidence for any type of young earth or creation theories.

You're a nut.

"I'm done with this thread."

[The Final Countdown]

LnGrrrR (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14319) 2

Blake 8

z0sa 7

pppp 4

DarkReign 3

spurspf 2

[z0sa]

"I'm done with this thread."


Yeah and? Does "You're a retard" also ring a bell? How about "burden of proof?"

Every country showing huge numbers of creationists, harbors the issue of creationism vs darwinism/naturalism. The proof is in the pudding.

Sorry you're so dense you have to ask the same question over and over and still not realize the answer - even when I pointed out there's hundreds of prominent creationist scientists from around the globe, including two easily recognizeable examples from Europe to help spell it out for you. Hell, PPPP didn't even try and give me anything real. He knows he's fucking stupid for trying the route he did - including his "any european will agree" bit you proved wrong for me. Alas, you apparently do not share his wisdom.

[Sir Larry Wildman]

Yeah and? Does "You're a retard" also ring a bell?

Every country showing huge numbers of creationists, harbors the issue of creationism vs darwinism/naturalism. The proof is in the pudding.

Sorry you're so dense you have to ask the same question over and over and still not realize the answer. Hell, PPPP didn't even try and give me anything real. He knows he's fucking stupid for trying the route he did - including his "any european will agree" bit you proved wrong for me. Alas, you apparently do not share his wisdom.

Z0sa wins!!

:toast

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

Of course the Earth was created. That is a no brainer.

[Blake]

Yeah and? Does "You're a retard" also ring a bell? How about "burden of proof?"

Yeah, you claimed there is tons of proof that this an issue. You put the burden of proof on yourself.

Ding.


Every country showing huge numbers of creationists, harbors the issue of creationism vs darwinism/naturalism. The proof is in the pudding.

No it doesn't unless they make it an issue out in public, with your average citizens, which is what we are talking about here. Again, nobody asked for your numbers of creationists or a list of dead creationst scientists.

In what country is this an issue in?


Sorry you're so dense you have to ask the same question over and over and still not realize the answer

Clearly you are so dense that you don't realize that you haven't named one country yet.



- even when I pointed out there's hundreds of prominent creationist scientists from around the globe, including two easily recognizeable examples from Europe to help spell it out for you.

Again, you provided the 'research' done by dead guys.

What country is this an issue in?


Hell, PPPP didn't even try and give me anything real. He knows he's fucking stupid for trying the route he did - including his "any european will agree" bit you proved wrong for me. Alas, you apparently do not share his wisdom.

you're taking him saying "any european will agree" waaaay too literally...

which would explain why you still think the Earth was literally created in 7 days.

What country is this an issue in?

Again.....the question is not "how many creationists are there in the world?"

the question is (as clear as I can possibly make it for you):

What country is this an issue in?

[Blake]

Ah! I finally found out where it's an issue as recent as 2007: Turkey!


Turkish scientists confront creationists' theory

By Nicholas Birch in Istanbul


Saturday, 14 July 2007

Tensions are rising in Turkey's schools and universities as academics and scientists confront the growing influence of Islamic creationists.

"Without science, modern civilisation is impossible," says Haluk Ertan, a geneticist at Istanbul University, "and yet Turkey has become the headquarters of creationism in the Middle East." Tarkan Yavas, the public face of the Science Research Foundation (BAV), a shadowy group that has led the charge against evolutionary theory in Turkey for 15 years, boasts: "Not just the Middle East, the world."

Headed by Adnan Oktar, a university dropout turned charismatic preacher, BAV made international headlines in February when it mass-mailed its lavishly illustrated, 6kgAtlas of Creation to scientists and schools throughout western Europe. Hundreds of pages juxtapose photographs of fossils and living species, arguing the similarities disprove claims that species adapt with time. Elsewhere, belief in evolution is blamed for communism, Nazism and - under a large photograph of the World Trade Centre in flames - the 9/11 attacks.

"Hitler and Mao were Darwinists," Mr Oktar told journalists last month on a luxury boat trip arranged to answer questions about the atlas. "Darwinism is the only philosophy which values conflict."

A survey last year showed that only 25 per cent of Turks accepted evolution. In a similar survey in 2005, almost 50 per cent of science teachers said they questioned or rejected the theory. "Darwinism is dying in Turkey, thanks to us," says Mr Yavas.

That may be premature. BAV, secretive about the sources of its considerable wealth and widely accused of brainwashing its initiates, has been taken to court repeatedly in the past decade. In May, Turkey's Supreme Court opened the way for a new trial when it argued that criminal charges levelled against the group in 2005 should not have been dropped because of time constraints.

The silent war on creationism began last spring, when 700 academics took the Ministry of Education to court, calling for references to creationism in school science syllabuses since 1985 to be removed. "There are compulsory religious classes in Turkish schools as it is," says Ozgur Genc, a biologist who began organising the legal case after five schoolteachers in southern Turkey were transferred to another school for teaching evolution. The court has yet to make a decision.

Like BAV, which has organised hundreds of conferences on creationism over the past 10 years as well as a recent flurry of American-style "creation museums", opponents of creationism are taking their arguments to the Turkish people.

There have been scientific conferences in towns along the Anatolian peninsula in the past few months. One popular science magazine has devoted its last two issues to answering what it calls BAV's "charlatanry".

Nazli Somel, a former teacher writing a doctorate on Turkish creationism, says: "When the creationist movement surfaced in the early 1990s, many scientists just laughed at it. It's good to see they're taking it seriously now."

Yet, while most public figures avoid associating themselves too closely with Mr Oktar's group, more up-market versions of creationism have powerful supporters in Turkey.

The notion of intelligent design (ID), which suggests some cellular structures are too complex to have evolved naturally, is a case in point. In the United States in December 2005, a judge echoed most experts in calling it "a religious view, not a scientific theory" and blocked attempts to add it to a Pennsylvania school's syllabus.

Huseyin Celik, Turkey's Education minister, publicly supports it. "Evolutionary theory overlaps with atheism, intelligent design with belief," the former university lecturer said on Turkish television last November.

With polls showing that only 1 per cent of Turks are atheists, he added, not allowing ID into science textbooks would be tantamount to censorship.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkish-scientists-confront-creationists-theory-457164.html

[step up to the mike]

Dam! out of nowhere Blake comes in with a devastating right hook.!

[pppp]

Yeah and? Does "You're a retard" also ring a bell? How about "burden of proof?"

Every country showing huge numbers of creationists, harbors the issue of creationism vs darwinism/naturalism. The proof is in the pudding.

Sorry you're so dense you have to ask the same question over and over and still not realize the answer - even when I pointed out there's hundreds of prominent creationist scientists from around the globe, including two easily recognizeable examples from Europe to help spell it out for you. Hell, PPPP didn't even try and give me anything real. He knows he's fucking stupid for trying the route he did - including his "any european will agree" bit you proved wrong for me. Alas, you apparently do not share his wisdom.
:lmao
Are you for real?

Ok I'll say it again: only in the US is this issue so present. And any European will agree that's it's not such an issue here.

not in UK, not in France, not in Spain, not in Germany, not in the Netherlands, and so on...there's no such "frontpage" public debate.

Why can't you name ONE country where the issue is as present as in the US (despite all the google or wikipedia searches I'm sure you performed)?

Just one...Blake asked you like 10 times and you keep avoiding the question :lol

Find me one major politician of any of these countries speaking of this matter in the last 10 or 20 years...

[pppp]

you're taking him saying "any european will agree" waaaay too literally...

which would explain why you still think the Earth was literally created in 7 days.

What country is this an issue in?

Again.....the question is not "how many creationists are there in the world?"

the question is (as clear as I can possibly make it for you):

What country is this an issue in?
Thanks for doing the explaining, It seems I have trouble reaching this guy :lol

[The Final Countdown]

(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14319)

LnGrrR 3

Blake 9

z0sa 9

pppp 5

DarkReign 3

spurspf 2

[z0sa]

Thanks for doing the explaining, It seems I have trouble reaching this guy :lol

What's hilarious is if either one of you fools would have done a little searching yourself (or had a shred of sense), you'd KNOW without a doubt that non-American creationist material abounds EVERYWHERE.

Contesting Evolution: European Creationists Take on Darwin. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,609712,00.html) February 25, 2009 recent enough for you two douchebags?



The US isn't the only place with heated debates about Darwin's theory of evolution: Europe has its own hardcore creationists and intelligent design backers, too. Increasingly, they are making their voices heard.

Hey, its not my words, its the words of that European you fucking idiots. Although knowing that there's tens of millions of us in Europe should spell that out.

Next shall we?

http://www.creationconferences.co.uk/Programme.pdf: this is the programme for the ninth European Creation Conference, which is yet to occur this year in August. They have held them for multiple decades as plain as day showcases against evolution. So why do they keep holding them if this is a dead issue? To make it an issue for all you who ignore us, like pppphead? Don't waste your brain power on logic, though, deadbeats.

How about some Discovery blogging on this very subject? (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/23/creationists-infect-europe/) Oh wow, yeah, everyone but Dumb and Dumber agrees: Creationism is quite a hot topic, especially for education, in the entire West.


70% of science teachers think creationism should not be taught, which sounds good until you realize that means 30% of science teachers think it should be. About 3/4 of science teachers think it should be discussed in the classroom (one assumes the survey distinguishes between discussing it and teaching it).

Oh, I'm sorry, are these school teachers were talking about? British ones? So, um, looks like the issue is the exact same kind of "so..........present......." in England, minimum. There's your answer to this: "What country is this an issue in?"


You both lose, again. I shouldn't have to make this post for two adults with fingers or brains, children. I know you want to pop off at the mouth, just don't.