Quick creationists! Come up with something!

[Winehole23]

http://panachereport.com/channels/hip%20hop%20gallery/images/coelacanth_3.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

One also has to remember that bacteria change so quickly because they reproduce so quickly. Animals with longer cycles of fucundity (ability to produce offspring) change/adapt/evolve at a rate consistant with how long that cycle is.

If the principle holds true for bacteria, it must, by logical extension, hold true for larger organisms.

This was my point. The contention that we haven't seen macroevolution with our bare eyes is somewhat ridiculous; the great majority of evolution theories stress that it takes millions of years.

But bacteria reproduce extremely quickly, and so we have a microcosm of what might happen to other populations, and one that we can see in our own lifetime.

[z0sa]

Case in point.

Just because something first emerged a long time ago... doesn't mean that it has to be extinct today. Sharks are a good example, cockroaches another.

If a form has a niche and favorable charactoristics, it wills survive.

Where would we be if phytoplankton or primitive algae were extinct?

Evolution is a random process. It does not always lead to the most favorable outcome. Additionally, the most favorable outcome can be changed by environmental conditions. Why aren't cockroaches much different or more advanced than they were tens of millions of years ago, due to random mutations and microevolution?

[911]

We'll need a link to the textbook that states humans evolved from snails.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/used/product.asp?EAN=2693873377058&Itm=3




Along with some evidence to prove your "AD" theory.

It's not a theory, just like Evolution, its a religion.

[mouse]

I can't believe you asshats sucked me back into this shit!!

ok I will kick Chumps ass again then I will be back later when my girlfriend is done watching all her shows i downloaded last night...

ok Darwin lovers bend over and take it like a man or should I say monkey.

What you still find is schools today.....trust me I could post more but when I did a search on school books that have evolution in them my PC froze up from all the hits....


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa10.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa11.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa12.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa9.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa13.gif

This one is for Chumpy!



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa8.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa6.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa4.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/EE_Coversm.jpg


How to make Chump have an orgasm?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/oos-books.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/used/product.asp?EAN=2693873377058&Itm=3That is a book that has the word "snails" in the title.

There is no quote saying man evolved from snails.

Why did you lie?

[101A]

Case in point.

Just because something first emerged a long time ago... doesn't mean that it has to be extinct today.

NBADan for example...

[Strange Love]

That is a book that has the word "snails" in the title.

There is no quote saying man evolved from snails.

Why did you lie?

Did you read the book?

[ChumpDumper]

Did you read the book?Did you?

Because it looks like you just searched the bookstore site for "snail" and linked the first book that looked like it had anything remotely to do with the subject.

Now if you can't produce a quote from a current textbook saying man evolved from snails, just say so. We all think you are making it up anyway, so admitting it won't really change anything.

[Winehole23]

Coelacanths are lobe-finned fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobe-finned_fish) with the pectoral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pectoral_fin) and anal fins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_fin) on fleshy stalks supported by bones, and the tail or caudal fin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caudal_fin) diphycercal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_anatomy#Types_of_fins) (divided into three lobes), the middle one of which also includes a continuation of the notochord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notochord).

[Strange Love]

:lmao @ Chump reaching for come backs! Come on chump post some proof lets end this shit here and now!


page 20 and still no evidence man evolved from fish

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao @ Chump reaching for come backs! Come on chump post some proof lets end this shit here and now!Why did you change it from snails?

Still no proof of your AD theory.

[DMX7]

:lmao @ Chump reaching for come backs! Come on chump post some proof lets end this shit here and now!

You got PWND, Strange Love. It happens.

[Duncan]

You got PWND, Strange Love. It happens.

Experience talking.

page 20 and still no evidence of evolution posted by DMX7

[Alex Jones]

Nobody post anymore until Chump stops asking questions and starts posting some proof.

[LnGrrrR]

Man...mouse has alot of trolls. :lol

Mouse, what say you of the experiment in which bacteria seemingly develeoped a new ability?

[Laker Lanny]

Man...mouse has alot of trolls. :lol

Mouse, what say you of the experiment in which bacteria seemingly develeoped a new ability?

the earth was hot soup, bacteria formed, then creatures like "snails" then "man" Chump knows what mouse is talking about he rather act like he doesn't so he can avoid posting anything worth reading.

Hell I am still waiting for Chump to explain how a tree can grow though stone.


close to page 21 and no evolution proof!

[ChumpDumper]

I am still waiting for you to post a quote from a current textbook saying man evolved from snails.

[Paul McCartney]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=man+evolved+from+snails&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

The first thing I see is this thread :lol

[Winehole23]

:lol

[LnGrrrR]

Let's make this thread the OFFICIAL snails/evolution search page.

Here's an article on the evolution of a subset of snails (but sadly, no human from snail evolution)

http://www.examiner.com/x-6521-Philadelphia-Science-and-Tech-News-Examiner~y2009m3d29-University-of-Pennsylvania-Scientists-in-demonstration-of-evolution-that-size-matters-at-least-for

[z0sa]

Let's make this thread the OFFICIAL snails/evolution search page.

Here's an article on the evolution of a subset of snails (but sadly, no human from snail evolution)

http://www.examiner.com/x-6521-Philadelphia-Science-and-Tech-News-Examiner~y2009m3d29-University-of-Pennsylvania-Scientists-in-demonstration-of-evolution-that-size-matters-at-least-for

Isn't that adaptation?

I hate my position at these times because you could browse a million articles and flood me with supposed "evolution" observations - and 'adaptation' in all likelihood would be all I could really say ... I'm not a geneticist or scientist ... I can't get in a facts based discussion intelligently concerning what they may or may not be doing correctly or unbiasedly, in fact, I have to assume the opposite, but that their interpretation of the events and evidence simply are much different than mine ..

[Shastafarian]

Forty or fifty years ago, thanks to antibiotics, scientists thought medicine had all but eradicated infectious agents as a major health threat. Instead, the past two decades have seen an alarming resurgence of infectious diseases and the appearance of new ones.

Today, the AIDS virus, tuberculosis, malaria, diarrheal diseases and other infectious agents pose far greater hazards to human existence than any other creatures.

This upsurge of infectious disease is a problem we have unwittingly created for ourselves. The rise of rapid, frequent, and relatively cheap international travel allows diseases to leap from continent to continent. Inadequate sanitation and lack of clean drinking water are another factor. A third is the "antibiotic paradox" -- the overuse of the "miracle drugs" to the point that they lose their potency.

Whenever antibiotics wage war on microorganisms, a few of the enemy are able to survive the drug. Because microbes are always mutating, some random mutation eventually will protect against the drug. Antibiotics used only when needed and as directed usually overwhelm the bugs. Too much antibiotic use selects for more resistant mutants. When patients cut short the full course of drugs, the resistant strains have a chance to multiply and spread.

In some countries, such as the United States, patients expect and demand antibiotics from doctors, even in situations where they are inappropriate or ineffective. Our immune systems will cure many minor bacterial infections on their own, if given the chance, and antibiotics have no effect on viral infections at all. Every time antibiotics are used unnecessarily, they add to the selective pressure we are putting on microbes to evolve resistance. Then, when we really need antibiotics, they are less effective.

While drug companies race to develop new antibiotics that kill resistant microbes, scientists are urging patients and doctors to limit antibiotic use.

That means not asking for penicillin when all you have is a cold, since colds are caused by viruses that are not affected at all by antibiotics. It means taking all the pills that are prescribed, even if you're feeling better. Physicians have to resist prescribing the strongest and most broadly effective drugs unless the disease absolutely requires it. If society adopts these measures rigorously, the drugs may regain at least some of their lost "miracle" powers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html

[spursncowboys]

An Abridged PBS Evolution Viewer's Guide & Summary

By Casey Luskin of the IDEA Club ([email protected]) This is only a rough and unreferenced document. We recommend you read “Getting the Facts Straight A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s Evolution” by the Discovery Institute for a more complete review of the series. To download this guide for free or order the guide, visit the Discovery Institute website at http://www.reviewevolution.com/.
Episode 1: "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"

If you plan on watching part one, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", of PBS's Evolution, expect to see a fictional dramatization of Charles Darwin's voyage on the HMS Beagle where he allegedly discovered evolution. Much of the dramatization not only has a weak historical basis but in many cases flatly contradicts historical facts. See the Discovery Institute's Viewer's Guide for more information. Expect to hear false claims that the genetic code is universally the same in all organisms as well as unfounded claims that similarities in genetic codes provide real evidence for common ancestry. Don't expect any discussions of how common design could equally account for these. The "archetype blueprint in the mind of a Creator" hypothesis is ridiculed in the dramatizations of Darwin's life.
Viewers will also see an explanation of how the vertebrate eye could have evolved and why it couldn't have been designed. This weak scientific and wholly theological argument is also discussed in the Discovery Institute's Viewer's Guide. The fact is that vertebrate eye is not wired in a sub-optimal way at all. The fact that nerves extend outward over the eyes does nothing to inhibit vision unless one closes one eye and performs the blind-spot test, where a very small area of vision disappears out of the field of focus. If the optical nerve extended out the back of the eye, then there couldn’t the many blood vessels wired into the back of the eye which are necessary to provide the vertebrate eye with large amounts of nutrients to sustain its high level of acuity. If the blood vessels are then moved to the front of the retina this would also face the light-sensing cells forward blocking incoming light by the dense capillary bed. The fact is that the current eye design allows for maximum blood supply and minimal--trivial--vision loss. An eye evolution model by Zoologist Dan-Eric Nilsson is claimed to show how the eye could have evolved step-by-step, but even this model involves jumps. Watch closely as he performs the demonstration: he does not account for the origin of the light sensing cells in the first place and performs a vast jump as he places a fully-formed lens over the model.
Finally, dilemmas between Darwinism and religion are apparently wholly resolved with an interview with Dr. Kenneth Miller, who asserts that he is an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox evolutionist. As if because Dr. Miller's mere position as an evolutionist and a Catholic resolves these issues, this interview gives no real appreciation for practical difficulties encountered in religious and philosophical dilemmas between evolution and religion.
Episode 2: "Great Transformations"

The episode opens up with one probably the evolution contingency's favorite examples of an alleged transformation--from land mammals to the whale. Fossils of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Dorontid, and Basilosaurus are shown to account for this transition. Pakicetus is represented by a small portion of a skull, a far cry from a solid transitional fossil. Though Ambulocetus is represented in the documentary as a complete fossil of an aquatic mammal with legs, this is an interpretory stretch and embellishment upon the quite fragmented Ambulocetus skeleton which was actually found (see A Whale of a Tale by Don Batten). Rhodocetus is represented in the series by a mere skull. Though Basilosaurus is a complete whale-like fossil with hindlegs (Dorontid is very similar to Basilosaurus, but smaller) how important is it really for accounting for the transition? Many have suggested those "legs" aren't vestigial but played some role in copulation. Perhaps they even had a swimming function. So what have we been shown here? 2 skulls (one quite fragmentary), one fragmentary skeleton not necessarily transitional whatsoever, and a full aquatic whale type with small hind legs. From this data we have our number one example of an alleged evolutionary transition. Not too impressive.
It was also alleged that whales originally descended from carnivorous mammals, though even this theory has fallen out of favor with many because it is not supported by molecular data (see "New Views of the Origins of Mammals," by D. Normile Science 281:774-775). This has sent many paleontologists scrapping to find new evolutionary land-ancestors for whales, which aren't forthcoming. This relatively recent development isn't discussed in the series. Whale evolution is also one of the least likely transitions to occur out of all of them simply because of the slow evolutionary progress mandated by the whale's relatively long generation time and very wide geographic dispersal. Whales are one of the least likely candidates to undergo major evolutionary changes, yet they are ascribed one of the most rapid evolutionary origins from the fossil record (see Stephen Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable, pg 93-94).
Fish "experiment" with growing legs until they turned into tetrapods, although "there's no goal to evolution". A cartoon allows viewers to imagine the fin to leg transition, but it's nothing more than that--a cartoon. Some fossils are alleged, but details left out. Acanthostega is shown as an alleged transitional fossil--a fish with fingers. Yet Acanthostega also bears a striking resemblance to many modern day amphibious creatures, which are clearly designed for both an aquatic and land lifestyle. It is claimed that the aquatic Acanthostega developed limbs so it could have an advantage running out of the water to escape predators but there's a tradeoff: limbs are not as good for swimming as fins are. Why would a fishlike creature begin to develop legs which themselves inhibit their ability to swim away from predators? This fossil is shown "drilled" out of the rock, and fishlike it may be, but there are still no fossils documenting where the legs came from in the first place. Evolutionist Robert Carroll said that Acanthostega and Icthyostega, "had short but massive limbs of the basic pattern of subsequent tetrapods" (Annual Review of Earth Planet Science, 1992). Given that Acanthostega had true limbs, it seems that the origin of the defining characteristics of tetrapods, the limbs, is still an unsolved mystery to evolutionists. Perhaps Fox should have produced this series.
The Cambrian Explosion is discussed and called "something of a mystery." These explanations behind these transformations are typically and oversimplified vague using words such as "tinkering" and "experimenting". The great evidence allowing for this is how we see mutations causing fruit flies to do many strange things. This example serves to show that the vast majority of mutations are disadvantageous or deadly, but regardless, just how important is this analogy for evolution? Master control genes are shown to be similar throughout many organisms. This isn't necessary the product of common descent but could equally be the result of common design. Furthermore, one researcher is quoted as saying that these genes allow organisms to "manipulate packets of information [and create new body plans]. But that's the key here: without those packets of information, the genes which code for the body parts, it would be impossible for the master developmental control genes to mix and match the parts. Legs can't be multiplied or divided if there isn't a package of genes to code for a leg in the first place. Once there is, perhaps the right mutation could cause a leg to grow out of an eye (which is shown done with the fruit fly). But the essence of organismal complexity lies in those "packets of information" which can be manipulated, and the explanation of the evolutionary origin of those packets still isn't forthcoming.
Finally, we're related to chimpanzees through a series of "chance coincidences". Humans are said with absolute assurance to be descended from chimpanzee-like ancestors because of morphological and molecular evidence. It is claimed that the DNA of humans and chimps are 98% similar. Why couldn't these similarities equally be said to be the result of common design because a designer designed them both with a similar body plan in mind? No discussion of this is provided. Humans and chimps may be 98% the same, but out of an entire 4 billion base pair (bp) genome, the 2% difference equates to 80 million bp's. If we assume a human-chimpanzee primate generation time of 15 years, and it has been 5 million years since humans and chimps diverged, this allows for 500,000 generations of change implying an average of 160 mutations per generation-- about 40 times the average mutation rate (10-9 bp / pt. mutation after DNA repair mechanisms). In other words, humans and chimps are far more different than allowed by their alleged evolutionary divergence time, which is a good argument against a pure evolutionary history. Not only that, but that 80 million bp difference could also amount to 1600 genes (1000 bp's/gene scattered in homologous DNA sequence) and make all the difference in the world between humans and chimps. Humans and chimps are not necessarily as similar as the commonly cited "98%" statistic seems to imply. This transition, said to be like all the others, is not given any support through evidence from transitional fossils. Perhaps that's because the missing links are still missing.
Episode 3: "Extinction!"

Extinction is termination of a species. Extinction is said to be a natural part of the evolutionary process, as species are always dying out and allegedly being recreated through evolution. At least 5 mass extinction events are said to have occurred in the history of life on Earth. These extinctions "level the playing field" and give opportunities for new groups to evolve. But how do these new groups evolve?--often the fossil record tells that the origin of these new groups takes place in an evolutionary instant. While extinction events can kill, they don't create. It is the origin of new species which should called into question--not simply the death of old ones.
It is said that a "level playing field" allowed mammals to evolve from mammal-like reptiles after the Permian extinction, and to diversify after the meteorite which killed the dinosaurs opened up biological niches. The series doesn't go into detail that the Permian extinction isn't well understood because it involved the death of many different types of organisms--from deep sea to terrestrial. Survival of organisms seems almost random, and are often very similar to other organisms which die out. Though the extinction of many organisms at the end of the Permian is very real, the cause of this extinction event is still unclear to evolutionary biologists.
The origin of mammals is said to happen because a few groups of mammal-like reptiles almost randomly seem to have survived the Permian extinction. These are said to be fossil representative of an evolutionary transition, but what is the real meaning of these fossils? The alleged transition between mammals and reptiles consists of a few fossils types whose individual origins are unknown. Far from being a sufficient string of fossil forms, millions of years separate species allegedly related, and key morphological changes between mammals and reptiles aren't accounted for. After the extinction which killed the dinosaurs, mammals are said to have diversified into their current forms. What isn't discussed is that this has been called by some paleontologists a "mammal explosion", and the extreme rapidity of this alleged evolutionary explosion could present a serious challenge to Darwin's theory, and plausible transitional forms are seldom forthcoming. How can so many mammals types appear so quickly and where are the transitional forms?
Apart from small mention of evolutionary transitions, it should be noted that much of what was stated in this episode isn't strongly controverted by many creationists. Extinction is an accepted fact and has a secondary role in the origin of species--it doesn't actually cause it. Darwin's theory does not stand on evidence for extinction. Furthermore, preserving biodiversity and protecting the environment is not an issue critically linked to origin of species. The episode emphasizes the importance of studying environmental issues, however the importance and reality of such issues does not lend validity to Darwin's theory.
Episode 4: "Evolutionary Arms Race."

Similar to episode 3, "Extinction!", this episode says little which skeptics of evolution would challenge. The series emphasizes the reality of microbial resistance to antibiotics and how it affects society. The primary example shown in the origin a multi-drug resistant strain of Tuberculosis in Russian prisons. This strain, along with other drug resistant diseases present a serious threat to society. The series emphasizes that evolutionary principles can be applied to these problems to help stop these diseases. But the viewer should not be confused: Evolutionary principles may help check the threat of drug-resistant microbes, but that fact does not mean that they can explain the origin of biological complexity, or that their effectiveness in this field implies their creative power in the real world.
Though none of this is mentioned, antibiotic resistance is a great example of microevolution, or change within species, and involves the origination of miniscule to no significant information in the genome. Antibiotics are chemicals which retard virus or bacterial growth by entering the microbes and interfering with the production components needed to for reproduction or destroying their cell walls. Antibiotic resistance typically involves a minor mutation which slightly changes the structure of antibiotic target such that the antibiotic is no longer effective against it. It does not involve major functional changes, but merely a slight change in structure or even loss of structure such the antibiotic's structural effect upon the target is inhibited. Once one out of countless bacteria finds a simple mutation and become resistant, it is quite a quick and simple process for many others to either get selected out or obtain the gene for resistance as replication and gene swapping are prevalent. However, the processes behind antibiotic resistance do not involve the creation of new real significant information, and cannot be extrapolated to provide evidence for macroevolutionary changes.
An example of human resistance to HIV is given as an example of disease resistance. This is also a good example of microevolution and a small informational change. In fact, a computer simulation in the episode shows that the gene for HIV resistances actually causes the loss of receptors which allow the virus to enter the immune-system cells, thus protecting them. This actually constitutes a loss of function, not a gain of function and again is not an example of a meaningful increase in complexity.
Finally, an innovative technique of weakening a cholera outbreak in South America is shown by targeting the mode of transmission of the disease. The series explains that the human cold is a common and weak virus because if it killed or seriously hurt people, it wouldn't be so readily transmitted. In other words, by forcing a virus to be transmitted by modes only possible in healthy people, virus strains will naturally become more common, but weaker, as deadly strains die out since they have no mode of further transmission once they kill their hosts. While it is useful and insightful to know that by attacking the modes by which a deadly disease is transmitted it can be weakened so that it won't kill future infected hosts, this observation, though based upon evolutionary principles, says nothing about the ultimate origin of the complexities of life on earth.
If anything, this episode highlights the value of studying evolution--as a practical way of understanding present-day minor biological changes in microorganisms and fighting terrible diseases. The episode tells us we should be working with evolution, but does working with it imply it is a theory which therefore accounts for our origins?
Episode 5: "Why Sex?"

Amidst cheesy 70's love music and shots of John Travolta in his disco suit, this episode tries to explain the origin and implications of sexual reproduction. The question is asked, why would a female start to have sexual reproduction? Cloning is efficient. Males can't bear offspring. The female would then only pass on 50% of genes. Time and energy are involved with courting a male. Why would this happen, and why does most life on earth comes about sexually, not asexually. Of course this question assumes that sexually reproducing organisms arose from asexually reproducing organisms. The fact that sexual reproduction does have its advantages in that it allows for greater genetic variation should come as no surprise--whether life was efficiently designed or whether it evolved.
A story is told about why chimps are violent and have short copulation periods and bonobos are peaceful and have long copulation periods. Plausible thought it may be, this too is nothing more than a story--and a story which appeals to our human sexual nature at that. At least it is admitted that this is "little more than speculation", but the question is never asked if this sort of speculation qualifies as real science. Though this is speculation, somehow there growing scientific evidence that human sexual behavior is rooted in an evolutionary history. This evidence comes from a field often doubted and scorned by other scientists: evolutionary psychology (see the Discovery Institute's Viewer's Guide for some good quotes on problems with evolutionary psychology).
Women prefer the smell of men whose immune system's complement their own. Men prefer women whose faces bear the marks of having more estrogen. Perhaps we all would in some way enjoy brief interludes with sexually attractive people, but we also know these actions are not justified as they hurt ourselves those close to us. Did these traits evolve or were they placed there by design? Though it is perhaps easy to see how these traits may have evolved, is one explanation really better than another? While religion can account for our ethics through a law of love, evolutionary psychologists believe the proper answer is that we do whatever helped our ancestors pass on our genes. And evolutionary psychologists are the only ones who speak on the issue in this episode.
But can all attributes of human intellect be explained through this sexual selection? Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller compares the origin of human humor, art, and music (and perhaps religion--musicians are shown playing religious Handel's Messiah) to the processes which select for the beautiful male peacock tail. Miller argues that sexual selection can explain the origins of our artistic and creative side because these impress the opposite sex. Impressive they often may be, but in order for attraction to these traits to become fixed in the opposite sex, these traits must somehow confer a real selective advantage for survival. But what sort of real advantage for survival comes from the ability to sing, to make music, to dance, to write poetry, to create art, or to worship God? For this matter, what real advantage is there to a peacock having a beautiful tail? In the end, isn't it possible that a Creator infused His own creativity into the world, and caused humans, and other organisms, to find this attractive in one another? Evolutionary psychology thinks that sexual selection can explain it all, but without giving a clear mechanism, it seems to explain nothing.
Episode 6: "The Mind's Big Bang."

This episode asks the question, how did human technology, communication, intellect, and culture come about and make us human?. Of course it assumes the answer lies in evolution, even though the emergence of complex human intellectual activity appears very rapidly in archaeological record. Though stone tools (which are similar to those used by many peoples in modern history) are found far back in the archaeological record, there is not a slow progression showing evolution of modern human intellect. Are the mechanisms of evolution are sufficient to account for this rapid increase in complexity? We aren't told. In fact, the series states that the brain has to be wired in precise ways to support intelligence, and it took many mutations over tens of thousands to hundred of thousands of years to sculpt the human mind. Even if these mutations are possible given any amount of time, this seems at odds with the archaeological record where signs of modern human intelligence appear rapidly, in this so-called "big bang" of the mind.
Series says humans split off from Chimps about 6 million years ago (Ma), left the trees 4 Ma, and 2 Ma began to leave Africa. "The Mind's Big Bang" where evidence of modern human art, technology, and language ability is said to have happened 50,000-60,000 years ago. Richard Dawkins says we don't know when language started but when it did start, it conveyed a strong advantage. In other words, he can see how language could confer an advantage, but not how it could originate isn't understood so well. This advantage is said that it could have been to discuss things pertinent to survival--or maybe it could have been related to social skills--for gossip.
Children inside the ruins of an old European-looking church are shown doing ring-around-the-rosy at the point where they sing, "all fall down". This is just after memes are said to account for the origin of and passing on of ideas, such as religion (where various religious people are shown). Does this imply that the idea of memes can account for the origin and passing on of religion, thus effectively debunking religion as a real truth? The mind's big bang is said to be the birth of a new kind of change--evolution not of the body but of ideas. It is said that the future of humankind may rely upon "what we make of [the mind]", implying our future evolution will be decided by which ideas win out. There is no doubt the producers of Evolution have been influenced by this belief.
Episode 7: "What about God?"

The episode tries to show that one can believe in evolution and still be a Christian through interviews with various Christian who accept evolution. Eugenie Scott (Director of the NCSE; not a Christian) is quoted saying "People actually don't understand the issues, people are being told first that you have to choose between faith and science, you have to choose between especially Christianity and evolution." In fact, however, Evolution itself promotes a misunderstanding by portraying the issue as if one must choose not between evolution and Christianity, but between evolution and an anti-intellectual brand of young earth creationism.
Religious supporters of evolution are repeatedly portrayed as intellectuals and scholars seeking scientific knowledge and describe their religious friends and family who doubt evolution with an anti-intellectual tone, saying the doubts stem from fear, misunderstandings, and an unwillingness to seek truth. Religious supporters of evolution say they hold their positions because they want arguments that hold up in the world, and they don't want to be looked down upon as anti-intellectual.
Those who do not accept evolution are in every case young-earth creationists, and are often portrayed as anti-intellectual. The series opens with a prayer from a pastor, then shows money being taken at the door as people enter a church to hear young earth creationist speaker Ken Ham. People in church, including children, fervently sing their doubts of evolution: Although in some cases those with doubts are cast in a psuedo-intellectual light, their views are ultimately qualified as somehow anti-intellectual by the narrator or by a religious supporter of evolution. This seems an attempt to make Christians who doubt evolution to feel guilty about their views, as they are portrayed as damaging to public perception of Christianity and their own individual status as an intellectual in the world.
In the entire episode, there is no mention of doubters of evolution who are not protestant young-earth-creationists, even though the creationist community holds a sizeable percentage of people who do not hold to a young earth. Furthermore, no scientific evidences against evolutionary theory are given, except for a brief and vague statement of evidence Ken Ham gives for the Genesis flood. But in reality, doubters of evolution are represented by much more than the young-earth creationist viewpoint.
Old earth creationists see the Big bang as the creation event and accept an age of billions of years for the earth. They reject that evolution can account for life's complexity, and believe Genesis 1 tells of God supernaturally creating organisms, just not in 24 hour periods (this is through a different interpretation of the Hebrew word for day or period,"yom"). Proponents of intelligent design, who sometimes accept evidence for common ancestry, believe that biology bears the marks of being designed by an intelligence and that mutation-selection mechanism on its own is incapable of accounting for that complexity. This theory has a completely secular nature as it does not name the identity of the designer and draws from our understandings of intelligent action and information theory to infer where life has been designed. Even some agnostic intellectuals have found merit to the theory.
But from watching Evolution, one would never know that these alternative beliefs to evolution exist. While proponents of intelligent design at the Discovery Institute were invited to participate in the series, they declined because their position is scientific, and Evolution's producers would not permit them to share their scientific views on film. Casting scientific doubt of evolution as irrationally religious is the message of Evolution: they would have viewers believe that the only rational, intellectual, legitimate scientific position is to accept evolution. Not a single iota of scientific evidence against evolutionary theory is given in the entire 8 hour documentary. Then, the producers hope, religious doubters, looking foolish and apparently lacking any scientific basis, will stop doubting evolution.

http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/pbssummary111501.htm

[ElNono]

The Discovery Institute is a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.[2][3][4][5][6] A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[7][8][9] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[10] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[11][12]

Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute)

Looks like your kind of guys, SnC....

[word]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/14/darwinopterus.dinosaur.fossil/index.html



This should be a fun thread.

God hates you and you will spend eternity in hell.

That's the best I could come up with on such short notice.

[LnGrrrR]

Isn't that adaptation?

I hate my position at these times because you could browse a million articles and flood me with supposed "evolution" observations - and 'adaptation' in all likelihood would be all I could really say ... I'm not a geneticist or scientist ... I can't get in a facts based discussion intelligently concerning what they may or may not be doing correctly or unbiasedly, in fact, I have to assume the opposite, but that their interpretation of the events and evidence simply are much different than mine ..

Yes, that could be considered adaptation, I suppose. I'm not a scientist either.

[LnGrrrR]

God hates you and you will spend eternity in hell.

That's the best I could come up with on such short notice.

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

(it's evil cause I put the B in front of it)

[Shastafarian]

Yes, that could be considered adaptation, I suppose. I'm not a scientist either.

It's evolution because the number of larger snails has been increasing. Therefore the original snails with the adaptation to grow larger have survived while the smaller snails have died out before being able to reproduce. Genetics, it's FANTASTIC.

[RandomGuy]

Evolution is a random process. It does not always lead to the most favorable outcome. Additionally, the most favorable outcome can be changed by environmental conditions. Why aren't cockroaches much different or more advanced than they were tens of millions of years ago, due to random mutations and microevolution?

Mutation is a random (HA!) process.

Evolution is a VERY unrandom process. Adaptations and gene groupings in organisms that provide competitive advantages will tend to allow those organisms reproduce more often than those organisms without those advantages.

The thing about cockroaches staying the same is therefore a simple answer:

It is well adapted to compete in the environments that it inhabits, and that particular niche is widespread enough to allow the risk of extinction through large-scale natural disasters to be somewhat mitigated.

A second interesting thing is that it probably has, simply through its successes, created offshoots, as all successful organisms do.

[RandomGuy]

their interpretation of the events and evidence simply are much different than mine ..

Some evidence is pretty straightforward and does not lend itself to different "interpretations".

Red shift of light... the behavior of physical objects and so forth are examples. One cannot (logically) "interpret" the mass of a chemical sample differently depending on what one's religious views are.

[spurspf]

What still no proof there was a burning bush? Damn it evolution has alot more holes than believing in an all powerfull being does!

[baseline bum]

Evolution is a VERY unrandom process. Adaptations and gene groupings in organisms that provide competitive advantages will tend to allow those organisms reproduce more often than those organisms without those advantages.


It's like calling electric current random because at the quantum scale the individual electrons have positions not at points but in random distributions.

[mouse]

Great Barrier Reef

Here is a picture of a coral reef growing under water.

http://scienceguy288.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/barrier.jpg


You know the largest reef in the world is in Australia, the Great Barrier Reef. ..... You know during World War II, some of the reef was damaged and destroyed by ships and anchors and bombs and stuff like that, so the environmentalist wackos went out there to see how fast it grows back. They watched it grow for 20 years. It was a government project! After watching the reef grow for 20 years, they decided the Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old. That is pretty old, but I have a question. If the earth is millions of years old, why don’t we have a bigger reef someplace? Why is the oldest reef less than 4,200 years old?

[Blake]

That is pretty old, but I have a question. If the earth is millions of years old, why don’t we have a bigger reef someplace? Why is the oldest reef less than 4,200 years old?

The oldest reef isn't less than 4200 years old.


The Chazy Reef formed a half-billion years ago in the warm shallow sea south of the equator. Over the eons, it drifted north to its present location.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-11-reef-protection_x.htm

Weeeeeeeeee

[Wild Cobra]

That is pretty old, but I have a question. If the earth is millions of years old, why don’t we have a bigger reef someplace? Why is the oldest reef less than 4,200 years old?
Because a reef can only grow at certain depths and under certain conditions. The damages parts grew quickly because is was in an unpopulated habitable area.

Mother nature sometimes has her own zoning laws.

[RandomGuy]

To answer the most important question: When does microevolution "stop":

Microevolution isn't that. It's a misnomer. It's simply animals adapting to their environment - properly termed "adaptation." All adaptations allowable are precoded


Please provide genetic studies that prove this thesis.



- mutations RARELY, if EVER, occur during microevolution AKA adaptation. If mutations don't even occur, how can many pile up?

Please provide genetic studies that support the thesis "mutations rarely, if ever, occur during microevolution."


And to address those mutations which do occur, even the most basic cell repairs its DNA - mutations are considered undesirable by the cell.

Please provide proof of the implied thesis that cells always repair mutations.


Besides, do defects on preexisting code = more code? How does the fish gain the DNA needed to become an amphibian?

Please provide a statement from any evolutionary biologist that states "fish 'gain' DNA to become amphibians."

Bullshit has been called.

You have made quite a few rather solid claims in this post. Either you can support them with actual data, or you must withdraw them as spurious.

Can you explain to me, in your own words, exactly how mutations occur?

We have data on this process and a good understanding of it. Your statements pretty much directly contradict what data is known of the process of mutation.

[z0sa]

Where were you the rest of this topic, I've been missing you y'know.

and what's with the please before every post? you sound like one of my online instructors.

[RandomGuy]

Where were you the rest of this topic, I've been missing you y'know.

and what's with the please before every post? you sound like one of my online instructors.

I see little point in "debating" with serial copy and pasters like mouse.

I use "please" because it is polite. I await your data.

[DarkReign]

The other part of my problem was the idea that evolution is the only way and that it is a proven science. Like I said evolution is just as much theory as creationism.

Dear God, no it isnt. So incredibly untrue in every sense of the word.

Evolution, defined for the not-so-willing-to-understand:

Process by which adaptation and speciation occurs. Observable and provable.

What makes evolution a theory is that scientists cannot explain the EXACT mechanic by which adaptation (ie mutation) and speciation occur.

Loathe be the day when they do, because your entire basis for argument will crumble forever.

Its apparent that adaptation occur at the base genetic level. In order to understand and interpret any complex organism (thats from houseflys to homo erectus), their genetic code must be "broken", so to speak. It must be mapped, accounted for and understood.

Youre talking about billions of protein combinations per species. When Darwin proposed his theory (which has morphed over time and breakthrough), there were no genetic scientists.

If I am not mistaken, humanity hadnt even discovered DNA or RNA (could be wrong). So, even though Darwin's theory is a little over 100 years old, science never had a means to even analyze his theory beyond observable evidence (ie not enough).

Fast forward to 1980s and 90s where genetic breakthroughs are occuring at landmark rates and we as a species are still ill-equipped to map the genome's of mammals.

Even if every human had the ability to read, map and understand the human genome, and we all worked collectively together in order to "break it", the Earth would die before we were done. So until a breakthrough that assists that problem, you can still argue religion is like evolution without looking like a total idiot.

Flys, mosquitos, small insects really...yeah, we can do that. So its out there, cloning is not genetic research. Cloning is cheating, in a sense. Taking a stem cell from a known animal, implanting it in an unfertilized egg, then inserting that egg into another animal does not prove or disprove evolution in anyway. Cloning is a...circus ride compared to flight in space as it pertains to the genetic mapping of life on Earth.

No...humanity has nowhere near the capacity to map the human genome (yet), but we will. When we do, two things will happen for sure (with a multitude of possibilities as well, but these two things for sure).

1) Creationists, as it pertains to strict interpretation of the Bible story, will be deemed cultists, nothing more. If you want to say God made the Big Bang happen, or that evolution is God's device, thats perfectly acceptable religious leanings in any scientific discussion.

2) People will start to live (potentially) forever. Yes, (potentially) forever. I say potentially because people will still die from accidents. No amount of medication in the world can "cure" you of being hit by a mac-truck and drug for two miles bouncing off the pavement at 70 miles an hour. Or falling off a building at greater than 6 stories. But yeah, if you sat still and only moved to eat and drink, you'll live forever...so long a syou dont leave the gas on, or a tornado sweeps through your house, or a home invader kills you. Like I said, potentially.

Religion and Evolution have absolutely nothing in common.

Nothing, nada, zero, zilch.

To even say that they do is grounds for complete dismissal in any topical conversation. The reason is because youre being either intellectually dishonest or youre completely and utterly oblivious to what evolution actually is and have no serious understanding of it in any meaningful capacity to argue against it.

[z0sa]

I see little point in "debating" with serial copy and pasters like mouse.

I use "please" because it is polite. I await your data.

All I've got is copy and pasting, because I'm not a geneticist or biologist and you're asking for studies. Second, it is only my interpretation and you think I'm full of shit anyway. Third, what copy and pasting I do have (that's directly relevant) comes from "biased" creationist resources, therefore you will be quick to write them off or question their science.

I won't waste mine or your time.

[admiralsnackbar]

Did somebody actually paste in a Discovery Institute blurb? :lol

Besides having been repeatedly caught being less than honest in their presentation/omission of materials and spokespeople, besides having their claptrap scientifically discredited ad nauseam by everyone from scientists to laymen... you do realize they're funded by the Moonies, right?

[spursncowboys]

Did somebody actually paste in a Discovery Institute blurb? :lol

Besides having been repeatedly caught being less than honest in their presentation/omission of materials and spokespeople, besides having their claptrap scientifically discredited ad nauseam by everyone from scientists to laymen... you do realize they're funded by the Moonies, right?
Can't be less credible than PBS, or Al Gore. BTW, do you have a link of dishonesty?

[AussieFanKurt]

1) Creationists, as it pertains to strict interpretation of the Bible story, will be deemed cultists, nothing more. If you want to say God made the Big Bang happen, or that evolution is God's device, thats perfectly acceptable religious leanings in any scientific discussion.



Yeah see, that makes sense. I'm not religious but people who believe that scientific events didnt happen are imbeciles but if people believe that god spurred some scientific events then thats more rational

[RandomGuy]

All I've got is copy and pasting, because I'm not a geneticist or biologist and you're asking for studies. Second, it is only my interpretation and you think I'm full of shit anyway. Third, what copy and pasting I do have (that's directly relevant) comes from "biased" creationist resources, therefore you will be quick to write them off or question their science.

I won't waste mine or your time.

What you have is a verbatim understanding of creationist websites. They cannot support their claims when asked, which is why I wanted you try and present some data that supports their hypothesis.

I had hoped, in your digging, that you might start critically analysing all the claims made by these websites, and applying simple logic to them, and decide that these claims must be supported by some modicum of data.



- mutations RARELY, if EVER, occur during microevolution AKA adaptation.

Again, an easily testable hypothesis.

If creationists truly are right about this thesis, they should be able to provide mountains of evidence showing that mutations are exceedingly rare, as mutation rates in smaller shorter-lived animals can be, and have been measured.

Given that we have some pretty good data on the methods and rates of mutation, and there is a LOT of scientific literature on it. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mutations+studies+rates&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=).

I believe that the data we have shows, quite clearly, that mutations do happen at a rate much greater than creationist theory postulates.




What creationist websites have is bad logic and claims backed by little more than active misrepresentations of what the theory of evolution is, as mouse's posts so elequently show. These misrepresentations are at best, honest misunderstandings, or at worst, outright distortions.

One good thing about science is that it puts forth TESTABLE hypotheses, such as you advanced in your post.


Microevolution isn't that. It's a misnomer. It's simply animals adapting to their environment - properly termed "adaptation." All adaptations allowable are precoded

This claim can easily be tested by studying shorter-lived animals and bacteria. If one finds one or even many instances of animals changing in non-precoded ways, i.e. mutations that change genes in ways NOT in the original source genes, then it is disproven.

The mechanisms of mutation have been studied rather closely and are given here:
http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml
If you want specific papers showing how these genes change and mutate, I can probably ask my wife's professors for scientific papers studying each type of mutation.

Since the statement : "All adaptations allowable are precoded" is fully testible, and has been proven false, we cannot accept it as a valid hypothesis.


And to address those mutations which do occur, even the most basic cell repairs its DNA - mutations are considered undesirable by the cell.

Cells do repair themselves by some self-correcting mechanisms. Again a testable hypothesis.

If the above statement and the implication that mutations are mostly self correcting were correct, then we would see that cells fix mutations on a regular basis.

This implication would preclude most forms of cancer. Since we observe cancers, and indeed many forms of non-corrected mutations, we can only assume this implication has been tested to be false as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------



The basic thing I am really trying to get at is that you should really, truly look at the underlying claims, and cut them into individual components.

If they can be tested, then they should be.

If they present faulty logic, then they should be considered faulty ideas.

I have shown consistently that mouse's posts from most of his sources almost invariably fall into the logical fallacy known as "strawman", in which a specious distortion of an idea is presented as the idea and then somehow debunking that false idea is sufficient to "disprove" the oringinal real idea.

[RandomGuy]

evolution is just as much theory as creationism.

Yes and no.

Here are two theories:

1) You can run off of a cliff, realize what you have done, then run back to solid ground before plummeting to your death.

2) You will start falling the instant the ground is no longer resisting the force of gravity for you.

The evidence for the first theory can be had from Road Runner cartoons, and is somewhat limited.

The evidence for the second theory is *somewhat* more extensive.

Yes, both are theories, but one fits observed data much better than the other.

That is the part that creationists like to leave out, and is part of the half-truths and lies of omission that must be commited to dupe people into thinking that the two theories are somehow equal in weight of evidence.

[z0sa]

I won't disagree. A lot of what I read is creationist, it's true - and its true much of what Mouse posts are 'posterboys' for the effort that have been thoroughly debunked by professionals and amateurs alike. I don't want to appear as if I'm advocating these ideas from my own personal experiences in a lab or something, because that's obviously not true. And I've already admitted this thread that on a microscopic scale, and further down to the genetic, it seems like one can observe or readily infer based on observations evolution step by step.

RG i sent you a pm.

[RandomGuy]

I won't disagree. A lot of what I read is creationist, it's true - and its true much of what Mouse posts are 'posterboys' for the effort that have been thoroughly debunked by professionals and amateurs alike. I don't want to appear as if I'm advocating these ideas from my own personal experiences in a lab or something, because that's obviously not true. And I've already admitted this thread that on a microscopic scale, and further down to the genetic, it seems like one can observe or readily infer based on observations evolution step by step.

RG i sent you a pm.

Indeed. Critical thinking is a learned skill, and one I hope you continue to acquire and practice. :toast

[mouse]

its true much of what Mouse posts are 'posterboys' for the effort that have been thoroughly debunked by professionals and amateurs alike..

Debunk this.....




The lies Evolutionist's spread everyday!

Ancient Ice

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/Ice%20Layers%202.jpg

Most scientists today believe that various places on this planet, such as Greenland, the Antarctic, and many other places, have some very old ice. The ice in these areas appears to be layered in a very distinctive annual pattern. In fact, this pattern is both visually and chemically recognizable and extends downward some 4,000 to 5,000 meters. What happens is that as the snow from a previous year is buried under a new layer of snow, it is compacted over time with the weight of each additional layer of snow above it. This compacted snow is called the “firn” layer. After several meters this layers snowy firn turns into layers of solid ice (note that 30cm of compacted snow compresses further into about 10cm of ice). These layers are much thinner on the Antarctic ice cap as compared to the Greenland ice cap since Antarctica averages only 5cm of "water equivalent" per year while Greenland averages over 50cm of water equivalent. 1,2 since these layers get even thinner as they are buried under more and more snow and ice, due to compression and lateral flow (see diagram), the thinner layers of the Antarctic ice cap become much harder to count than those of the Greenland ice cap at an equivalent depth. So, scientists feel that most accurate historical information comes from Greenland, although much older ice comes from other drier places. Still, the ice cores drilled in the Greenland ice cap, such as the American Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2) and the European Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP), are felt to be very old indeed - upwards of 160,000 years old.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/ancien4.jpg

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/tinsley1/drilling.jpg

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/kennedy(2006)-fig.gif

http://www2.cnrs.fr/sites/en/image/1998d00646hd.jpg


Like the coelacanth fish from the previous page. This is another claim made that has been proven wrong. The assumption was that for every light and dark area found in ice, in either the north or south pole. Would represent 1 passing year. And because science has basically cornered the market of doing ice core drills. They figured no one would ever prove them wrong. They basically made this statement about the different colors found in ice cores, without really testing it to make sure. So it was a guess based on a theory (evolution, and the time required for it to happen) that they wanted to support. A theory that was starving for supporting evidence. So evolutionists stuck their foot in their mouth on this one, and are unwilling to admit their mistake. And this mistake is still being taught in every science-evolutionist class in both high school, and college. It is even in the school text books.

Just like the Ernest Haeckel fraud , which by the way will be reprinted and taught again (what next, Piltdown man?). Science refuses to remove the information, unless someone makes them. And like the Stanley Miller experiment. The problems are not mentioned, so that the theory of evolution can for the most part, always go unchallenged.






Just in case some of you still are in the dark scientist claim the layers of each core show how many years the ice is and the rings are solid proof the earth is Billions of years old.

You see these shows on the Discovery channel all the time.

Now for the truth.

BTW The next sound you may hear is the sound of ass cheeks puckering up as the Evolutionist's in this forum know what's coming next..... as I expose this retarded theory they love to teach the children in the classrooms.

http://yecheadquarters.org/images/creation/Slide513_ice_cores.jpg

At first glance you have no reason to doubt the scientist after all how many of you dig in the polar caps for ice? We must take their words as gospel, truth,and facts. what choice do we have?

You do have a choice now. You see in 1941 a plane was lost and 48 years later is was found , are you ready?......................

Under 263 feet of ice! which by the way kills any bullshit Ice core method of dating how old the earth is. So much for your ice ring lies Pat-Na!

I give you ........................

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aaaaa.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aaaa.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aaa-1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa-1.jpg

[SpurNation]

Praise God. He never gives you more than you can handle.

[jman3000]

:lol "debunk this".

His response to a statement made because of what he's posted earlier on leads him to repost the material in which he posted earlier on.

Classic

[Alex Jones]

:lol "debunk this".

His response to a statement made because of what he's posted earlier on leads him to repost the material in which he posted earlier on.

Classic

Kinda like the Evolutionist repeating the same lies over and over?

still waiting for someone to debunk moue's post. :wakeup

[RandomGuy]

Kinda like the Evolutionist repeating the same lies over and over?

still waiting for someone to debunk moue's post. :wakeup

I think I'll wait for mouse to debunk my posts.

[RandomGuy]

Debunk this.....

The lies Evolutionist's spread everyday!

Ancient Ice

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/Ice%20Layers%202.jpg

Most scientists today believe that various places on this planet, such as Greenland, the Antarctic, and many other places, have some very old ice. The ice in these areas appears to be layered in a very distinctive annual pattern.

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

Tell me how this has anything to do with the changes in organisms.

So in this sense, an "evolutionist" is anybody who thinks the universe is older than 10,000 years?

Is that correct?

[admiralsnackbar]

Can't be less credible than PBS, or Al Gore. BTW, do you have a link of dishonesty?

In what universe do you live? :lol Of course it can.

You could go to that dreaded center of disinformation known as PBS' horripilating NOVA:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

or watch Flock of Dodos, another documentary with more emphasis on the Discovery Institute.

[RandomGuy]

II. The Vostok Ice-Core
To demonstrate the methods used in dating ice-cores I will use the Vostok ice-core as an example because I found plenty of literature on it and because it is an Antarctic ice-core which was what the original post was about.

How It Was Collected
The Vostok Ice-Core was collected in East Antarctica by the Russian Antarctic expedition. The Vostok Ice-Core is 2,083 meters long and was collected in two portions: 1) 0 - 950 m in 1970-1974, 2) 950 - 2083 m in 1982-1983. The total depth of the ice sheet from which the core was collected is approximately 3,700 meters.

Experimental Methodology
The ice core was sliced into 1.5-2.0 meter segments. A discontinuous series sampled every 25 meters and a continuous series from 1,406 to 2,803 meters were then sent in solid form to Grenoble, France for further analysis.

At Grenoble the ice was put into clean stainless steel containers. The samples were crushed and then melted with the gases given off collected and saved for further analysis. The melt water was tested for chemical composition and then electrolysised.

The methods used in the determination of the ages include 18O/16O isotopic analysis [1], independent ice-flow calculations [1], comparison with other ice cores [1], paleoclimatic comparison [1], comparison with deep sea cores [1], 10Be/9Be isotopic analysis [2], deuterium/hydrogen isotopic analysis [3], comparison with marine climatic record [3], CO2 correspondances between dated ice-cores [4] and CO2 correspondances with dated oceanic cores [4].

The results determined from these various samples were consistent between the continuous and discontinuous slices within the sections that overlapped. They were also consistent with Greenland ice-cores, other Antarctic ice-cores, dated volcanic records, deep sea cores, and paleoclimatic evidence.

Results
While unable to provide specific dates (within a millenia), the analysis show definate evidence of the the last two ice ages. Using the methods listed above the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago. It should be noted that all of the methods listed above were consistent with the above results.

III. Conclusions
In this section I will provide a brief review of how the ice-core data effects both the age of the earth question and the Velikovskian catastrophism.

NOTE: This original post was written at a time when both Bob Bales and Ted Holden were frequent posters to talk.origins. Bob Bales has argued that the age of the Earth is about 50,000 years, and you are probably aware that Ted Holden is a proponent of the Velikovskian Catastrophism. Thus, these conclusions are reader specific.

Minimum Age of the Earth
From the data gathered from the Vostok ice-core indicates that the minimum age of the earth is 160,000 +- 15,000 years. Furthermore there exists approximately 33% of additional ice below the core sample which would hold a disproportionate number of years due to thinning of the ice layers under the tremendous pressure of the ice above it.

To maintain an age for the earth of 50,000 years, one would need to describe a mechanism that allows more than 2 false ice layers to form per year. It should be noted that one also needs to describe why this mechanism has ceased to function in historic times since the Vostok ice-core demonstrates a number of the historically recorded volcanism at the correct periods of time.

ADDITION: "To the list of things excluded, you can add miles-high tides or floods. (Velikovsky and the Noachian deluge). Such a mass of water would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds. No way to drop them exactly back onto their original location, or to regrow them. (In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.)" --Bob Grumbine [email protected]

Worlds in Collision
The Vostok ice-core shows no effects of catastrophic geological changes. By this I mean no petroleum, no vermin, no weird Venus gasses, no red snow, no manna in amongst the layers. Also no evidence for rapid rotational changes in the earth, no floods, no major asteroid bombardments. Finally, there is absolutely positively fur-darn-tootin no evidence of the earth ever having occupied any position in the solar system other than that which it holds now.

IV. References
When I went to look for references on the dating of ice-cores, I decided to follow a simple philosophy...as simple as scientifically possible. I chose to do this to demonstrate that there is no excuse for someone to make the blatantly ignorant attack that Ted made when answering Sue Bishop's original post on ice-core data.

NOTE: Ted originally claimed that the Antarctic ice cores resulted from lots of snow, not lots of years.

The above sections on the Vostok ice-core was taken from references 1-4. The general information on dating methods comes from references 5-8. The last two references are about Greenland ice-cores, and are included for further reading pleasure. Reference [8], if you can find it, is an exceptionally lucid piece of scientific writing (even though it was a dissertation).

[1] C. Lorius et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 591-596.
[2] F. Yiou et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 616-617.
[3] J. Jouzel et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 403-408.
[4] J.M. Barnola et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 408-414.
[5] van Nostrands' SCIENTIFIC DICTIONARY
[6] THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
[7] E. Wolff, GEOGRAPHICAL MAGAZINE 59 (1987) 73-77.
[8] Julie M. Palais OCEANUS 29 (Winter 86/87) 55-60.
[9] W. Dansgaard et al., SCIENCE 218 (1982) 1273-1277.
[10] C.U. Hammer et al., NATURE 288 (1980) 230-235.

[RandomGuy]

wheeeeee copy, paste. I have now "debunked" mouses' post. :D

[mouse]

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

Tell me how this has anything to do with the changes in organisms.

How can that be true if you and your very well educated scientist pals lie to people everyday? How can you support lies?

Your bias if you can't admit when your wrong on at least one level. And bias people make for poor debating if they will never see the other person's view.



So in this sense, an "evolutionist" is anybody who thinks the universe is older than 10,000 years?

You miss the point of the post it shows how the scientist lie everyday and if they lied about the rings in the ice then they are lying about the earth being 4 billion years old. You can't say a dollar is not four quarters and then admit it's 20 nickels it's contradiction.

here is an easy one debunk this.....


Slowing Earth

Another factor. The earth is spinning - we are turning around. How many knew [sic] that already? We are turning around. You know the earth is going a little over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator, but the earth is slowing down. It is actually slowing down 1000th of a second everyday. Pensacola News Journal, 1990, said on December 6, “Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June will be one second longer than normal. The earth is slowing down 1000th of a second every day.” Astronomy magazine announced, 1992 in the June edition, “Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June is going to be one second longer than normal.” We will have to have a “leap second.” A leap second? Most people have heard of leap year, but lots of folks have never heard of leap second. Did you know we have a leap second about every year and a half now because the earth is slowing down? .....

[RandomGuy]

Your bias if you can't admit when your wrong on at least one level.

:lmao

You have no room to talk on that regard. I have NEVER, EVER seen you admit you were wrong about ANY-FUCKING-THING, even when I point out explicitly and simply how you were wrong. You just change the subject by posting some new bullshit that you came across 2 minutes ago, and didn't bother reading critically.


How can that be true if you and your very well educated scientist pals lie to people everyday? How can you support lies?

How can you support lies, mouse?

Everything you post here that I see is pretty much lies. Your posts lie about what the theory of evolution is, they lie about what scientists say, they lie about everything even halfway important. There are overt lies and lies of omission. So many that one can ONLY conclude there is a very deliberate attempt to deceive.

You are the one being lied to on the creationist websites. I am sorry for that.

[Marcus Bryant]

Somebody is taking mouse seriously? egads.

[mouse]

ok RandomLie you want to fog the real issues with lier lier pants on fire style of debating go right ahead here are the facts...

Fact one: Scientist claim the ice rings are summer and winter they say a 20 foot ice core can show 40 or 50 years.

Fact two: a plane that was lost in 1941 was found under 263 feet of ice.

do the math and tell me how there is a lie on my part.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa-1.jpg

ue8rVSmrmZ0

[Wild Cobra]

Debunk this.....

Already have. Not all scientists believe as you stated. Just because it debunks a few, doesn't mean it debunks the science.

You are proposing that thew earth isn't as old as scientists claim because some get the science wrong. Those who promote the propaganda that you repeat know full well that the earth sciences have far advanced in accuracy far better than what you portray.

There is no more need that that. Your few examples are idiotic, especially the one that shows the carbon dating of sea she;;s to be older than the loving mollusk.

You know, carbon dating of any aquatic life will be inaccurate.

[Wild Cobra]

Somebody is taking mouse seriously? egads.
Not me. I'm just trying to keep him from going insane.

[mouse]

Already have. Not all scientists believe as you stated. Just because it debunks a few, doesn't mean it debunks the science.

If this is not the definition of stubborn not willing to admit science got it wrong this time statement, then what is?

I just proved to you ice core dating is flawed and you can't accept it?

is that lack of mental comprehension or Ego?




You are proposing that thew earth isn't as old as scientists claim because some get the science wrong.

Did you say "some"? how would you react if one of the bible thumping creationist said..:you can't say the Bible is wrong because a few books were off and not correct

You would be all over their holy roller ass laughing at them if they told you "we know John, Luke, and Revelation is wrong but Mathew,Genesis, and psalms are right"

You ever heard of double standards?



Those who promote the propaganda that you repeat know full well that the earth sciences have far advanced in accuracy far better than what you portray.

propaganda? are you typing this with a straight face? Your whole Evolution half baked theories are based on propaganda. I just showed you a plane under 253 feet of ice how is that propaganda?
You and your misguided Darwin lovers better get your shit together and start posting some solid evidence of this bullshit Evolution theories or I may not waste time posting mine.




There is no more need that that. Your few examples are idiotic, especially the one that shows the carbon dating of sea she;;s to be older than the loving mollusk.

Then post the evidence of my examples being wrong, don't just say they are and walk away.




You know, carbon dating of any aquatic life will be inaccurate.

let me fix your quote.



You know, carbon dating is inaccurate.


The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods


To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.



"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”



The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support.

[mouse]

Everything you post here that I see is pretty much lies.

prove it.

[Blake]

You and your misguided Darwin lovers better get your shit together and start posting some solid evidence of this bullshit Evolution theories or I may not waste time posting mine.


most likely a lie.

[101A]

Somebody is taking mouse seriously? egads.


This.

lol.

[rjv]

22 pages later and this thread never evolved.

[boutons_deux]

The rodent is playing the ironic agent-provocateur throughout this entire thread. You're all suckers.

[Wild Cobra]

If this is not the definition of stubborn not willing to admit science got it wrong this time statement, then what is?

I just proved to you ice core dating is flawed and you can't accept it?

You did no such thing. If you study the dating aspect of the geosciences, you will find they know better than treating such layers as years. They use other methods to accurately determine what the layers are.


is that lack of mental comprehension or Ego?

Would you stop talking in the mirror, and face me please?


Did you say "some"? how would you react if one of the bible thumping creationist said..:you can't say the Bible is wrong because a few books were off and not correct

Show me that all scientists using ice core data believe that those layers are years. Bet you can't.


You would be all over their holy roller ass laughing at them if they told you "we know John, Luke, and Revelation is wrong but Mathew,Genesis, and psalms are right"

You ever heard of double standards?

If you have ever read my posts on such related things, I know the English translations are wrong in many ways. Your example is idiotic. Unless you can read the original text, expect incorrect translations.


propaganda? are you typing this with a straight face? Your whole Evolution half baked theories are based on propaganda. I just showed you a plane under 253 feet of ice how is that propaganda?

I'm not saying the plane didn't happen. I'm saying you are using erroneous assumptions of the sciences to make you case for fundamentalism.


You and your misguided Darwin lovers better get your shit together and start posting some solid evidence of this bullshit Evolution theories or I may not waste time posting mine.

Thing is, I do believe in the creation. I also believe in evolution. There is nothing that does not allow them both to be right. I just cannot stand you lying about the sciences. Make your case with facts please, not propaganda.


Then post the evidence of my examples being wrong, don't just say they are and walk away.

Why should I have to? Anyone who has half a brain understands that the layers are not always years, but that other things do the same thing like changing wind patters, volcano, meteor strikes, etc. Any scientist who studies such work knows there are more factors than one.

Look at any writeup on the subject. They do say annual layers, but they don't ever say all layers are annual layers.

I don't know what's going to convince you, I'm probably wasting my time. Here is a simple extract from wiki, Ice ore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core):

In Law Dome ice cores, the trapping depth at DE08 was found to be 72 m where the age of the ice is 40±1 years; at DE08-2 to be 72 m depth and 40 years; and at DSS to be 66 m depth and 68 years.[15]
[edit] Paleoatmospheric firn studies
Ozone-depleting gases in Greenland firn.

At the South Pole, the firn-ice transition depth is at 122 m, with a CO2 age of about 100 years.
They are in no disillusion of how deep is how many years. Your plane at 263 feet is 80 meters, or 1.7 meters per year. The two Dome samples are 72 meters for 40 years, or 1.8 meters per year.

Again, scientists know how to determine which layers are annual layers.

Now you cannot take that 1.7 meters per year as a constant. Just a range near the surface. The ice compresses and squeezes horizontally the deeper it gets. Layers become closer together. The ice flow is so great, visible layers no longer work.

Maybe this will conivvince you:

Vostok Ice Core Timescales (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_timescales.html):

Different timescales have been used for the interpretation of Vostok ice core records. They are reported in ky BP.

- The Ruddiman and Raymo (2003) Methane-Based Time Scale was developed by tuning the Vostok methane signal to mid-July 30°N insolation.

- The Petit et al. GT4 timescale extends the glaciological timescale of Jouzel et al.

- The Lorius et al. timescale (column 2) has been derived by combining a glaciological model, fully described in Ritz (1992) and an accumulation model in which past accumulation is derived from the temperature record reconstructed from the deuterium isotopic profile (see Lorius et al., 1985).

- Sowers et al. correlated the d18O of paleoatmospheric O2 derived from the Vostok 3G and 4G cores, into a record of changes in the d18O of sea water derived from records of the d18O of foraminifera (see Sowers et al., 1993). This timescale is given in column 3.

- The glaciological timescale of Lorius et al. (1985) has been extended accounting for a linear increase of modern accumulation upstream of Vostok. This Extended Glaciological Timescale (EGT; column 4) is described in Jouzel et al. (1993).

- Jouzel et al. (1996) have used a modified version of EGT (column 4) assuming that this timescale overestimates the increase of age with depth by 12% for gas ages older than 112 ky BP.


let me fix your quote.

You know, carbon dating is inaccurate.
Carbon dating is actually pretty accurate when you have unadulterated samples, and can compare to other indicators to give a starting ration. You see, they once thought starting 14C was all the same ratio. Scientists have since discovered that it varies with solar radiation, so it's more complex than just taking a ratio between 12C and 14C.


The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods

To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
Except in the case of most centuries that carbon dating an be used, we have tree ring records to compare them with. We have clear data to proxy our ratios with for a given year. Now I agree radioisotope data gets tricky for other elements. That's why the accuracy decreases as time goes by.

Most the problems with carbon dating, isn't the method, but the samples people try to date. For example, all coral, sea shells, aquatic life, birds, and so many other species will give you older dates than they really are. Carbon dating only is accurate from surface plants, or vegetarians that do not eat plants that extract CO2 from water.

[mouse]

. They do say annual layers, but they don't ever say all layers are annual layers.



I will address all your quotes but for now this one needs special attention. Do you really know what you are saying here?

They do say annual layers, but they don't ever say all layers are annual layers.

Do you know how you sound? That is like me posting "ok I can admit man did come from ape but not all men came from ape!" WTF?
I made my point if the scientist.... oops sorry (Some scientist) say they are annual layers then that is a lie right there! And the shit needs to be removed from the text books,

Your logic is like this. "yes Hitler did kill some Jews but he didn't kill all the Jews" WGAF how many Jews he didn't kill he killed enough to be guilty.

come on man think before you post such circular bullshit.

[LnGrrrR]

Mouse, if scientists are wrong about how old the earth is, who do you trust to determine the age of the earth?

[mouse]

Mouse, if scientists are wrong about how old the earth is, who do you trust to determine the age of the earth?


It's not who, it's what. The rivers, the trees, the creatures, the seas. I use what I see around me. When I see a colorful earth......

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/1236715084yyC9Jtcjpg.jpg





or a beautiful woman......




http://www.franksemails.com/pics/camel1.jpg


I can't see it all coming from hot gas and snails do you?



Besides I really don't care how old the earth is just don't try and tell me it's 4 billion years old. Don't tell me you know for a fact Dinosaurs were here 25 million years ago and man evolved from ape if you were not there to witness it.

That is like me telling you Jesus was the first person to dunk a basketball.

[LnGrrrR]

So, you don't know how old it is, except you KNOW emphatically it's not billions of years old?

[Duncan]

Do you know how old the girl in the pic above is? I bet you know she's not 70 years old don't you? This isn't rocket science brah!

[Wild Cobra]

I will address all your quotes but for now this one needs special attention. Do you really know what you are saying here?

They do say annual layers, but they don't ever say all layers are annual layers.

Do you know how you sound?
The notable layering can be from something else. Say for example you take a sample of ice, and you have 30 layers in it. No good scientists will say we have 30 years of sample here, but he might say we have as many as 30 years.

You have to carefully look at each layer. Something else can cause the layering to occur. There might be less than 20 of those layers as annual layers, maybe 28. It's unlikely that all the layers are annual layers though.

[MannyIsGod]

http://4.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_krw5y2RtDi1qz9bwro1_500.jpg

[mouse]

The notable layering can be from something else. Say for example you take a sample of ice, and you have 30 layers in it. No good scientists will say we have 30 years of sample here, but he might say we have as many as 30 years.

You have to carefully look at each layer. Something else can cause the layering to occur. There might be less than 20 of those layers as annual layers, maybe 28. It's unlikely that all the layers are annual layers though.

But what you just said is not in the text books!
I think many of you in this topic are so amped up on putting the bible thumper's in there places you forget why I am here.

I am here to discus the text books and lies. I don't give a rats ass how we got here i want to enjoy every minute of it. Just don't lie to the students.

Let the text books show the controversy, let the text books show the embryonic chart was faked. let the text books show the lost squadron and how you can't always use ice layers as a means to age the earth.

What is so wrong with presenting all points of view, all the different theories and than let the students decide on their own?

You want to tell kids H2O is water and you want them to believe science is a never ending learning experience that is fine. Just don't make science into a Markism propaganda machine that has an agenda and is out to make kids not believe in their own beliefs or creation theories.

Let science show facts and have foot notes. for example

Scientist believe the earth is 4 billion years old from studying the fossil record and the earths rocks using carbon dating methods,etc...

(Side note: Carbon dating has know to have flaws and there are others who claim the earth may not be 4 billion years old.)

Scientist believe man evolved from a primate type creature 60 million years ago
from the data they have studied and from Darwin's theories.

(side note: Darwin's theory is just that it is not 100% accurate and is subject to criticisms

You see the big picture, or do you need another chart?


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/chump2.jpg

[RandomGuy]

I can't see it all coming from hot gas and snails do you?

... man evolved from ape

Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.

[RandomGuy]

[QUOTE=mouse;3768297][snarky comment removed by author. RG]

[RandomGuy]

Scientist believe man evolved from a primate type creature 60 million years ago

Much better.

Scientists believe, actually, that modern humans evolved from our most immediate ancestor as little as 200,000 years ago, if memory serves.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Human-phylo-tree.png/610px-Human-phylo-tree.png


Genetic distance. Given below the diagram, the genetic difference between humans and chimps is roughly 2%, or 20 times larger than the variation among modern humans.
Temporal remoteness of the most recent common ancestor. Rough estimates are given above the diagram, in millions of years. The mitochondrial most recent common ancestor of modern humans lived roughly 200,000 years ago, latest common ancestors of humans and chimps between four and seven million years ago.

[RandomGuy]

Let the text books show the controversy, let the text books show the embryonic chart was faked. let the text books show the lost squadron and how you can't always use ice layers as a means to age the earth.

The embryonic chart was simply a bad idea, unsupported by data. That is why it was ultimately removed.

Your problem is that the age of the earth the biblical literalists want is 10,000 years, because that is what some monk in the middle ages calculated it to be based on HIS interpretation of the bible.

We have so many things telling us the age of the earth is older than that.
Red-shift of light
genetic drift
ice core samples
radiometric dating
continental drift
etc.
etc.
etc.

For the bibilical literalists to be right about this monk's calculation requires entire FIELDS of science to be completely based on absolute bunk.

Chemistry
Physics
Geology
Genetics

All of which are based, if biblical literalists are to be beleived, on bad science.

Every measurement of any data that indicated an age any older than 10,000 years MUST be wrong somehow.

Chemistry can refine petroleum into tens of thousands of different useful things, mix metals, produce new millions of new compounds, is somehow wrong when it indicates that the age of the earth/universe is older than 10,000 years.

Physics can accurately launch a space craft into orbit of a planet millions of miles away, it can accurately predict the eletrical field strength of a given current, it can accurately predict the very make-up of matter, measure the speed of light in super-cold mediums, split atoms, is somehow wrong when it indicates the age of the earth/universe is older than 10,000 years.

Geology can be trusted to tell us where to look for coal/oil/gold/iron, can tell us how deep to sink foundations for skyscrapers, where to find water, can't be trusted when it says that the age of the earth is older than 10,000 years.

Genetics can map out the entire genome of dozens of creatures, tell us how to modify the very building blocks of life to produce glow in the dark cats, drought resistant crops, vaccines, is somehow completely off-base when it suggests that genetic material changes, and that rate of change can be measured to produce an overall age for ANY creature's DNA older than 10,000 years.

In short, all of modern science is good enough to do all manner of wonderful things for us, but when it comes to actually producing good enough data to hazard a guess about the age of the universe... they just ALL completely failed to get it right.

That is what you would have me believe?

[mouse]

Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.


Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/snail.jpg

[mouse]

The embryonic chart was simply a bad idea, unsupported by data.

Fuck you asshole! :lmao

You just got owned! I post shit that shows your wrong and "it's just "bad data"?

You say I post shit that is wrong and "It's lies!"?

You better pull that banana eating Darwin loving head out of that 4 billion year old ass of yours before you come back with some lame ass shit like this again

[mouse]

The embryonic chart was simply a bad idea, unsupported by data. That is why it was ultimately removed.


when was the last time you read a school book?


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/prooof.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-257603.png

[mouse]

science is good enough to do all manner of wonderful things for us, but when it comes to actually producing good enough data

Show us this data you speak of.

While your out in Google country find a rebuttal to this.

Ocean Sediment

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/shallow.gif



A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.

[Blake]

Show us this data you speak of.

While your out in Google country find a rebuttal to this.

Ocean Sediment

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/shallow.gif



A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

weeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[mouse]

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

weeeeeeeeeeeeeee

That cheesy link you provided is from the National Geophysical Data Center. (NGDC)
An organization that has an agenda and has been proven wrong and has many flaws.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/6666-1.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/33-2.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/333-1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/3333.jpg

If your going to pull out more false evidence to prove Darwin's half baked theories? at least try to find a credible organization, not the NGDC

Weeeeeeeee

[Wild Cobra]

Show us this data you speak of.

While your out in Google country find a rebuttal to this.

Ocean Sediment

A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.
Those pics show no such thing. Prove your contention please.

[baseline bum]

That is like me telling you Jesus was the first person to dunk a basketball.

Jesus has no game

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f37/AprilEthereal20/gwar.gif

[Wild Cobra]

That cheesy link you provided is from the National Geophysical Data Center. (NGDC)
An organization that has an agenda and has been proven wrong and has many flaws.
You should so a little studying about the fossils they found in Vernonia, Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernonia,_Oregon) and other elevated lands where they found sea fossils. Vernonia sits at 630 ft. above sea level, and is on the other side of the ocean from a mountain range.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/satellite%20view/VernoniaOR.jpg

Oregon Fossils (http://www.all-oregon.com/fossils.htm)

If your going to pull out more false evidence to prove Darwin's half baked theories? at least try to find a credible organization, not the NGDC

Myself, I think Darwin is wrong about most things. However, it is intellectually dishonest to try to disprove something with bullshit.

[mouse]

You should so a little studying about the fossils they found in Vernonia, Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernonia,_Oregon) and other elevated lands where they found sea fossils. Vernonia sits at 630 ft. above sea level, and is on the other side of the ocean from a mountain range.


Fossils found in elevated mountain ranges is just proof of a great flood!
You just score a touchdown for the creationist! :lmao



Myself, I think Darwin is wrong about most things.

Then why is it still in the school text books?



However, it is intellectually dishonest to try to disprove something with bullshit.

Kinda like Evolutionist do with carbon dating?


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/flaws.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/flaws5.jpg



I am not a creationist, but feel free to post more proof of Noah's flood with your turtle found on top of mountain links I'm sure they would love it! :tu

[mouse]

sorry almost forgot..........


Weeeeeeeeeee

[Wild Cobra]

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
Who are these many people? as many as 10?

The science of Carbon dating only allows reasonable accuracy to about 50,000 years. By this time, the 14C is less than 0.4% of the original sample.

A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim
You have to use uncontaminated samples to carbon date. Fossils are a very poor choice for carbon dating to begin with.

You know, if I were a scientist willing to fudge such information, I would find fossil samples near any radioactive source that emits neutrons. This would change some of the remaining nitrogen in the bone to carbon 14.

Another possibility is these bones were found in an area that would have been frozen since they dies, and unfrozen since the last ice age. Bacteria feeding in the pours would leave traces of 14C.

I cannot believe such things you say to be true. there is so many other types of supporting evidence.

Another explaination yet is that some dinosaurs may have survived until our forefathers killed all the dragons!

What you offer is data suggesting proof of everything, when too many unknown factors exist.

Do you know for a fact that all dinasaurs were extinct about the same time period?

Why does the article say bone, and not fossilized bone?

Come on man. Use your own head instead of propaganda material.

This same web site is just propaganda. They intentionally mislead the reader, so why do you trust them?

The penguin dated at 8,000 years? Give me a break. This is exactly the type of misleading propaganda that proves this site has an agenda and lies. The food chain of the penguin is sea life, getting CO2 from the sea, not the atmosphere. Starting with the plankton, diatoms, etc. the CO2 they absorb can be in the ocean for tens of thousands of years. Any such samples are known to be invalid by any scientist who knows carbon dating. Why do you quote a site that lies?

[Wild Cobra]

Keep up the propaganda posting Mouse, and you will end up on my IGNORE list.

Please verify the validity of the sites, instead of posting complete and utter nonsense.

[mouse]

Keep up the propaganda posting Mouse, and you will end up on my IGNORE list.

http://www.khanya.co.za/blogs/images/head_in_sand.jpg

Ignore lists are for pussy's. Sorry if I don't say what you want to hear. To bad the world can't be Cobratized!

Why even enter a debate if your going to bitch and moan about links and quotes that don't suit your beliefs?

So what if my links and quotes are not to your utmost standards. I as an American can post them and believe in them just as you believe in your 4 billion year old theories.

Don't bother with the ignore feature I doubt I will waste valuable debating time with someone who can't handle the other side of an argument.




Please verify the validity of the sites, instead of posting complete and utter nonsense.

Why would I? so you can get offended again and threaten to put me on double secret Ignore? Funny thing is your not new to ST why would it take you this long to put me on Ignore?


The following is for anyone else who wants to take over where cobra left off....
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/falws6.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Then take it out of the text books!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/snail.jpg

That picture no more shows that man evolved from snails than it does man evolving from modern dogs.

If you look down the "Tree" you will see that the line ultimately leading to humans and the line ultimately leading to snails to intersect at some point in the past.

THAT is the theory of evolution. At some point in the very distant past, the BRANCH that eventually came to give rise to humans and the branch that eventually gave rise to snails today intersected at a common ancestor.

You would be better off saying:

Humans evolved from primitive slugs.

Which is the correct statement according to modern understanding of evolution.

We didn't evolve from apes, but DO share a common ancestor. Modern snails are very very very distant relatives of humans, as almost all life on the planet is.

[RandomGuy]

Jesus has no game

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f37/AprilEthereal20/gwar.gif

http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.17458322.jpg

Au contraire... Jesus Saves

[RandomGuy]

copy paste, dodge questions

:sleep

[mouse]

That picture no more shows that man evolved from snails than it does man evolving from modern dogs.

Then take it out of the text books!


If you look down the "Tree" you will see that the line ultimately leading to humans and the line ultimately leading to snails to intersect at some point in the past.

That is my point! Evolution teaches all matter evolved from a single source.


THAT is the theory of evolution. At some point in the very distant past, the BRANCH that eventually came to give rise to humans and the branch that eventually gave rise to snails today intersected at a common ancestor.

It all goes back to the soup!


You would be better off saying:

Humans evolved from primitive slugs.
Which is the correct statement according to modern understanding of evolution.

Slugs,Bugs,rugs,....does it really matter? It's all the same shit from hot rocks! (according to Darwin and your Scientific friends)




We didn't evolve from apes,

Then take the evolution charts out of the text books.




but DO share a common ancestor.

That is like saying Your not Mexican but your great grand father was Pancho Villa. Come on your splitting hairs.




Modern snails are very very very distant relatives of humans, as almost all life on the planet is.

And my very very very very very distant grandmother was from mars making me part Martian.

Well at least you have the sac to admit man did come from Snails. And It's more than Chump and cobra will admit to! :tu


More Bullshit in the text books!
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-257623.png

[Wild Cobra]

Ignore lists are for pussy's. Sorry if I don't say what you want to hear. To bad the world can't be Cobratized!
I just don'ty like waiting my time. I'm wearing hip waders already, and your shit's just getting deeper. I'm going to have to bail if you cannot start using facts.

Why even enter a debate if your going to bitch and moan about links and quotes that don't suit your beliefs?

Because every link I looked at of yours has clear lies in it and or intentional misdirection. If you cannot use something that gives information without bullshit, then I will stop wasting my time with your sorry ass.

[Wild Cobra]

There is clear evidence that we did all evolve some way from the same source. I forget what the amount is, but all life on the earth shares an amazing number of genes. I just cannot stand Mouse's approach of regurgitating material from propaganda sources.

[Shastafarian]

There is clear evidence that we did all evolve some way from the same source. I forget what the amount is, but all life on the earth shares an amazing number of genes. I just cannot stand Mouse's approach of regurgitating material from propaganda sources.

I believe we share around 50% of our genetic code with that of a banana.

[ChumpDumper]

Then take it out of the text books!It's not in any textbook.


That is my point! Evolution teaches all matter evolved from a single source.So?


Slugs,Bugs,rugs,....does it really matter? It's all the same shit from hot rocks! (according to Darwin and your Scientific friends)Yes, it really does matter.


Then take the evolution charts out of the text books.Why? you got a better idea? State it.


That is like saying Your not Mexican but your great grand father was Pancho Villa. Come on your splitting hairs.He's pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding.


Well at least you have the sac to admit man did come from Snails. And It's more than Chump and cobra will admit to! :tuHe never said that :tu


More Bullshit in the text books!
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-257623.pngI saw the words "suggest" and "possible" -- seems fair to me.

Where is your theory and the evidence supporting it? Pictures of cameltoes won't cut it.

[RandomGuy]

Multiple rock formations, are analysed and found to be identical chemically, are found on different sides of an ocean. These formations have layering charactoristics that are also fully identical.

It is known from careful, extremely precise measurements that the two different continents, are moving apart from each other at the rate of one inch per year.

Rearranging the map of the continents shows that the two continents fit together almost precisely.

The rock formations and coastlines are roughly 1000 miles apart.

1000 miles in inches is 63,120,000

Is it logical to conclude that at some point, these two continents were actually together at a point approximately 63 million years ago?

[RandomGuy]

If the world is only 10,000 years old, why did God create two chemically identical coastlines that fit together so perfectly? Is God trying to trick us into thinking they were actually together at some point?

Why?

[RandomGuy]

Then take the evolution charts out of the text books.


What should we put in textbooks then?

Tell me what textbook you would find acceptable.

[mouse]

It's not in any textbook.

.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa6.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/book-page.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/66666666.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/33-1.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/44444.jpg

[mouse]

What should we put in textbooks then?

Tell me what textbook you would find acceptable.

Almost everything is ok, it's the way they present it.

Show the fossils and say thousands of years ago.....or Scientist claim the earth is 4 Billion years old but others think it's much younger.

This Dinosaur Bone dated 25 Million years old (although carbon dating has flaws) use your own interpretations.

Darwin showed scientist Evolution but it does have flaws. and is not 100%

Intelligent design is another theory how man came about but it has not been proven 100%

The age of the earth is not known 100% scientist say 4 Billion years old but some argue its ______years old.

You know only post what can be proven as fact , and show both sides of the Theories. and tell the students scientist are discovering fossils and bones everyday and it's up to the student to draw his or hers conclusion.

Chances are most students will go with Science and Darwin, that is ok at least they saw both sides of the debate.
keep the bullshit Evolution in the text books but give the students an option.

And take out silly charts that have been proven wrong. You don't see a picture in the school texts books of Noah and all his animals on the arc do you?


But there are many books in schools to say we came from a fish.

[http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/33333.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa6.jpg
Mouse...

Why are you showing us materials used in the Malaysian school system?

You know, other countries use the English language also...

KBSR Kurikulum Baru Sekolah Rendah (Malay: New Primary School Curriculum)

[mouse]

If the world is only 10,000 years old, why did God create two chemically identical coastlines that fit together so perfectly? Is God trying to trick us into thinking they were actually together at some point?

Why?

Ask a creationist I support Alternative Design it has nothing to do with God or the Bible.




http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/66666.jpg

[mouse]

Multiple rock formations, are analysed and found to be identical chemically, are found on different sides of an ocean. These formations have layering charactoristics that are also fully identical.

It is known from careful, extremely precise measurements that the two different continents, are moving apart from each other at the rate of one inch per year.

Rearranging the map of the continents shows that the two continents fit together almost precisely.

The rock formations and coastlines are roughly 1000 miles apart.

1000 miles in inches is 63,120,000

Is it logical to conclude that at some point, these two continents were actually together at a point approximately 63 million years ago?


You do know that underneath the sea is land right? What do you suppose happens to that land when you place the two continents together?

What is underneath the two continents when they drift apart?
And what exactly is used to date your rock formations?





the post-Flood Ice Age when much of the water was still trapped in ice at the poles. Lower sea levels would have left the continental shelves exposed, connecting all of the major land masses through land bridges.

There are (or at least were) shallow underwater land bridges connecting all of the major continents. North America, Southeast Asia, and Australia are all attached to continental Asia. Britain is attached to continental Europe. In some places, these intercontinental bridges are only a few hundred feet below our current sea level. The theory can be summarized as follows: (1) After the Flood, an ice age occurred. (2) The vast amount of water that was frozen resulted in the oceans being much lower than they are today. (3) The low level of the oceans resulted in land bridges connecting the various continents. (4) Human beings and animals migrated to the different continents over these land bridges. (5) The ice age ended, resulting in the ice melting and the ocean levels rising, resulting in the land bridges being submerged.

[mouse]

Mouse...

Why are you showing us materials used in the Malaysian school system?



there 1000s of books in the classrooms you really want me to post all of them?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/555555.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/evolutiontree.gif
http://www.pronk.com/wp-content/themes/sandbox_Joanna/images/awards/Holt_bio.jpg

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/fb/74/2626b340dca090911db35010.L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa11.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/large-e102-eras_of_life-2008-116-8x.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa6.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/book-page.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/66666666.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/33-1.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/44444.jpgRight, you still haven't produced any quote from a current textbook saying man evolved from snails.

[mouse]

the map of the continents shows that the two continents fit together almost precisely.


You forget they had to shrink Africa by 40% to get them to fit I wonder why?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/000-2.jpg



I hope your head doesn't explode answering this next question.

If the continent's all fit then...

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/0000-1.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

there 1000s of books in the classrooms you really want me to post all of them?No, we want you to post the current one that states that man evolved from snails.

[Wild Cobra]

there 1000s of books in the classrooms you really want me to post all of them?

Of course not. Just want you to understand what you are posting.

I'm sorry, but I do believe in some evolution. However, I also believe in some Intelligent Design. Life started somehow. I don't care at what your belief is, even a divine God did not just come from nowhere.

I believe in our case, as earthlings, we are the product of both evolution and genetic manipulation by a higher power.

I do believe the earth is billions of years old, and was terra-formed by the Gods.

Now what were the Gods? We can only speculate. They could be some kind of an omnipotent being like "Q" on Star Trek, or they could be advanced aliens.

There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and plenty of gaps in that evolution to support a planned design in genetic manipulation. This planned manipulation is supported by differing religions on our planet having similar "creation" stories.

I agree with you that there is some kind of a design in play. You just really undermine that thought when you support that idea with such idiotic evidence.

[mouse]

No, we want you to post the current one that states that man evolved from snails.

I know this may be hard for your over exhausted brain to absorb but I will give it a shot.

In order to have a pizza you need sauce and dough. where did the dough come from?

water and flour? where did the flour come from? a seed and dirt?

It all came from earth. And according to Evolution we all came from a hot liquid that cooled off after a few billion years and formed some sort of bacteria and after billions of more years you had fish type creatures and they grew legs, then you had dogs cats monkeys and then your pappy , mankind

well somewhere between the bacteria and the fish was a few snails. So how can you say your not part of a snail?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/snail.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

[same old crap]So you still haven't shown a current textbook that states that man evolved from snails.

Just admit you couldn't and move on.

[Shastafarian]

So how can you say your not part of a snail?


Because we have concept of time. You seem to lack that quality.

[ChumpDumper]

well somewhere between the bacteria and the fish was a few snails. So how can you say your not part of a snail?That's not what that book says.

[mouse]

That's not what that book says.

That's not what the book says? Are you serious?

I am posting links and pictures along with data and all you can do is chime in with cheesy ass 1996 one liners like your cabana boy Shastafarian and hit me with "I know what you are but what am I" comebacks?

At least Wild Cobra brings good evidence which after deeper investigation I was about to give him props for making a good argument.

Chump Blake and your towel boy Shastafarian do nothing but bitch and moan and have yet to post anything that resembles evidence that would support your Darwin fantasies.

I may come back Monday to check on Wild Cobra but you three losers can go find another 9/11 topic to fuck up. I made my case and I stand by my postings. let the people decide who is right and who is wrong.

la8ters..........



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/444444444.jpg

[Shastafarian]

Which books currently in use have Haekel's supposedly fake drawings?

[Shastafarian]

:lol at that website by the way

[Shastafarian]

If you can't prove it, how can you believe it ?

* Let me ask you some questions first:

o Do you believe that Julius Caesar and Octavius (Augustus) ever lived ?
o Do you believe that Julius and Octavius were Roman emperors ?
o Do you believe that the "Holocaust" ever happened - that Jews were systematically killed in concentration camps ?
o Do you believe that the "Nanjin Massacre" ever happened - that Japanes soldiers brutally murdered countless innocent civilians ?

* If you do, why do you believe that ?

(If you don't, you are wired seriously wrong and are probably beyond any help....)

* Well, you can also believe that Jesus did die, that Jesus was buried and that Jesus was resurrected, for the same reasons that you can believe all of the above:

There are mountains of historical evidences preserved that show that the events recorded in the Bible are true.

Particularly, the documentation for the most important event (which is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus) is so reliable, that you can bet your life on it .

* Personally, I believe, God Himself would NEVER ask you to commit your life to Him if He did not PROVIDE and PRESERVE ironclad assurances to the fact that His Son Jesus was the Messiah.

Because He said that He is a righteous God and it would NOT be FAIR to accuse a person for not believing in Jesus if God did not PROVIDE and PRESERVE ironclad assurances.

The historical evidences are there - you just have to go out and find it. It does not take much effort nowadays with the Internet.

I did the legwork and compiled (almost) all of the evidences in these webpages.... :rollin

[Blake]

That cheesy link you provided is from the National Geophysical Data Center. (NGDC)
An organization that has an agenda and has been proven wrong and has many flaws.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/6666-1.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/33-2.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/333-1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/3333.jpg

If your going to pull out more false evidence to prove Darwin's half baked theories? at least try to find a credible organization, not the NGDC

Weeeeeeeee

What exactly is the NGDC's agenda? Please provide a link to that website.

And just because your website says they have been proven wrong really doesn't mean they have.

I don't really know about you, but I'm having fun. Weeeeeeee

[ChumpDumper]

That's not what the book says? Are you serious?Yes.

[Wild Cobra]

What exactly is the NGDC's agenda?
The National Geophysical Data Center itself, has no agenda other than providing the most accurate geoscience data they can. I would imagine individual employees do. James Hansen for example is the head of one of NASA's departments. He has an agenda of promoting antropogenic global warming and uses his position to do so. However, the truth has been coming out:

Hansen has stated that NASA administrators have tried to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change. Hansen claims that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. NASA responded that its policies are similar to those of any other federal agency in requiring employees to coordinate all statements with the public affairs office without exception. Two years after Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general found that the NASA Office of Public Affairs had mischaracterized the science of climate change intended for the public.

Hansen has also appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the White House edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening. He claimed that he was unable to speak freely without the backlash of other government officials, and that he has not experienced that level of restrictions on communicating with the public during his career.

NASA Office Is Criticized on Climate Reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/earth/03nasa.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=27f054b906a7623c&ei=5087%0A)


Please provide a link to that website.
He did provide a link to the map, but I do wonder if he knows just who they are.

NOAA: National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/)


And just because your website says they have been proven wrong really doesn't mean they have.

The websites he references has no credibility. I have shown how false the information they use is.


I don't really know about you, but I'm having fun. Weeeeeeee
I feel sorry for him, he may as well believe the world is flat.

[AussieFanKurt]

There is no god, and creationism is just fucking irrational

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Multiple rock formations, are analysed and found to be identical chemically, are found on different sides of an ocean. These formations have layering charactoristics that are also fully identical.

It is known from careful, extremely precise measurements that the two different continents, are moving apart from each other at the rate of one inch per year.

Rearranging the map of the continents shows that the two continents fit together almost precisely.

The rock formations and coastlines are roughly 1000 miles apart.

1000 miles in inches is 63,120,000

Is it logical to conclude that at some point, these two continents were actually together at a point approximately 63 million years ago?



You do know that underneath the sea is land right? What do you suppose happens to that land when you place the two continents together?

What is underneath the two continents when they drift apart?
And what exactly is used to date your rock formations?

I did not give a date for the rock formations. I noted that only that multiple, chemically identical rock formations were observed at opposite sides of the ocean.

I also asked, given the evidence presented, if it was logical to conclude that two continents drifting at 1 inch per year apart from each other, and 63 million inches apart, might have been joined at some point approximately 63 million years ago?


Either it is logical or it is not.

If God created something that just MADE all this appear to look like continents were joined at one large continent at some time in the very distant past, why did God bother to do that?

[Strange Love]

ok so you got mouse on the sediment shit the score is still

mouse 11

atheist 2

[Re-Animator]

Mouse exposing the Evolutionist's ice core theory is what blew the Darwin lovers out of the water, I actually think that shit was epic!

[RandomGuy]

http://www.good.is/post/the-good-100-artificial-photosynthesis/

What happens when we start improving on God's design and end up doing better?

[Alex Jones]

Not to worry the world is still full of Wild Cobra's that will be more than happy to remind you 24/7 that your great great great grandfather was a fish. :tu

[LnGrrrR]

My God, I've spawned a monster!

This thread I mean, not my kid. :)

[RandomGuy]

This was my point. The contention that we haven't seen macroevolution with our bare eyes is somewhat ridiculous; the great majority of evolution theories stress that it takes millions of years.

But bacteria reproduce extremely quickly, and so we have a microcosm of what might happen to other populations, and one that we can see in our own lifetime.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog

We have not only seen it, we have proved it, and have the living organisms that evolved during the experiment.

[RandomGuy]

ok so you got mouse on the sediment shit the score is still

mouse 11

atheist 2


Internet rules and laws: the top 10, from Godwin to Poe

By Tom Chivers
Published: 7:30AM BST 23 Oct 2009
6. Danth’s Law (also known as Parker’s Law)
States: “If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.” Named after a user on the role-playing gamers’ forum RPG.net (http://www.rpg.net/).

[RandomGuy]

Mouse exposing the Evolutionist's ice core theory is what blew the Darwin lovers out of the water, I actually think that shit was epic!

YOu mean the one that lies about what the ice core datings say?

Hard to "expose" something by lying.

[johnsmith.]

YOu mean the one that lies about what the ice core datings say?

Hard to "expose" something by lying.

I read Mouse's ice core post and that story is all over the www how can you call it a lie? When will you admit when one of your fucked up theories turns out to be a fraud? Or are you another Blake you walk on water?

[Winehole23]

I read Mouse's ice core post and that story is all over the www how can you call it a lie?

I'm a big believer in this, johnsmith:



7. Pommer’s Law: Proposed by Rob Pommer on rationalwiki.com (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Pommer%27s_Law) in 2007, this states: “A person's mind can be changed by reading information on the internet. The nature of this change will be from having no opinion to having a wrong opinion.”


What caused you to contradict it? :lol

[Blake]

I'm a big believer in this, johnsmith:


I'm not a big believer in this johnsmith[.].

mouse got ya. :lol

[Phenomanul]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog

We have not only seen it, we have proved it, and have the living organisms that evolved during the experiment.

How did I know someone would piggy back off of the Internet Rules thread to 'boost' their pro-evolution worldview back in this thread... you all are like clock work (I guess I am too by responding). Is pasting this link your way of suggesting you've won the argument? Ironic... no?

I'm very familiar with Lenski's experiment, and the history of that dialogue on its way to becoming a 'wiki-legend'. Suffice it to say that the Conservapedia guy was about as ill-prepared and inept as can be to enter a discussion of that nature... he didn't even read Lenski's work... wth?? He unwillingly became a redux incarnation of William Jennings Bryan and his inept role in the in/famous Scopes Trial... albeit on a less publicized scale.

Unfortunately for your camp and what they try to claim from Lenski's well documented work is that conclusive proof of evolution is still being sought in the genome of the citrate-tolerant E.Coli strain. Fortunately for my camp, Lenksi's documentation is thorough and elegant enough to point out two aspects of his project (even he mentions this much) that don't allow for everyone to simpy claim... "Hoorray! We finally proved Evolution!!!"

Evolution can be proven only if mutations were singled out as the sole driver for the change that allowed E.Coli to develop tolerance to a citrate environment. There are over 15 documented ways in which genetic information can recombine to form "new" material. Most of these processes reverse themselves as part of the overall translation or replication process but every now and then our genes can purposefully absorb other material found within other locations of the genome. These processes are slow and infrequent in most species but occur with greater frequency in other Taxidermic families... such as E-genus bacteria, or my favorite family of the animal kingdom... the Canines.

More importantly, we can't ignore the fact that Lenski and his staff are avid participants in this lifelong experiment. They have allowed themselves to become a significant factor. I'm not saying his team staged the results or falsified the data, far from it. But much like the Miller-Urey experiment before it, or the fruit fly experiments, one cannot simply toss out the scientist's input (his many tinkerings/ selective changes / population segregations/isolations etc...) from the assessment of the data when drawing conclusions from it. If you read about the methods Lenski's team used, and their approach do the personnel involved not participate in a designer-like role? The moment one interferes with what is strictly supposed to be an "observe and measure" task the experiment has taken on a new factor... human analysis and interjection. Much like quality control in a manufacturing facility, or the control of the kinetic parameters in a reaction, human input is very much a part of the equation.

Not to be forgotten is the fact that E.Coli bacteria are asexual organisms... where most large animal species are sexual. This is huge. The genetic mechanisms, the overall dynamics of gene transmission, and the implications on natural selection from this very simple distinction are significant when it comes to concluding that results from one class of organisms prescribes the behavior for another... in light of an all-encompassing theory like Evolution.

Having said that... I truly believe that Lenski genuinely wants to find that elusive evolutionary process in his 'miraculous' citrate tolerant E.Coli strain, unlike other agenda driven experiments out there... He has the strain in his possession; all he has to do now is systematically rule out the possibility that the other genetic recombination processes were not responsible for the strains' remarkable adaptation. If subsequent data soundly supports that conclusion then he will have taken a major step towards validating one of biology's most controversial theories. His teams are undertaking that very task now.

Now don't get all worked-up from my comments above... I know you're going to want to splice and dice my response and counter every single sentence with something that supports your own worldview. I don't have the time for that nor feel like entering a pissing match... and since we never see eye-to-eye on anything concerning this topic. Why bother? Pride? nah... not this time.

[Winehole23]

???

[Blake]

Ironic... no?

not sure you know what ironic means


Unfortunately for your camp and what they try to claim from Lenski's well documented work is that conclusive proof of evolution is still being sought in the genome of the citrate-tolerant E.Coli strain. Fortunately for my camp, Lenksi's documentation is thorough and elegant enough to point out two aspects of his project (even he mentions this much) that don't allow for everyone to simpy claim... "Hoorray! We finally proved Evolution!!!"

Does your camp know how to make a fire using flint rocks?


I don't have the time for that nor feel like entering a pissing match...

yet you took the time to post a mini-thesis on the Lenski project.

That's almost ironic.......though it's pretty much just lying.


and since we never see eye-to-eye on anything concerning this topic. Why bother? Pride? nah... not this time.

why did you bother?

How old do you think the earth is?

[LnGrrrR]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog

We have not only seen it, we have proved it, and have the living organisms that evolved during the experiment.

RG, yes, I mentioned the citrate ability waaaayy back in the thread, and to his credit, zosa mentioned that it was pretty good evidence. I forget what the others in the thread thought of it.

[Wild Cobra]

Not to worry the world is still full of Wild Cobra's that will be more than happy to remind you 24/7 that your great great great grandfather was a fish. :tu
Wow...

You sure are ignorant to believe that is my viewpoint.

[Phenomanul]

not sure you know what ironic means

Does your camp know how to make a fire using flint rocks?

yet you took the time to post a mini-thesis on the Lenski project.

Hey Mr. "I have an axe to grind!" Blake...

As a fellow molecular geneticist, I'm familiar with Lenski's projects... I've been following them for years. Consequently, writing on this subject comes easy to me... writing at a level that doesn't convey any ill-perceived condescension, however, takes time.... hence the length... We can't just all take your approach and pretend to know that we're familiar with the field... in that regard, your belligerent suggestion that I'm somehow lying... is a convenient ploy to detract from what I had to say... it's also an admission that you lack the comprehension to even understand that what I wrote is relevant.



That's almost ironic.......though it's pretty much just lying.
whatever helps you sleep at night. Don't let the facts get in the way of spoiling your little wet dream that the theory of Evolution had been conclusively proven. Lying? :rollin :lmao



why did you bother?

I don't know... why do you care?



How old do you think the earth is?
Given the strength of the magnetic field and it's rate of decay... hmm...

Again, why do you care?

We get it... you hate the thought of a personal Creator... but why should your beliefs infringe my own?

Just let me be...

Let it go...

Again, this is too time consuming...

[spursncowboys]

There is no god, and creationism is just fucking irrational
WHere is the rational in evolution?

[Alex Jones]

^Proof Blake is a lier!

[z0sa]

Hey Mr. "I have an axe to grind!" Blake..

The only reason I don't have him on ignore is his extremely humorous self-pwnage he's completely unaware of.

"I am right, you are wrong!"

"You're a liar!"

"You're stupid!"

He's like a little fucking kid with ADD, unable to control himself yet unable to understand why everyone considers him retarded.

[Alex Jones]

here is some jerk off material for the Evolutionist of this topic.


CFaL3d-zMpY

[mouse]

"I am right, you are wrong!"

"You're a liar!"

"You're stupid!"


That seems to be the only thing the fossil finders in this topic can do, anything to keep from showing us proof we came from a fish.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/4444444.jpg

[Shastafarian]

Not to be forgotten is the fact that E.Coli bacteria are asexual organisms... where most large animal species are sexual. This is huge. The genetic mechanisms, the overall dynamics of gene transmission, and the implications on natural selection from this very simple distinction are significant when it comes to concluding that results from one class of organisms prescribes the behavior for another... in light of an all-encompassing theory like Evolution.The mechanism shouldn't matter in this general sense. Unless you want to claim plasmid transfer is separate from what god has intended.

[Shastafarian]

That seems to be the only thing the fossil finders in this topic can do, anything to keep from showing us proof we came from a fish.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/4444444.jpg

:lol I enjoyed going through that website. Haven't laughed like that in a while.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm still waiting for the theory that will supposedly replace evolution. Are we going with "nameless creator" did it? And if so, where's the evidence for this creator?

[Phenomanul]

The mechanism shouldn't matter in this general sense. Unless you want to claim plasmid transfer is separate from what god has intended.

???

It's highly significant in that 'changed' genes have to overcome more obstacles for them to be passed on to subsequent generations. First off, all mutations get passed along during the replication process of asexual organisms... the full genome is replicated, mutations and all.

This is not the case for meiosis in the production of gametes; meiosis has many more proofreading steps than mitosis, and more often than not mutated genes are spliced off from the resulting haploid cells - not included. The type of mutagenesis that is most frequently incurred during meiosis stem from polymerase slippage errors that are generated while the DNA strand is replicated. But even these are rare occuring once every 10^18 base pairs. Anyhow the increase in fidelity when comparing meiosis vs. mitosis dramatically decreases the chance that mutations are transmitted to the next generation.

Moreover the production of viable zygotes from haploid cells that carry incompatible genetic code, or deleterious mutations, has been documented ad nauseum as being difficult (but not impossible) to achieve. Finally, if all those hurdles have been surpassed, sexual reproduction has one final filtration gate that once again reduces the probability that a mutated gamete produces viable offspring. That is, the majority of gametes fail to fertilize altogether. Consider the case of most mammals where a reproductive act is quantified by the release of a billion plus sperm and a only a handful (or solely one) ovum. It's a numbers game that radically changes the impact of mutagenesis in asexual populations vs. that in sexually reproduced populations.

It matters.

[Phenomanul]

I'm still waiting for the theory that will supposedly replace evolution. Are we going with "nameless creator" did it? And if so, where's the evidence for this creator?

There is much evidence for the design and order found in creation that simply cannot be purported to chance processes alone... Purpose abounds in Creation...

But unfortunately scientific evidence of a Supreme Being lies beyond the grasp of the scientific toolset wishing to measure/quantify his existence.

I know that this observation simply isn't good enough for some people... but this is the reason why the debate rages on.

BTW congratulations on the birth of your son.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Evolution. Believers "big bang theory".

:wakeup

[LnGrrrR]

There is much evidence for the design and order found in creation that simply cannot be purported to chance processes alone... Purpose abounds in Creation...

But unfortunately scientific evidence of a Supreme Being lies beyond the grasp of the scientific toolset wishing to measure/quantify his existence.

I know that this observation simply isn't good enough for some people... but this is the reason why the debate rages on.

BTW congratulations on the birth of your son.

Thanks Phenom. I'm not a big fan of the God in the Gaps theory. Our lack of understanding to determine how an organism developed does not necessarily mean one was designed.

As well, a creator certainly could have designed the basic building block (say, DNA, or life in general) and yet evolution could have occurred.

[Alex Jones]

Do you really have to ask everyday you wake up?

[mouse]

I'm still waiting Are we going with "nameless creator" did it?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/66666666-1.jpg







where's the evidence for this creator?



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/777777777777777876.jpg



I have to hand it you you brah you got this personality disorder thing down packed!

Your Mr. hard ass evolutionist in the politics forum.

And Mr. Mom in the Club! :lmao

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137730

[mouse]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/ears.jpg

Finally something we can agree on, 25 million years later and it's still like looking in the mirror.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/baby-chimpanzee-picture.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/66666666-1.jpg










http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/777777777777777876.jpg



I have to hand it you you brah you got this personality disorder thing down packed!

Your Mr. hard ass evolutionist in the politics forum.

And Mr. Mom in the Club! :lmao

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137730

So... believing that evolution is real means you're a "hard-ass"? You're an idiot Mouse.

Edit: And the phrase is down pat, not down packed. Idiot.

[mouse]

So... believing that evolution is real means you're a "hard-ass"? You're an idiot Mouse.

Edit: And the phrase is down pat, not down packed. Idiot.

I do apologize if I am not familiar with words i don't use everyday. maybe I am an idiot, maybe I am all what you say, But at least i don't deny creation in one forum and exploit it in another. To bad you have to go through life never saying you love your child, that would mean you have a soul and it goes against your tadpole to chimp theories. or at least when your acting like an Atheist. I wonder if you are part of other forums like the Nazi revolution and Jews for Jesus.

you have been exposed as a fraud. And I hope your little fish creature grows up with more intelligence then it's misguided sperm donor of a father.

Evolutionist, Can’t Overcome the Issue of Morality

http://www.eons.com/blogs/entry/1478900-Evolutionist-Can-t-Overcome-the-Issue-of-Morality#at

[Wild Cobra]

I'm still waiting for the theory that will supposedly replace evolution. Are we going with "nameless creator" did it? And if so, where's the evidence for this creator?
I wonder...

Did God evolve, or was he created?

[LnGrrrR]

I do apologize if I am not familiar with words i don't use everyday. maybe I am an idiot, maybe I am all what you say, But at least i don't deny creation in one forum and exploit it in another. To bad you have to go through life never saying you love your child, that would mean you have a soul and it goes against your tadpole to chimp theories. or at least when your acting like an Atheist. I wonder if you are part of other forums like the Nazi revolution and Jews for Jesus.

you have been exposed as a fraud. And I hope your little fish creature grows up with more intelligence then it's misguided sperm donor of a father.

Evolutionist, Can’t Overcome the Issue of Morality

http://www.eons.com/blogs/entry/1478900-Evolutionist-Can-t-Overcome-the-Issue-of-Morality#at

Atheists can love. You're a moron.

[Alex Jones]

Atheists can love. You're a moron.

You show your man love every day. I wonder If Darwin loves back?

http://www.ironicsans.com/images/valentine-darwin.gif

Top 10 reasons Atheists fail at life
J10) They take their lack of belief in a god and make it into a religion.
9) They ironically do what they scorn Christians for doing: shoving their beliefs down the throats of the general public.
8) They aren't famous for being advocates of civil liberty, ethics, and human rights.
7) Atheists aren't happy unless they can make the religious unhappy.
6) Atheists like to ignore scientific evidence pointing to a god in favor of believing we evolved from monkeys. Granted, some atheists act like monkeys.
5) The vast majority of biologists, chemists, and physicists are Christian.
4) Evidence in molecular biochemistry points out a hole in the evolution theory: how did this single cell organism reproduce?
3) There are more Christian charities than atheist charities, by far.
2) Christians actively serve their communities through community services such as food drives, blood drives, town clean ups, among others. Atheists actively serve themselves.
1) With them, everything, no matter how irrelevant, revolves around there not being a god. What's 2+2? God doesn't exist. Read any good books lately? God doesn't exist. The Civil War fascinates me. Stop cramming your beliefs down my throat! God doesn't exist! For people who don't believe in a god, they sure spend a lot of time talking out him.

[LnGrrrR]

Top 10 reasons Atheists fail at life
10) They take their lack of belief in a god and make it into a religion.

Wonderful! Perhaps you'd share what religious practices bind atheists.


9) They ironically do what they scorn Christians for doing: shoving their beliefs down the throats of the general public.

Freedom of speech! Woohoo!


8) They aren't famous for being advocates of civil liberty, ethics, and human rights.

Due to the numbers, it would necessarily make sense that not many atheists are famous for certain things. Given that professing lack of belief in a creator wasn't very good for your career, the above shouldn't be surprising.

Of course, then there are the polls showing that atheists are most opposed to things like torture, whereas Christians are most accepting. But hey, no need to pay attention to things like that.


7) Atheists aren't happy unless they can make the religious unhappy.

You're an idiot.


6) Atheists like to ignore scientific evidence pointing to a god in favor of believing we evolved from monkeys. Granted, some atheists act like monkeys.

Why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


5) The vast majority of biologists, chemists, and physicists are Christian.

Proof?


4) Evidence in molecular biochemistry points out a hole in the evolution theory: how did this single cell organism reproduce?

What does that have to do with being an atheist?


3) There are more Christian charities than atheist charities, by far.


Matthew 6: 5-6

5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.


2) Christians actively serve their communities through community services such as food drives, blood drives, town clean ups, among others. Atheists actively serve themselves.


Matthew 6: 5-6

5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.


1) With them, everything, no matter how irrelevant, revolves around there not being a god. What's 2+2? God doesn't exist. Read any good books lately? God doesn't exist. The Civil War fascinates me. Stop cramming your beliefs down my throat! God doesn't exist! For people who don't believe in a god, they sure spend a lot of time talking out him.

We talk about religion because there are idiot believers like you out there who think atheists are evil/stupid/greedy etc etc.

[Shastafarian]

???

It's highly significant in that 'changed' genes have to overcome more obstacles for them to be passed on to subsequent generations. First off, all mutations get passed along during the replication process of asexual organisms... the full genome is replicated, mutations and all.

This is not the case for meiosis in the production of gametes; meiosis has many more proofreading steps than mitosis, and more often than not mutated genes are spliced off from the resulting haploid cells - not included. The type of mutagenesis that is most frequently incurred during meiosis stem from polymerase slippage errors that are generated while the DNA strand is replicated. But even these are rare occuring once every 10^18 base pairs. Anyhow the increase in fidelity when comparing meiosis vs. mitosis dramatically decreases the chance that mutations are transmitted to the next generation.

Moreover the production of viable zygotes from haploid cells that carry incompatible genetic code, or deleterious mutations, has been documented ad nauseum as being difficult (but not impossible) to achieve. Finally, if all those hurdles have been surpassed, sexual reproduction has one final filtration gate that once again reduces the probability that a mutated gamete produces viable offspring. That is, the majority of gametes fail to fertilize altogether. Consider the case of most mammals where a reproductive act is quantified by the release of a billion plus sperm and a only a handful (or solely one) ovum. It's a numbers game that radically changes the impact of mutagenesis in asexual populations vs. that in sexually reproduced populations.

It matters.
Are you arguing that bacterial evolution is ok to believe in because there are less proof-reading mechanisms?

[mouse]

LnGrrrR is on Fire! :wakeup

[mouse]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-264855-1.png

[sabar]

i'll wager no one changes any ones mind in this thread. and i'll double the bet we see another one just like it in a few weeks.

This thread should of ended with the 11th post, the one above.

Instead, I will extend it with this.

Evolution and geological timescales are perfectly compatible with religion. In Hinduism a day of the brahma is some 4.3 billion years. Buddhism does not even address the issue as such things are pointless in the quest of enlightenment and cannot be answered. Jainism and Sikhism also have compatible views.

As a matter of fact, it seems the bible is in the minority when it comes to these things. A book written by man mind you. I also find it silly that people literally interpret the bible, yet ignore all the rape/incest/stoning/slavery/morally deplorable acts that occur in the bible with no punishment from God. There is a reason the only stories read to children is creation and a tiny part of exodus, the rest is morally offensive. The Isrealites are regularly threatened with total annihilation and are devastated several times by their god.

It is actually amazing that anyone gives the christian literalists a place to "debate" in when the scripture as interpreted is as inane as Scientology's. The ethnocentrism is also amazing. There are, in fact, other religions than Biblical Christianity or Judaism.

Also, I'm not atheist or agnostic and accept geology and cosmology as fact. Now isn't that crazy.

[Phenomanul]

Are you arguing that bacterial evolution is ok to believe in because there are less proof-reading mechanisms?

Do you oversimplify everything to this level?

I expounded on the differences between the two replicative processes and why asexual organisms adapt more frequently than those that reproduce sexually.

Evolution is definitely plausible for both processes (but yet to be conclusively be proven for either). Proving the theory for sexual organisms, however, will require the use of sexual organisms, not an overarching extrapolation from an incompatible data set.

[Shastafarian]

Do you oversimplify everything to this level?Is that a no?


I expounded on the differences between the two replicative processes and why asexual organisms adapt more frequently than those that reproduce sexually.You also left out time it takes to replicate.


Evolution is definitely plausible for both processes (but yet to be conclusively be proven for either).What would call antibiotic resistance then? I'm assuming you have a different term for it.

Proving the theory for sexual organisms, however, will require the use of sexual organisms, not an overarching extrapolation from an incompatible data set.
We'll never prove the theory. It has something to do with what I mentioned above. (hint: time)

[Phenomanul]

Is that a no?


You also left out time it takes to replicate.


I didn't leave it out... that part is painfully obvious, but not a showstopper.



What would call antibiotic resistance then? I'm assuming you have a different term for it.
A process called adaptation. Otherwise every single base-pair mutation would qualify the organism as a different species which is simply not the case.



We'll never prove the theory. It has something to do with what I mentioned above. (hint: time) There are ways around that in a lab. Needless to say, two separate data sets are required to prove the theory in both classes of organisms and conclusions drawn from each set should remain separate even when most would prefer to ignore the reasons why that would be required.

[Shastafarian]

A process called adaptation. Otherwise every single base-pair mutation would qualify the organism as a different species which is simply not the case.That's not true at all. There are different classes of mutations. The ones that actually change something in the morphology are rare. Ones that increase fitness propagate and if there is an external stimuli (an antibiotic for example) the mutations that increase fitness will be passed on. It's the same process but just has a different mechanism. That's why I said the mechanism doesn't really matter.


There are ways around that in a lab. Needless to say, two separate data sets are required to prove the theory in both classes of organisms and conclusions drawn from each set should remain separate even when most would prefer to ignore the reasons why that would be required.
I'm not saying we can prove evolution in us based on documented evolution in bacteria. But the processes in both are similar.

[Phenomanul]

That's not true at all. There are different classes of mutations. The ones that actually change something in the morphology are rare. Ones that increase fitness propagate and if there is an external stimuli (an antibiotic for example) the mutations that increase fitness will be passed on. It's the same process but just has a different mechanism. That's why I said the mechanism doesn't really matter.

Umm... that's what I just said.

The deal with evolution is that you have to prove that genotypic changes are solely the result of random mutation. That's because, most of the other gene altering processes splice information already present somewhere in the genome... one would be incorrect in classifying those changes in phenotype, or even several clusters of changes, as speciation - which is exactly what most people rush to do.



I'm not saying we can prove evolution in us based on documented evolution in bacteria. But the processes in both are similar.

Similar but not identical.

[RandomGuy]

How did I know someone would piggy back off of the Internet Rules thread to 'boost' their pro-evolution worldview back in this thread... you all are like clock work (I guess I am too by responding). Is pasting this link your way of suggesting you've won the argument? Ironic... no?

I'm very familiar with Lenski's experiment, and the history of that dialogue on its way to becoming a 'wiki-legend'. Suffice it to say that the Conservapedia guy was about as ill-prepared and inept as can be to enter a discussion of that nature... he didn't even read Lenski's work... wth?? He unwillingly became a redux incarnation of William Jennings Bryan and his inept role in the in/famous Scopes Trial... albeit on a less publicized scale.

Unfortunately for your camp and what they try to claim from Lenski's well documented work is that conclusive proof of evolution is still being sought in the genome of the citrate-tolerant E.Coli strain. Fortunately for my camp, Lenksi's documentation is thorough and elegant enough to point out two aspects of his project (even he mentions this much) that don't allow for everyone to simpy claim... "Hoorray! We finally proved Evolution!!!"

Evolution can be proven only if mutations were singled out as the sole driver for the change that allowed E.Coli to develop tolerance to a citrate environment. There are over 15 documented ways in which genetic information can recombine to form "new" material. Most of these processes reverse themselves as part of the overall translation or replication process but every now and then our genes can purposefully absorb other material found within other locations of the genome. These processes are slow and infrequent in most species but occur with greater frequency in other Taxidermic families... such as E-genus bacteria, or my favorite family of the animal kingdom... the Canines.

More importantly, we can't ignore the fact that Lenski and his staff are avid participants in this lifelong experiment. They have allowed themselves to become a significant factor. I'm not saying his team staged the results or falsified the data, far from it. But much like the Miller-Urey experiment before it, or the fruit fly experiments, one cannot simply toss out the scientist's input (his many tinkerings/ selective changes / population segregations/isolations etc...) from the assessment of the data when drawing conclusions from it. If you read about the methods Lenski's team used, and their approach do the personnel involved not participate in a designer-like role? The moment one interferes with what is strictly supposed to be an "observe and measure" task the experiment has taken on a new factor... human analysis and interjection. Much like quality control in a manufacturing facility, or the control of the kinetic parameters in a reaction, human input is very much a part of the equation.

Not to be forgotten is the fact that E.Coli bacteria are asexual organisms... where most large animal species are sexual. This is huge. The genetic mechanisms, the overall dynamics of gene transmission, and the implications on natural selection from this very simple distinction are significant when it comes to concluding that results from one class of organisms prescribes the behavior for another... in light of an all-encompassing theory like Evolution.

Having said that... I truly believe that Lenski genuinely wants to find that elusive evolutionary process in his 'miraculous' citrate tolerant E.Coli strain, unlike other agenda driven experiments out there... He has the strain in his possession; all he has to do now is systematically rule out the possibility that the other genetic recombination processes were not responsible for the strains' remarkable adaptation. If subsequent data soundly supports that conclusion then he will have taken a major step towards validating one of biology's most controversial theories. His teams are undertaking that very task now.

Now don't get all worked-up from my comments above... I know you're going to want to splice and dice my response and counter every single sentence with something that supports your own worldview. I don't have the time for that nor feel like entering a pissing match... and since we never see eye-to-eye on anything concerning this topic. Why bother? Pride? nah... not this time.

I have no doubt that once Lenski validates his research, the goalposts will be moved again by the creation "scientists", who will then either demand proof impossible to provide, or simply dismiss the results as some hoax.

People like mouse would never accept it, no matter how solid the science is anyway. S'all good.

[RandomGuy]

Another problematic bit for creationists is the human chromosome and its 42 pairs.

Most other primates have 43 pairs.

This is something of a problem for evolutionary theory as mutations that throw out entire chromosomes are invariably fatal.

Creationist theory can easily say "AHA, that is because it was just made that way!"

Oddly enough, when we actually get into the human genome, we discover why evolutionary theory is superior to the creationist theory, because we can use the evolutionary theory to actually predict things and test them.

Since leaving out an entire chromosome is fatal, and we are obviously here, the information MUST have been retained somewhere, if we and modern primates did indeed have a recent common ancestor.

The most obvious way to retain information from a chromosome, but reduce the number of them is to fuse two of them somehow.

Care to guess what we found when we went in and looked at the gene sequence? You got it. Two chromosomes were quite clearly fused.

Why would God create our genome this way to make it LOOK like two chromosomes just fused?

Why bother to make it look like we had common ancestors with primates?

[RandomGuy]

Umm... that's what I just said.

The deal with evolution is that you have to prove that genotypic changes are solely the result of random mutation. That's because, most of the other gene altering processes splice information already present somewhere in the genome... one would be incorrect in classifying those changes in phenotype, or even several clusters of changes, as speciation - which is exactly what most people rush to do.

Similar but not identical.

http://immuneweb.xxmu.edu.cn/Genetic%20Analysis/ch16.pdf

The mechanisms of mutation are quite well understood and documented.

For mutations to be as rare as posited by the creationists, we would not see cancers.

Since we do have cancers, we have pretty straightforward evidence that mutation and genetic damage is not altogether uncommon.

To think that the same types of affects that damage cell genetic information ONLY affect non-reproductive tissue kind seems illogical to me.

[Phenomanul]

http://immuneweb.xxmu.edu.cn/Genetic%20Analysis/ch16.pdf

The mechanisms of mutation are quite well understood and documented.

For mutations to be as rare as posited by the creationists, we would not see cancers.

Since we do have cancers, we have pretty straightforward evidence that mutation and genetic damage is not altogether uncommon.

To think that the same types of affects that damage cell genetic information ONLY affect non-reproductive tissue kind seems illogical to me.

But you've just answered your own conundrum; one I've stated on at least two occasions in this thread. Mutations are mostly deleterious in nature and harmful to the survival of the affected organism. In fact, genetic changes brought about by the random tinkering of our genomes from radiation, translation errors, or other mutagenic inducers almost always bring about destruction, not the creation of constructive information. Mutation is a degenerative process. And yet, we are led to believe that an enormous series of beneficial, constructive mutations (billions upon billions in fact) occurred in the genetic past of every organism. The worst part is that the genomes of earth's smallest, simplest organisms aren't necessarily smaller than that of large complex ones (i.e. it's not a cumalative root process).

As for your other comment. The widespread existence of cancer constantly negates the notion that mutation somehow drives the biological pathway for improvement. That's why it is fundamentally important that science properly categorize adaptions. Genetic changes stemming from the reorganization of existing genetic material cannot and should never be construed as evolution.

[Duff McCartney]

"Miracles by their definition are meaningless...only what can happen does happen."

[Wild Cobra]

Why bother to make it look like we had common ancestors with primates?
I don't know. Ever compare the genetics of Arabica coffee and Columbian? they look alike, but are noit genetically similar.

Just another puzzle in nature to solve.

Nobody has answered my question yet, or I missed the response.

Did God evolve or was she created?

[Duff McCartney]

Did God evolve or was she created?

Maybe...you'd have to consult the Vedas.

[RandomGuy]

Mutations are mostly deleterious in nature and harmful to the survival of the affected organism.

And yet, we are led to believe that an enormous series of beneficial, constructive mutations (billions upon billions in fact) occurred in the genetic past of every organism. The worst part is that the genomes of earth's smallest, simplest organisms aren't necessarily smaller than that of large complex ones (i.e. it's not a cumalative root process).



Poker hands are mostly deleterious in nature and cause people to lose poker hands when they draw them.

And yet, we are led to believe that a series of beneficial cards can be drawn to get a royal flush, and that in all the poker hands ever played there have been many "royal flush" hands drawn.

[RandomGuy]

But you've just answered your own conundrum; one I've stated on at least two occasions in this thread. Mutations are mostly deleterious in nature and harmful to the survival of the affected organism. In fact, genetic changes brought about by the random tinkering of our genomes from radiation, translation errors, or other mutagenic inducers almost always bring about destruction, not the creation of constructive information. Mutation is a degenerative process. And yet, we are led to believe that an enormous series of beneficial, constructive mutations (billions upon billions in fact) occurred in the genetic past of every organism. The worst part is that the genomes of earth's smallest, simplest organisms aren't necessarily smaller than that of large complex ones (i.e. it's not a cumalative root process).

As for your other comment. The widespread existence of cancer constantly negates the notion that mutation somehow drives the biological pathway for improvement. That's why it is fundamentally important that science properly categorize adaptions. Genetic changes stemming from the reorganization of existing genetic material cannot and should never be construed as evolution.

That is actually a distortion about what the modern understanding of mutation is.

Mutation is not strictly a degenerative process.

Either you are deliberately misrepresenting this, as I understand it, or you simply don't seem to understand the processes of mutation. I can't figure out which it is.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe...you'd have to consult the Vedas.

I ask that question to make people think. If you believe one way or the other, it still comes down to evolution. Or am I wrong?

[Phenomanul]

Poker hands are mostly deleterious in nature and cause people to lose poker hands when they draw them.

And yet, we are led to believe that a series of beneficial cards can be drawn to get a royal flush, and that in all the poker hands ever played there have been many "royal flush" hands drawn.

Bad analogy....

There are billions of cards in a genomic deck... and the genetic equivalent of a royal flush or royal strait is not just any random series of "5" entries... in the case of genes try a value greater than hundreds, or thousands of codons...

We've played this numbers game before... IIRC you needed an infinite number of universes to pull your odds off...

[Phenomanul]

That is actually a distortion about what the modern understanding of mutation is.

Mutation is not strictly a degenerative process.

Either you are deliberately misrepresenting this, as I understand it, or you simply don't seem to understand the processes of mutation. I can't figure out which it is.

I think that the distortion is being grossly purported by those on your side of the fence.

There are multiple genetic recombination methods that work with pre-existing genetic "information". Those processes lead to morphological changes too, and are far more effective. Not only are they more efficient; but we can readily see them in nature, today, without the need for hundreds of thousands of years - see canine history (for example).

Evolution portends to create new, beneficial, genetic information one base pair at a time. In other words, evolution can only create new genetic material from point mutations and from translation errors. The key here is that the information isn't new if it's already in the genome.

So if most point mutations are deleterious, and a coupling of multiple mutations are required to change a gene. How then does a process progress one point mutation at a time to the tune of several gene changes? The mathematical premise for evolution is flawed in this sense... one needs trillions upon trillions of years and billions upon billions of generational gene transmissions to pull off a successful gene change via this process, let alone change the quantity of base pairs that differentiate one genus from another (in the tens of millions as well :wow)... Frankly, I don't know how a 4.6 billion year-old model of earth provides enough time for this process to create the large volumes of genetic wealth we see today...

Whatever floats peoples boats I guess...

[Blake]

Nobody has answered my question yet, or I missed the response.

Did God evolve or was she created?

I'm betting you never went to or paid attention in Sunday School

[Wild Cobra]

I'm betting you never went to or paid attention in Sunday School

Ha ha...

Do those answeres sit right with you?

[ElNono]

Frankly, I don't know how a 4.6 billion year-old model of earth provides enough time for this process to create the large volumes of genetic wealth we see today...

You could have started here and saved us a bunch of pages rehashing the same old stuff...

[Wild Cobra]

Frankly, I don't know how a 4.6 billion year-old model of earth provides enough time for this process to create the large volumes of genetic wealth we see today...You could have started here and saved us a bunch of pages rehashing the same old stuff...
I agree with both of you.

Although I agree evolution does occur, I think what we have on earth had a great deal of help through genetic engineering.

How long ago do you think God evolved?

[ElNono]

How long ago do you think God evolved?

I would have to believe in god to answer that question, and I do not. So I'll pass.

[Phenomanul]

You could have started here and saved us a bunch of pages rehashing the same old stuff...

If you actually bothered to read the posts instead of dismissively "rolling" your eyes at them then you would know why I object to the pre-mature, and often incomplete, conclusions drawn from several of the studies coming out of the scientific community today...

My objections are legitimate... based on mathematical probability models that don't support the rise of DNA through naturalistic means, or the betterment of genetic code through non-deleterious mutagenic propagation, or for that matter the notion that the cosmological constants which allow the existence of life were somehow set at random (especially when several of them stand on razor's-edge sensitivities). And I can readily admit that there are times when no one has the answers... Furthermore, if you had paid attention, I'm not opposed to the existence of evolutionary processes; I'm opposed to the notion that they could progress without elements of design and purpose.

And contrary to prevalent accusations coming from those in your camp... Christians don't oppose science...

Science that researches our genome in the search for cures of genetic disease.

Science that provides more efficient energy solutions.

Science that seeks to understand cosmic processes.

Science that seeks to understand the sub-atomic world.

Science that seeks to create better materials for novel practical uses.

Science that helps us understand the biological functionality of the systems in our body/organisms, and the biochemical processes that govern them.

Science that helps us understand earth's many ecosystems.

Science that helps us understand the processes that govern earth's climate to prevent the loss of human life.

etc....

I do however, oppose Science that oversteps the bounds of the scientific method by purporting to state exactly what happened thousands, millions and billions of years ago.

On that note... I notice that you all constantly deride my viewpoint simply because you all feel that my belief in GOD 'blinds' my position from ever 'seeing your data objectively'. I can turn that right around and point out that your disbelief in GOD sets the basis for most of your assumptions, because if data for a study ever suggested that elements of design were present you all simply ignore it or throw it out altogether - seeking instead an answer devoid of a Creator - even it that leads you all down the wrong path.

And then to top it off, you all act as if Science is incapable of being driven by agendas in the first place... the indignation of such a notion is apalling to the core.

But then what are we to make of all the bad science that comes from groups trying to prove the existence of anthropomorphic climate change??? Yeah we need to develop more efficient energy solutions... yeah we need to be good environmental stewards... yeah we need to conserve our natural resources... yeah we need to protect earth's biological diversity... but our governments shouldn't try to push bad science down our throats in the name of the latest gerimandering tactic... If one doesn't support their position, they kill your funding. Science simply isn't as pure as you all make it out to be...

And ElNono, don't even bother slicing and dicing my post... "it's just a rehashing the same old stuff"... besides, you and I never get anywhere... you're still a bonafide athiest, and I'm still a full-fledged believer in a personal Creator.

[ElNono]

And ElNono, don't even bother slicing and dicing my post... "it's just a rehashing the same old stuff"... besides, you and I never get anywhere... you're still a bonafide athiest, and I'm still a full-fledged believer in a personal Creator.

True. However, you got your turn to post you crap, now I get my turn to post mine.

I never said that Science is not agenda driven. I don't think it's agenda driven in ALL circumstances, but of course there's agenda driven science.

At the very end, however, wether it's agenda driven or not, it's truly irrelevant. What's pure is not the science, but the method. Sooner or later, your claims are going to have to be tested and they're either going to be verified or not. And based on that, your hypothesis is going to be confirmed, modified or flat out rejected.
And because of that, we're going to learn something and keep on increasing our collective knowledge.

What's wrong is to dictate policy on unverified scientific theories. I don't think you have to believe in god to reach that conclusion.

[RandomGuy]

How did I know someone would piggy back off of the Internet Rules thread to 'boost' their pro-evolution worldview back in this thread... you all are like clock work (I guess I am too by responding). Is pasting this link your way of suggesting you've won the argument? Ironic... no?

The thrust of my post was that it was lame and childish to claim "victory" in something like this, not to necessarily boost my case per se.

I think that providing a concrete example of observed evolution is perfectly within bounds though.

[Höfner]

WGAF? We're born to die. Whatever's on the other side can wait til then.

[RandomGuy]

I think that the distortion is being grossly purported by those on your side of the fence.

There are multiple genetic recombination methods that work with pre-existing genetic "information". Those processes lead to morphological changes too, and are far more effective. Not only are they more efficient; but we can readily see them in nature, today, without the need for hundreds of thousands of years - see canine history (for example).

Evolution portends to create new, beneficial, genetic information one base pair at a time. In other words, evolution can only create new genetic material from point mutations and from translation errors. The key here is that the information isn't new if it's already in the genome.

So if most point mutations are deleterious, and a coupling of multiple mutations are required to change a gene. How then does a process progress one point mutation at a time to the tune of several gene changes? The mathematical premise for evolution is flawed in this sense... one needs trillions upon trillions of years and billions upon billions of generational gene transmissions to pull off a successful gene change via this process, let alone change the quantity of base pairs that differentiate one genus from another (in the tens of millions as well :wow)... Frankly, I don't know how a 4.6 billion year-old model of earth provides enough time for this process to create the large volumes of genetic wealth we see today...

Whatever floats peoples boats I guess...

New information can be added by the duplication of gene sequences, or my retroviral insertion into the genome. We have concrete examples of each, and this becomes more readily apparent as we sequence more genomes.

This tends to debunk the claim that no new material can be added by the process of mutation.

BUT

Modern understanding of mutations is that, by and large, most mutations are very small and only end up effecting the expression of one gene. It has been shown that a majority of such mutations in mice tend to have little effect, but if the right gene is switched on/off at a critical time in the development of the embryo, or a certain protein is made in slightly larger proportions, this can have rather dramatic affects.

Your underlying assumption, and the one you continually refuse to question is that such changes are so remote as to be virtually impossible.

The data we have regarding rates of mutation shows mutations to be fairly common events, making this a faulty assumption.

If mutation rates are higher than you obviously assume, then is it fully within the realm of possibility that 4.6Bn years is quite enough time for such a process to create the “large volumes of genetic wealth”?

[RandomGuy]

I do however, oppose Science that oversteps the bounds of the scientific method by purporting to state exactly what happened thousands, millions and billions of years ago.

So red shift in astrophysics is out?

We aren't really taking radio telescopic pictures of the very distant past?

So evidence that shows that, as we progress back in time in the geologic record organisms tends to get simpler is out?

How old do you think the universe is?

[mouse]

27 pages and a month later and still no proof of Evolution.

[Wild Cobra]

27 pages and a month later and still no proof of Evolution.

No proof of creation either.

Tell me though, was God created, or did he evolve?

[Wild Cobra]

Just for the record, I do not believe the life on Earth evolved to where we are today. I believe in both evolution and creation, and believe a higher power manipulayed the DNA of species here.

[Phenomanul]

New information can be added by the duplication of gene sequences, or my retroviral insertion into the genome. We have concrete examples of each, and this becomes more readily apparent as we sequence more genomes.

I believe I stated this much on three occasions in this thread alone.



This tends to debunk the claim that no new material can be added by the process of mutation.


But... That's not the true definition of a mutation... in your examples 'new' genetic material and more importantly the code itself is pre-existing... recombinations of these code sequences into and out of genes are not mutations. IMO scientists who delude others into believing these pathways are the backbone of evolution are being dishonest to the cause. Evolution purports to have created all genetic information from scratch, down to the last codon of every gene (the holy grail of genetic proof for evolution)... recombinations from a pre-existing templates, hence, don't qualify (we have hoards of experiments that prove the latter).



BUT

Modern understanding of mutations is that, by and large, most mutations are very small and only end up effecting the expression of one gene. It has been shown that a majority of such mutations in mice tend to have little effect, but if the right gene is switched on/off at a critical time in the development of the embryo, or a certain protein is made in slightly larger proportions, this can have rather dramatic affects.

So now you've added criticality into the equation of when a mutation must occur. That makes the math even more unlikely.



Your underlying assumption, and the one you continually refuse to question is that such changes are so remote as to be virtually impossible.

In the case of beneficial point mutations or DNA translation errors that is most definitely the case...



The data we have regarding rates of mutation shows mutations to be fairly common events, making this a faulty assumption.

Only if you qualify "every change to genetic" code as a mutation... which is certainly not the case. That's a disingenuous basis and I've explained why...



If mutation rates are higher than you obviously assume, then is it fully within the realm of possibility that 4.6Bn years is quite enough time for such a process to create the “large volumes of genetic wealth”?

No

That's why the subject of origins deals such a critical blow to the evolutionary premise. All of that genetic code must be created from scratch for evolution to work at point zero. If however an original genetic template was created; 4.6Bn years would provide enough time for the code to recombine repeatedly and create the diversity we see today...

[Blake]

That is actually a distortion about what the modern understanding of mutation is.

Mutation is not strictly a degenerative process.

Either you are deliberately misrepresenting this, as I understand it, or you simply don't seem to understand the processes of mutation. I can't figure out which it is.

Since it's Phenomanul, I'm thinking it's both.

[Blake]

Ha ha...

Do those answeres sit right with you?

what 'answeres'?

in your general Sunday School classroom, they teach that God has always been and will always be. He was neither created nor evolved.

That's why I can correctly assume you never went to SS or you didn't pay attention if you did go.

[AussieFanKurt]

lolroflcopta @ creationism