Fossil Find May Be 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution

[tlongII]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/04/fossil-missing-link-human-evolution/?test=latestnews

Scientists hope discovery of child skeleton will help them to work out what our ancestors looked like and to determine key dates in their evolution from ape-man to man-ape.

A fossil skeleton of a child discovered in a cave system known as the Cradle of Humankind may represent a previously unknown stage in the evolution of man, The (London) Sunday Times reported.

The skeleton, which is almost complete despite being two million years old, is believed to belong to one of the hominid groups that includes humans.

Hominid fossil finds are usually little more than small bone fragments. Scientists hope such a complete find will help them to work out what our ancestors looked like and to determine key dates in their evolution from ape-man to man-ape. Experts who have seen the skeleton says it resembles Homo habilis, the first species of advanced human.

The skeleton was found by Professor Lee Berger, reader in human evolution and the public understanding of science at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, as he explored cave systems in Sterkfontein, a Unesco world heritage site.

The caves are the site of one of the world’s longest-running archeological excavations and are regarded as paleontological treasure troves. Jacob Zuma, the South African president, visited the university to view the find, which is to be announced this week.

The new fossil skeleton was found with a number of other partially complete fossils, encased within breccia sedimentary rock inside a limestone cave known as Malapa cave.

[mouse]

This is great news!

Finally my #1 hero Mr. Darwin will be vindicated of any wrong scientific theories he may have supported in the past. I hope now we all can put all this Bible shit behind us and move on!

Thank you TlongII for making my day,.........and happy Easter!

[Sisk]

lol mouse, you never cease to fail

now we just need to wait for armstrong to punch you in the face

[mouse]

lol mouse, you never cease to fail

Thanks to people like me who fail on a daily basis people like you get to walk around knowing your much better than us as you feel good about yourself in doing so.




now we just need to wait for armstrong to punch you in the face

First off I don't get into peoples faces so Mr. Armstrong would not have any reason to do me any bodily harm.

Second, People are trying to celebrate Easter in many ways, some people visit family and friends, others color eggs and hide them from the kids, and some even go to church or remember what Easter is really about.

But for TlongII to pick this day of all days to post his right wing narrow minded, anti intelligent,semi interesting propaganda links, tells me a lot about the type of person he is and may explain why he will never go to a ST gtg since he has noting but bitterness inside that crusty empty soul of his.

[z0sa]

Maybe it's true, we evolved. There's still a lot of subjective evidence that can be interpreted a different way.

[The Power Hour.]

Maybe it's true, .


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/club-sheeple.jpg

[whottt]

Evolution is right wing narrow minded anti-intelligent?

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol evolution

then how come todays monkeys arent human?

[boutons_deux]

"subjective evidence": oxymoron alert

"what Easter is really about": which is about what?

And don't the give me that reflexive cant about "He died for our sins".

[tlongII]

mouse doesn't believe in evolution because he's arrogant.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I like how the religious people can't even fathom the thought of humans evolving from animals yet they believe a virgin had a baby that was killed and then miraculously came back to life.

[FalleNxWiZarDx]

any pics?

[tlongII]

any pics?

http://unmaskingevolution.com/images/imaginative.gif

[tlongII]

http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/media/treeolif.jpg

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Funny that, because you behave so much like a monkey, parading around the place beating your chest and throwing shit at anyone who comes by, that I would have thought it was obvious.

[Dr. Gonzo]

arse

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Fuck off, Dr Fraud. What are you, 4cc's dick sucker?

[Blake]

I like how the religious people can't even fathom the thought of humans evolving from animals yet they believe a virgin had a baby that was killed and then miraculously came back to life.

or that Obama is the antichrist

[Dr. Gonzo]

Fuck off, Dr Fraud. What are you, 4cc's dick sucker?

arse
mate

[Dr. Gonzo]

I don't get the Dr. Fraud insult attempt. I guess because Dundee thinks I don't "get" Thompson?

Oh and I call major bullshit on Ruffandtoughguys claim to have been shot at by Thompson. Major bullshit.

[DMX7]

I'm just amazed Fox News has a Science section. I thought they didn't believe in that hocus pocus.

[boutons_deux]

"Fox News has a Science section"

yes, amazing. I wonder how many ignorant red-state hick, Bible-thumping viewers/readers they'll lose for reporting scientific findings instead magic hocus-pocus.

Any sentient hominid knows that about 6000 years ago, God whipped up the entire universe in 144 hours and made it look like it was 14.5 B years old.

[xellos88330]

The bible states that God created us in his image. Who are we to say what his image was at the time? Noone knows. Can't he be whatever he wants to be. Honestly if I had the Lords power, I would get pretty damn bored looking the same especially since I have to power to change what I am.

[Blake]

The bible states that God created us in his image. Who are we to say what his image was at the time? Noone knows.

why did he choose to make it look like billions of years old? why not make it look 6000 years old?


Can't he be whatever he wants to be.

you can make him whatever you want him to be


Honestly if I had the Lords power, I would get pretty damn bored looking the same especially since I have to power to change what I am.

Too bad the Lord failed to make an angeltalk messageboard thousands of years ago. Maybe he wouldn't have gotten so bored and maybe Lucifer wouldn't have left heaven.

[mouse]

why not make it look 6000 years old?


And what does 6000 years look like? Oh wait your talking about some text book in school you read?

Is that the same text book that said it takes milions of years for stalactites to form?


And yet one was found under a subway that was built only 40 years earlier, is that the textbook your refereeing to?
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/666-1.jpg


or was it the science book you read from cover to cover and still manege to keep B minus average in middle-school, was it that science book that is quoted as saying it takes millions of years for something to prettify, that book?

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


what book are you using to base your knowledge of what 6000 years can really do? I want to research this book to better understand your way of thinking it amazes me the time and passion you put into belittling the Bible thumper's hey that's your kick not mine I just want to know why you feel any new evidence that can help you sleep at night that Darwin was right is the reason you need to go into a topic to help your Atheist brothers, from others mothers...millions of years ago....

I personally don't give a rats ass if the Bible is 100% true or if Noah was really an old drunk guy who loved to tell fantastic Animal stories to the young kids of the village, like his father once told him when he was a child back when his father organized the first PETA meeting with the butchers of the town. anyway that is the story I heard that they wanted to stop people from eating meat even back then, who knew?

You see if you say my story is untrue then your bias and haven't done the research, if you say it could be true, then you would have gave credit to the bible so your in a tough spot I wonder where you will go...


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-890795.png

[TheIllusionist]

That boot always seems to find its way into these threads. :lol

[Blake]

And what does 6000 years look like? Oh wait your talking about some text book in school you read?

Is that the same text book that said it takes milions of years for stalactites to form?


And yet one was found under a subway that was built only 40 years earlier, is that the textbook your refereeing to?
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/666-1.jpg


or was it the science book you read from cover to cover and still manege to keep B minus average in middle-school, was it that science book that is quoted as saying it takes millions of years for something to prettify, that book?

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

No. The latest information and studies I have read come from the internet.


what book are you using to base your knowledge of what 6000 years can really do? I want to research this book to better understand your way of thinking it amazes me the time and passion you put into belittling the Bible thumper's hey that's your kick not mine I just want to know why you feel any new evidence that can help you sleep at night that Darwin was right is the reason you need to go into a topic to help your Atheist brothers, from others mothers...millions of years ago....

I personally don't give a rats ass if the Bible is 100% true or if Noah was really an old drunk guy who loved to tell fantastic Animal stories to the young kids of the village, like his father once told him when he was a child back when his father organized the first PETA meeting with the butchers of the town. anyway that is the story I heard that they wanted to stop people from eating meat even back then, who knew?

You see if you say my story is untrue then your bias and haven't done the research, if you say it could be true, then you would have gave credit to the bible so your in a tough spot I wonder where you will go...


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-890795.png

The Bible is a book of magic stories. Scientific research is somethin tangible we can understand and dating methods have been proven quite accurate no matter how many times you cry about how the earth doesn't look old to you.

Why are you so butthurt about this? Did a science geek bully you in school and take your lunch money?

[Blake]

That boot always seems to find its way into these threads. :lol

so do trolls :lol

[mouse]

No. The latest information and studies I have read come from the internet.

If you only knew how bad that makes you sound.......your knowledge is based on the www,...... really? the same internet that gave us man bear pig?
:lmao
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f298/Raine_n_the_south/ManBearPig.jpg

[mouse]

so do trolls :lol


So do the Darwin's tea-baggers.
:lol

[mouse]

Why are you so butthurt

because your so huge!
:makeout

[Blake]

If you only knew how bad that makes you sound.......your knowledge is based on the www,...... really? the same internet that gave us man bear pig?
:lmao
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f298/Raine_n_the_south/ManBearPig.jpg

I know. It's hard to believe that scientific studies can actually be found on the same internet that you use to find terrible 9/11 conspiracy videos.....but it's true.

I think you already know how bad you sound.

[Blake]

because your so huge!
:makeout

http://socialmediarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ButtHurt.jpg

[mouse]

BLAKE.......... BLAKE.................. BLAKE!



it's after 11pm you no pussy getting fool! :lmao



ok barh show me what you got on the age of the earth,........keep in mind this is one of my strongest areas and I have won many debates, before you proceed.


But you should know this already! can we fast forward to me Slam dunking your ass with my vast information I have accar
acquired doing these type of debates. We can be civil and i may use a rubber glove this time.
But think,......... you won't really know until it's too late...your already bent over a paper covered cold steel table with a very thing green even colder vinyl finish that will rub against that shadow on your boxers where your real balls would be if you had any, with your misinformed,56K dial up modem slow ass !! Dude my lady wants me to eat her pussy and you want me to spend that time talking about how old some old ass bones are? come on dude get your outdated ignorant redneck ass on Google and show me proof how you know something is millions of years old!
show me something.
the TRolls are waiting.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/troll-gtg.gif

[Blake]

BLAKE.......... BLAKE.................. BLAKE!



it's after 11pm you no pussy getting fool! :lmao

mouse!

Is 11pm too late for you? I do just fine after 11. :lmao




ok barh show me what you got on the age of the earth,........keep in mind this is one of my strongest areas and I have won many debates, before you proceed.

I distinctly recall how you argue in these evolution threads.

You pose a bunch of questions (maybe a youtube clip or two) dug up from creationists websites that are easily answered......and when answered, you dodge the response by jumping right to the next question/dilemma and round and round you go.



But you should know this already! can we fast forward to me Slam dunking your ass with my vast information I have accarrried doing these type of debates. We can be civil and i may use a rubber glove this time.

wow, you want to be civil but fail at doing so all in the same sentence. Well done.



But think,......... you won't really know until it's too late...your already bent over a paper covered cold steel table with a very thing green even colder vinyl finish that will rub against that shadow on your boxers where your real balls would be if you had any, with your misinformed,56K dial up modem slow ass !! Dude my lady wants me to eat her pussy and you want me to spend that time talking about how old some old ass bones are? come on dude get your outdated ignorant redneck ass on Google and show me proof how you know something is millions of years old!
show me something.
the TRolls are waiting.

Obviously you can't be civil.

[Duncan]

how many years old did your dusty textbook say 24 inches of arctic ice was?

[admiralsnackbar]

If you only knew how bad that makes you sound.......your knowledge is based on the www,...... really? the same internet that gave us man bear pig?


Because your fine contributions to debates such as these came from textbooks and laboratory analysis. Do you even have a degree?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Why does anyone bother "debating" mouse on this subject any more? His beliefs are so entrenched that no quantity of physical evidence will ever change his POV. He honestly, in his head anyway, believes that science is a sham. Nothing will ever change that. Sadly, a similar anti-scientific mindset is spreading all over the world. Let's face it, unless you are a scientist yourself, or are trained as one, you will probably never understand the scientific method, nor the level of evidence required for publication in credible journals, or degree of rigour involved in peer review. People like mouse will always believe that scientists just make things up and cover for each other in a grand conspiracy. You can't argue with that level of ignorance.

This is a real problem for the entire scientific community - the world badly needs a lot more scientifically literate excellent communicators like Attenborough and Suzuki.

[Kamnik]

This can only be huge news in the US where some people actually believe world is a few thousand years old.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Thank fuck you're not smarter enough to be the one with your finger on the button.

[Dr. Gonzo]

smarter enough

arse

mate

[mouse]

Because your fine contributions to debates such as these came from textbooks and laboratory analysis. Do you even have a degree?

So your going to pull out the diploma card so soon? That is so fresh to start asking people if the have GED's before you have a debate with that person.

I can see your new at trying to debate someone without insulting them,I guess I am supposed to post all my accomplishments and my extra thick souped up resume so you can go through it just to say, "I didn't see where you studied Paleontology anywhere"

Then I am supposed to say "your right! but I did stay at a holiday inn last night"

Is that sort of how things are done in your world?




Do you even have a degree?

Who needs a degree? I have eyes muther fucker!!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/nsrammstein/vlcsnap-156363.png

[Blake]

Who needs a degree? I have eyes muther fucker!!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/nsrammstein/vlcsnap-156363.png

how old is that metal in the picture according to your eyes

[mouse]

how old is that metal in the picture according to your eyes


I would have to say given the fact that the steel support beams look to be made in a factory I would rule out the fact that the metal is older than 230 years given the fact our nation was just forming around that time.

But it's really hard to say for sure without the flawless carbon testing our wonderful scientist use in these situations.

I can say this....... no matter how old those steel beams are they will never be older than your lame comebacks.

[Blake]

I would have to say given the fact that the steel support beams look to be made in a factory I would rule out the fact that the metal is older than 230 years given the fact our nation was just forming around that time.

And how do you know our nation was just forming around that time? Oh wait youre talking about some text book in school you read?

Is that the same text book that said terrorists hijacked planes and crashed into the twin towers on 9/11, ultimtealy bringing them down?


But it's really hard to say for sure without the flawless carbon testing our wonderful scientist use in these situations.

I honestly don't know if they would do carbon testing on this type of metal, but I agree with the sentiment that scientists testing the age of the metal is better than your eye. :tu


I can say this....... no matter how old those steel beams are they will never be older than your lame comebacks.

http://socialmediarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ButtHurt.jpg

[mouse]

Keep posting these original,very fresh,never seen until now photo shops you find on Google late at night since your like me and we have no real woman in our lives.........if we did,... why would we be up late at night debating about how old some old smelly cowboy boot was?
look, as long as you remember like maybe 90% of those reading this topic know for a fact who is really the one getting their are spanked in your entertaining pictures........... then we are cool esse......



http://socialmediarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ButtHurt.jpg

[tlongII]

Damn. Mouse got pwned by Ruff. That's got to hurt.

[Blake]

Keep posting these original,very fresh,never seen until now photo shops you find on Google late at night since your like me and we have no real woman in our lives.........if we did,... why would we be up late at night debating about how old some old smelly cowboy boot was?
look, as long as you remember like maybe 90% of those reading this topic know for a fact who is really the one getting their are spanked in your entertaining pictures........... then we are cool esse......

http://socialmediarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ButtHurt.jpg

[mouse]

Damn. Mouse got pwned by Ruff. That's got to hurt.

I stop getting hurt online back in 1997 when some 14 year old kid told me to stick my Tim Duncan rookie card up my ass. or was it when I first entered a chat room back in 1995 and said "hello everyone I am from San Antonio"

and I got 3 who the fuck cares,2 fuck you's,and one person said really? how fascinating.... the truth is if your worried about getting hurt your better off not even going online. there are many RuffNReady's and TlongII's waiting to pounce on you like a tiger in the jungle,.... hey, we all need a hobby.



I thought for sure after my last conversation with Ruff we had bonded and he knew where i was coming from and i knew where he was coming from.

I thought from that point on there would not be any insulting or belittling going on between us, but i guess Ruff has a short memory or else he is just anal and those kind of people are set in their ways you just have to move on and hope you don't post anything that may set them off again.

as for you TlongII your just an asshole and you love to put salt in the wounds, you love to see me fail at all cost your like that kid in the game room when someone loses a man your right there..."Aww dude you suck, you got your ass kicked royal"

I bet if you was around during the time Jesus was crucified you would be at the bottom of the cross saying..." You had to say you was a king didn't you? WTF was you thinking? your not no king you ain't shit! Look at you hanging from that cross like an idiot"......


...Jesus got pwned by the Jews. That's got to hurt.

[Ignignokt]

I don't hold mouse's views.. but for RuffNReamedOPP, he needs to bring science, Tit's, or GTFO!

rack the trolls!

[mouse]

So let me guess the Darwin lovers turn a perfectly good debate into a semi entertaining smack off to avoid explaining away the evidence I have provided to them that the earth is no way anywhere near millions of years old and to think the school text books have the nerve to say Billions of years old?

who writes this comedy?
:lmao


mouse 10

Snail people who evolved from hot soup billions of years ago to grow legs and use them to stand inline at best buy on black Friday,0

[tlongII]

Sorry mouse, but the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

[The Reckoning]

Sorry mouse, but the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.



mouse knows this. he just loves to play devil's advocate

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140295&page=6&highlight=accretion

he even debates that there was a moment of creation

and to answer his question that he asked me in the thread about venus...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=double-impact-may-explain

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I don't hold mouse's views.. but for RuffNReamedOPP, he needs to bring science, Tit's, or GTFO!

rack the trolls!

I've already tried to educate mouse on this subject years ago, but there's no point. The evidence runs millions of pages long, and you can find it in any library, but youneed me to summarise it for you?


So let me guess the Darwin lovers turn a perfectly good debate into a semi entertaining smack off to avoid explaining away the evidence I have provided to them that the earth is no way anywhere near millions of years old and to think the school text books have the nerve to say Billions of years old?

who writes this comedy?
:lmao


mouse 10

Snail people who evolved from hot soup billions of years ago to grow legs and use them to stand inline at best buy on black Friday,0

"Perfectly good debate"? "Evidence"? I don't see either in this thread. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

cue long thread on merits/flaws of evolution/creationism... in ... oh wait, its already started.

[mouse]

The two sided pancake
side A


(Ruff,Blake and all the we evolved from hot soup posters)

They post a photo or ask a question and they demand answers and they will call you out if you don't reply with something intelligent.

[mouse]

side B

(Ruff,Blake and all the we evolved from hot soup posters)

You post a photo for them or ask them question they avoid answering it and in turn try to insult you.

[mouse]

Case in point...


They swear up and down on their great great great great grandfather's who swung from a tree millions a years ago that stalactites take millions of years to form.

http://www.darkanddeep.co.uk/images/caving_scotland/mendips/gb-stalactites.jpg

along comes an educated man like myself and shows them a stalactite growing underneath a 40 year old subway and they go silent.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2820218370_327572484a.jpg


what kind of debating is that?

[RandomGuy]

Actually mouse the double standard for evidence is usually your schtick.

Just about every bit you end up posting has been explained or debunked, as being fully compatible with a universe/earth that is billions of years old.

You assign absolute credibility to bits that reinforce your beliefs, but none to any contravening evidence.

That's all good. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, mouse has to believe in pink unicorns.

I have made my peace with your absolute determination to believe in patently illogical things.

[mouse]

Another case in point....


Ruff,Blake and all the Darwin lovers keep saying how the earth is not millions of years old but get this........it's "billions" of years old, and yet they can't seem to find any proof.
The oldest tree is 20,000 years old and the oldest coastal reef found on earth is around 5 to 6 thousand years old. Where is the million year old tree? The million year old coastal reef?


Scientist's have found with the use of lasers and reflectors placed on the moon by Unmanned spacecraft that the moon moves away from the earth around 4 inch's a year. With that in mind...If the earth was just one million years old do you know how close the moon would have been to the earth one million years ago?

Well before you pull out the calculators to find out keep in mind the earth is 4 Billion years old.

who writes this comedy? :lmao

[mouse]

Actually mouse the double standard for evidence is usually your schtick.

Just about every bit you end up posting has been explained or debunked, as being fully compatible with a universe/earth that is billions of years old.

You assign absolute credibility to bits that reinforce your beliefs, but none to any contravening evidence.

That's all good. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, mouse has to believe in pink unicorns.

I have made my peace with your absolute determination to believe in patently illogical things.



The stalactites are waiting.....for your answer.....



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/666-1.jpg

[admiralsnackbar]

You're making a false equivalence between stalagtites as though they were all composed of the same materials. You can go to the beach and create a very impermanent stalagmite by dribbling wet sand, but good luck doing that with a wet granite stone.

For that matter, assuming your rate of separation between Earth and Moon is true, why do you assume it is a constant?

[RandomGuy]

Light moves at 186,000 miles per second. This is a fixed cosmological constant, an absolute, immutable law of physics.

Even given the expansion of space time, if the Earth were, as some claim, only a few tens of thousands of years old, we would not even see the smallest fraction of our galaxy let alone be able, using radio telescopes, to see objects billions of LIGHT YEARS away.

The very observable fact that we can see the rest of our galaxy indicates that the universe is much older than 10,000 years. All you have to do is look up at the stars to see this.

[RandomGuy]

You're making a false equivalence between stalagtites as though they were all composed of the same materials. You can go to the beach and create a very impermanent stalagmite by dribbling wet sand, but good luck doing that with a wet granite stone.

Indeed, there are children's websites that show how you can create stalagmites/stalagtites in a week or two.

The softer and more water soluable the rock the faster they form, as you stated.

The existance of fast-forming stalagtites is fully compatible with an old earth, and is fully explainable and reproducible using readily verifiable chemistry.

The speed of formation is determined solely by how much mineral can be dissolved by a drop of water.

Mouses willful ignorance of chemistry allows him to continue to believe that all minerals dissolve at the same rate. This is provably false.

[mouse]

You're making a false equivalence between stalagtites as though they were all composed of the same materials. You can go to the beach and create a very impermanent stalagmite by dribbling wet sand, but good luck doing that with a wet granite stone.


What ever the case may be I really don't give a rats ass where they come from and how long they take to form I just want the lies taken out of the text books.

lets move on...................


An estimated 60 tons of dissolved minerals are swept over Niagara Falls every minute, Niagara Falls has moved back 7 miles in 12,500 years and may be the fastest moving waterfalls in the world.

If you divide 12,500 into 4 Billion where does that put Niagara?

[mouse]

Light moves at 186,000 miles per second. This is a fixed cosmological constant, an absolute, immutable law of physics.

Even given the expansion of space time, if the Earth were, as some claim, only a few tens of thousands of years old, we would not even see the smallest fraction of our galaxy let alone be able, using radio telescopes, to see objects billions of LIGHT YEARS away.

The very observable fact that we can see the rest of our galaxy indicates that the universe is much older than 10,000 years. All you have to do is look up at the stars to see this.



Pssssst! stalactite boy is still waiting......

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/666-1.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Pssssst! stalactite boy is still waiting......

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/666-1.jpg

Do all minerals dissolve in water at the same rate?

[admiralsnackbar]

What ever the case may be I really don't give a rats ass where they come from and how long they take to form I just want the lies taken out of the text books.

lets move on...................


An estimated 60 tons of dissolved minerals are swept over Niagara Falls every minute, Niagara Falls has moved back 7 miles in 12,500 years and may be the fastest moving waterfalls in the world.

If you divide 12,500 into 4 Billion where does that put Niagara?

Deep in bullshit country, I reckon.

[RandomGuy]

Deep in bullshit country, I reckon.

The danger of the 'staight-line' assumption, i.e. assuming conditions in the future/past are/were identical to those of today.

If one were to calculate, in an identical manner using current population growth rates, how many people there will be in 20,000 years, the total mass of human flesh would be more than the mass of the known universe.

Mouse's ignorant assumption (one of them at any rate) in that statement is actually quite similar to his ignorant assumption in the stalagtite statement.

He assumes that all the rock formations that the river flows over dissolve at the same rate.

He also assumes that rivers do not change courses, yet another provably false assumption. Ask any good civil engineer if rivers always stay in the same channel.

(hint: they don't)

Both assumptions underpin the question about 'dividing by age'. If your underlying assumptions are false, then the question is meaningless.

It is like asking: "how many leprachauns can I fit in my van?" The question assumes that leprachauns exist and can therefore be measured.

[Blake]

I just want the lies taken out of the text books.


what are the truths that should be left in the text books?

[admiralsnackbar]

what are the truths that should be left in the text books?

Careful, fella -- you may be branded an elitist snob if you suggest textbooks should contain anything. :lol

[Blake]

Another case in point....


Ruff,Blake and all the Darwin lovers keep saying how the earth is not millions of years old but get this........it's "billions" of years old, and yet they can't seem to find any proof.

you have been provided proof over and over again.

you can't seem to grasp it.


who writes this comedy? :lmao

You constantly digging up stuff from creation websites and going round and round is comedy up to a point. After that, it's sad.

[TheManFromAcme]

What a sad, sad state of affairs this country is in. No need to divulge on this. It is what it is with you supid kids these days, believing any and all crap that comes out of academia. You kids will buy anything that isn't bible-based yet turn your faces away from the book that will be read at your funerals.

No worries. You scientist's will get yours one day. :tu

[admiralsnackbar]

What a sad, sad state of affairs this country is in. No need to divulge on this. It is what it is with you supid kids these days, believing any and all crap that comes out of academia. You kids will buy anything that isn't bible-based yet turn your faces away from the book that will be read at your funerals.

No worries. You scientist's will get yours one day. :tu

What I don't understand is why it's taken as a given that the knowledge we derive from science is necessarily contrary to scripture. Why is it a given to say the Earth is x-years old based on one man's contested interpretation of the Bible? Or that evolution is not the work of God? Or that our being made in the likeness of God means we are morphologically static beings?

I firmly believe in God, but I also believe science is a tool to help me better understand both scripture and my faith.

[TheManFromAcme]

What I don't understand is why it's taken as a given that the knowledge we derive from science is necessarily contrary to scripture. Why is it a given to say the Earth is x-years old based on one man's contested interpretation of the Bible? Or that evolution is not the work of God? Or that our being made in the likeness of God means we are morphologically static beings?

I firmly believe in God, but I also believe science is a tool to help me better understand both scripture and my faith.

You've hit it on the nail. That is exactly how I view it just as well. :toast
Science was a tool given to us to understand HIS complexity. No problems with that. Science is not all as these idiotic kids believe.

I am with you.

[Blake]

What a sad, sad state of affairs this country is in. No need to divulge on this. It is what it is with you supid kids these days, believing any and all crap that comes out of academia. You kids will buy anything that isn't bible-based yet turn your faces away from the book that will be read at your funerals.

No worries. You scientist's will get yours one day. :tu

what a sad troll this appears to be.

Is your world still flat?

[Blake]

What I don't understand is why it's taken as a given that the knowledge we derive from science is necessarily contrary to scripture. Why is it a given to say the Earth is x-years old based on one man's contested interpretation of the Bible? Or that evolution is not the work of God? Or that our being made in the likeness of God means we are morphologically static beings?

I firmly believe in God, but I also believe science is a tool to help me better understand both scripture and my faith.

Do you believe the God of the Bible to be omnipotent and/or omniscient?

[admiralsnackbar]

Do you believe the God of the Bible to be omnipotent and/or omniscient?

Insofar as I can understand what it would mean to be either of those things, yes.

That said, I also know that people are neither, and given that people wrote the Bible, I'm forced to take a lot of scripture with a grain of salt -- even when what I'm being skeptical of is attributed to God himself.

[Blake]

Insofar as I can understand what it would mean to be either of those things, yes.

That said, I also know that people are neither, and given that people wrote the Bible, I'm forced to take a lot of scripture with a grain of salt -- even when what I'm being skeptical of is attributed to God himself.

that's the problem for me.

If God is omnipotent/omniscient, then the communication between generations and languages should withstand the test of time.

That's obviously not the case since people are currently guessing what 7 days means to them.

[TheManFromAcme]

what a sad troll this appears to be.

Is your world still flat?

:lol

The more you belittle all things Christian and go out of our way do discredit them or try to use science to answer all your questions of the universe with your so called "firm science" the more it shines light on your unhappiness there lad. Not mine. You just don's see it yet.

Troll? It's cool. I wouldn't want anyting to do with your Country Club anyway son. You can have it.

The world is flat line is lame Blake. Use a better one. :toast

[Blake]

:lol

The more you belittle all things Christian and go out of our way do discredit them or try to use science to answer all your questions of the universe with your so called "firm science" the more it shines light on your unhappiness there lad. Not mine. You just don's see it yet.

I'm happy and I don't belittle Christians or go out of my way to discredit them.

You on the other hand have definitely gone out of your way to try to belittle "academia".

For whatever reason, you appear to be very bitter about science books.


Troll? It's cool. I wouldn't want anyting to do with your Country Club anyway son. You can have it.

I'm not in a country club. You are a troll though, and doing a poor job of it.


The world is flat line is lame Blake. Use a better one. :toast

Since you can't seem to answer if the world is still flat or not for you, I think it worked just fine. :toast

[TheManFromAcme]

I'm happy and I don't belittle Christians or go out of my way to discredit them.

You on the other hand have definitely gone out of your way to try to belittle "academia".

For whatever reason, you appear to be very bitter about science books.



I'm not in a country club. You are a troll though, and doing a poor job of it.



Since you can't seem to answer if the world is still flat or not for you, I think it worked just fine. :toast

You know, I know the answer. That's the point. Don't be silly. You believe any aspects of the bible? Any? Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

I am not bitter on Science. I just a have personal descending order of things;

1. God THEN science.

How bout you?

[admiralsnackbar]

that's the problem for me.

If God is omnipotent/omniscient, then the communication between generations and languages should withstand the test of time.

That's obviously not the case since people are currently guessing what 7 days means to them.

I also wonder about the passage where God says "you shall have no other gods before me." He didn't say "you shall have no other gods but Me," or "I am the only God." So is He implying the existence of other gods? If so, how does that jibe with his omnipresence and omniscience when other gods would necessarily be a part of him? Why is he, then, a jealous God?

By the same token, the emergence of the Satan figure from Job to what he's become in modern Christianity indicates a being that is independent from the will of God despite existing within God and taking part in His consciousness.

And finally, the old saw about Adam and Eve's fall from innocence, in which we're told we're created with free will, and are thus responsible for succumbing to temptation. But if God is omniscient, and if he created us, then he already knows what we are, how we will react, and what the result of our life will be. Besides reducing free will to something that seems almost cosmetic, if you believe in an afterlife with heaven and hell, it also means some of us are born to burn in hell while others are not.

These are just three of the reasons that popped in my head to explain why I'm not called to be a literalist and feel compelled to try to look for other lessons from scripture. Sometimes (assuming I'm able to in the first place) I make sense of discrepancies anthropologically, sometimes poetically, sometimes logically, etc. simply because it can't all be right on a literal level and still work. Too many human pens with too many human frailties worked on the book before I ever read it, and it shows on every page I've read as much as the thousands I never will because they were omitted by the Vatican. For this same reason, I think science -- imperfect as it is -- is a great tool to try to separate truth from fiction.

[rjv]

I also wonder about the passage where God says "you shall have no other gods before me." He didn't say "you shall have no other gods but Me," or "I am the only God." So is He implying the existence of other gods? If so, how does that jibe with his omnipresence and omniscience when other gods would necessarily be a part of him? Why is he, then, a jealous God?

By the same token, the emergence of the Satan figure from Job to what he's become in modern Christianity indicates a being that is independent from the will of God despite existing within God and taking part in His consciousness.

And finally, the old saw about Adam and Eve's fall from innocence, in which we're told we're created with free will, and are thus responsible for succumbing to temptation. But if God is omniscient, and if he created us, then he already knows what we are, how we will react, and what the result of our life will be. Besides reducing free will to something that seems almost cosmetic, if you believe in an afterlife with heaven and hell, it also means some of us are born to burn in hell while others are not.

These are just three of the reasons that popped in my head to explain why I'm not called to be a literalist and feel compelled to try to look for other lessons from scripture. Sometimes (assuming I'm able to in the first place) I make sense of discrepancies anthropologically, sometimes poetically, sometimes logically, etc. simply because it can't all be right on a literal level and still work. Too many human pens with too many human frailties worked on the book before I ever read it, and it shows on every page I've read as much as the thousands I never will because they were omitted by the Vatican. For this same reason, I think science -- imperfect as it is -- is a great tool to try to separate truth from fiction.

also, just look at deuteronomy as a perfect example of a god that is about ethnic cleansing and genocide. this book is a major moral issue for christians who take the bible literally. some jesuits i was taught by often regarded these passages as allegorical reflecting the context of the authors of these books and the times they were written. not to mention that this is the book that fuels the zionist fire.

[clambake]

the rapture says he'll also be taking souls from the grave.

whats the deal? they didn't make the first cut?

[TheManFromAcme]

I also wonder about the passage where God says "you shall have no other gods before me." He didn't say "you shall have no other gods but Me," or "I am the only God." So is He implying the existence of other gods? If so, how does that jibe with his omnipresence and omniscience when other gods would necessarily be a part of him? Why is he, then, a jealous God?

By the same token, the emergence of the Satan figure from Job to what he's become in modern Christianity indicates a being that is independent from the will of God despite existing within God and taking part in His consciousness.

And finally, the old saw about Adam and Eve's fall from innocence, in which we're told we're created with free will, and are thus responsible for succumbing to temptation. But if God is omniscient, and if he created us, then he already knows what we are, how we will react, and what the result of our life will be. Besides reducing free will to something that seems almost cosmetic, if you believe in an afterlife with heaven and hell, it also means some of us are born to burn in hell while others are not.

These are just three of the reasons that popped in my head to explain why I'm not called to be a literalist and feel compelled to try to look for other lessons from scripture. Sometimes (assuming I'm able to in the first place) I make sense of discrepancies anthropologically, sometimes poetically, sometimes logically, etc. simply because it can't all be right on a literal level and still work. Too many human pens with too many human frailties worked on the book before I ever read it, and it shows on every page I've read as much as the thousands I never will because they were omitted by the Vatican. For this same reason, I think science -- imperfect as it is -- is a great tool to try to separate truth from fiction.

As a non-Catholic, and believer of Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ, this is where I stop. I don't give a hoot what the Vatican does and what that shmuck Pope does. I have my beef with Catholics and all that is Rome but I'll save it for another topic. I do know this; they're not Christians in the personal defintion of it. I am not arguing the tool that is science. I just take an approach of science being a tool to understand God. No need to elaborate on it. it's that simple. I think of it as God saying, "Alright kids, you don't know what I am about, where I come from, What my M.O. is, so I'll give you kids a thing called "Science" to give you a glimpse of what I am about". I just don't believe science explains it all. Face it, there are things in science that have yet to be proven, duplicated or flat out defeated. That was God's plan.

[mouse]

you have been provided proof over and over again.

you can't seem to grasp it.

Are you saying you have provided evidence as to why the earth is supposed to be billions of years old and yet there are no million year old barrier reefs, no million year old trees, no million year old waterfalls,etc.....

Are you saying you provided evidence that stalactites do take millions of years to form?

Are you saying you have proof that the moon does not move four inches away from the earth each year?

I don't remember any proof posted at this site about what I am talking about can you please post the links?




You constantly digging up stuff from creation websites and going round and round

Why do I need to go to a religious site to prove stalactites don't take millions of years to form? why would I need a religious website to tell me there are no coral reefs older than 20,000 years?

Why must you try and mix in religion on every debate? I base my opinions of fats and common sense I don't use the Bible or God when talking about 9/11-Evolution,NASA, and the age of the earth.

Why do all you Darwin lovers think young earth science has to be religious motivated? Save all your bible thumping comebacks and smack talk for Angel_luv my agenda is to find the truth and expose the lies in our children's textbooks your agenda is to support Darwin and to do the will of Satan.





is comedy up to a point. After that, it's sad.

It depends how you look at it. You laugh at Angel_luv when she talks about Noah and all those animals on a homemade boat. I laugh at you when you try and tell me I evolved from a hot liquid 4 billion years ago, so it evens out.

I kinda wonder what you guys did before Darwin came around.

[mouse]

what are the truths that should be left in the text books?


How hard is it to Just say "many years ago".....thousands of years ago......a long long time ago?
....but don't start every science book in school about man and or the earth with the same bullshit tag line......"25 Million years ago" this............."25 Million years ago".......That..........these guys can't even figure out how to cure Cancer and they have the nerve to tell us what happened 4 billion years ago? Nigra please!!! :lmao

[mouse]

Do all minerals dissolve in water at the same rate?




Are you a part time politician? When you enter a cave and the guide tells you not to touch the 25 million year old stalactites, and when you read a school text book it reads.."stalactite take million years to form" they don't go into detail about how much fluoride is in the water. They make a point.

The earth is very old it has to be so the Bible can be proven wrong.

If you admit it only takes 20 thousand years to do something your giving in to creationism. If you stay hardheaded and insist the earth is 4 billion years old you find yourself always having to explain things that don't make sense so you find a warm happy place and participate in the discussion.

But I must warn you this is one of my stronger areas, even more than the NASA debates so proceed with caution...





you tree hugging underwater tea bagging man-seed drinking ......oops.....sorry, I was just warming up for the next Mavs vs Spurs debate...

dude your going to pull out the H2O X the power of one...bullshit? Why would you cave in so fast? The books clearly read Stalactites take millions of years to form, I posted a "stalactite" that was formed in 40 years..what part of scoreboard do you not understand?



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/moca-donnie-boy-small.jpg

[Blake]

You know, I know the answer. That's the point. Don't be silly.

you first


You believe any aspects of the bible? Any?

some historical aspects and some good words of wisdom


Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

as the son of God? not so much


I am not bitter on Science.

really?


You scientist's will get yours one day.

Im not sure what that means.


I just a have personal descending order of things;

1. God THEN science.

How bout you?

I tend to think they should be mutually exclusive.

If you find God through science, good for you.

Putting God before science opens the door for bias, imo.

[The Reckoning]

Science is God's fingerprints

Science rulz


just wondering...

does anybody know why water doesn't freeze at a certain depth (without it, life wouldn't be possible)?

i have no idea why, and ive always been curious about that.

[tlongII]

LOL mouse

[Blake]

As a non-Catholic, and believer of Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ, this is where I stop. I don't give a hoot what the Vatican does and what that shmuck Pope does. I have my beef with Catholics and all that is Rome but I'll save it for another topic. I do know this; they're not Christians in the personal defintion of it. I am not arguing the tool that is science. I just take an approach of science being a tool to understand God. No need to elaborate on it. it's that simple. I think of it as God saying, "Alright kids, you don't know what I am about, where I come from, What my M.O. is, so I'll give you kids a thing called "Science" to give you a glimpse of what I am about". I just don't believe science explains it all. Face it, there are things in science that have yet to be proven, duplicated or flat out defeated. That was God's plan.

Science doesn't explain it all, but simply saying "God did it" and stopping there is lame.

[The Reckoning]

As a non-Catholic, and believer of Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ, this is where I stop. I don't give a hoot what the Vatican does and what that shmuck Pope does. I have my beef with Catholics and all that is Rome but I'll save it for another topic. I do know this; they're not Christians in the personal defintion of it. I am not arguing the tool that is science. I just take an approach of science being a tool to understand God. No need to elaborate on it. it's that simple. I think of it as God saying, "Alright kids, you don't know what I am about, where I come from, What my M.O. is, so I'll give you kids a thing called "Science" to give you a glimpse of what I am about". I just don't believe science explains it all. Face it, there are things in science that have yet to be proven, duplicated or flat out defeated. That was God's plan.




:rolleyes

obviously you dont know shit about Catholicism. its as diverse as Protestantism in its sects and customs. this post clearly shows your ignorance.

[Blake]

How hard is it to Just say "many years ago".....thousands of years ago......a long long time ago?
....but don't start every science book in school about man and or the earth with the same bullshit tag line......"25 Million years ago" this............."25 Million years ago"

you are good with thousands of years, but not
millions?


.......That..........these guys can't even figure out how to cure Cancer and they have the nerve to tell us what happened 4 billion years ago? Nigra please!!! :lmao

the ones that tell us what happened billions of years ago aren't the same ones that are trying to cure cancer.

You'd know this if you would have cracked open the crazy science books instead of mocking them.

You're an idiot. :tu

[DMX7]

That..........these guys can't even figure out how to cure Cancer

Really.... What a fucking stupid thing to say. Because all the world's problems haven't been science must be wrong.

But of course we know from the bible, which was or was not written by a bunch of charlatans, the precise age of the Earth.

[LnGrrrR]

The danger of the 'staight-line' assumption, i.e. assuming conditions in the future/past are/were identical to those of today.

If one were to calculate, in an identical manner using current population growth rates, how many people there will be in 20,000 years, the total mass of human flesh would be more than the mass of the known universe.

Mouse's ignorant assumption (one of them at any rate) in that statement is actually quite similar to his ignorant assumption in the stalagtite statement.

He assumes that all the rock formations that the river flows over dissolve at the same rate.

He also assumes that rivers do not change courses, yet another provably false assumption. Ask any good civil engineer if rivers always stay in the same channel.

(hint: they don't)

Both assumptions underpin the question about 'dividing by age'. If your underlying assumptions are false, then the question is meaningless.

It is like asking: "how many leprachauns can I fit in my van?" The question assumes that leprachauns exist and can therefore be measured.

You know, from birth to 2 years old, I grew 3 feet.

Using this assumption, I should now be 42 feet high.

SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK!

[LnGrrrR]

And of course science can't explain everything. That's why philosophy exists. :lol

[TheManFromAcme]

:rolleyes

obviously you dont know shit about Catholicism. its as diverse as Protestantism in its sects and customs. this post clearly shows your ignorance.

I'll be glad to continue my ignorance with Catholicism. Ignorance is bliss regarding this. I have a relationship with my creator. No customs. No traditions. No rosary. No saint "this". No statues. YOU don't get.
You display sheer, pure, unadulterated ignorance regarding what Christianity means and what it entails regarding a intimate relationship with Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ. Get a clue guy.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll be glad to continue my ignorance with Catholicism. Ignorance is bliss regarding this. I have a relationship with my creator. No customs. No traditions. No rosary. No saint "this". No statues. YOU don't get.
You display sheer, pure, unadulterated ignorance regarding what Christianity means and what it entails regarding a intimate relationship with Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ. Get a clue guy.

No customs? I would say obeying the Commandments, and praying, are both forms of custom/tradition.

Only Jesus? Did you mean Jesus and God? Just looking for clarification.

[TheManFromAcme]

No customs? I would say obeying the Commandments, and praying, are both forms of custom/tradition.

Only Jesus? Did you mean Jesus and God? Just looking for clarification.

The 10 commandments are just that.... a command to follow his rules according to him. Following the 10 C's is not a tradition but a mandate from God. Jesus,God, Holy Spirit.........all one. Praying is what makes the relationship so to say.

[LnGrrrR]

The 10 commandments are just that.... a command to follow his rules according to him. Following the 10 C's is not a tradition but a mandate from God. Jesus,God, Holy Spirit.........all one. Praying is what makes the relationship so to say.

Right, but you're only following the Commandments because you believe in the religion. That would make it a custom of that religion, unique to that religion. (Well, technically, unique to the Judeo-Christian religion.)

A command is nearly the same as a custom/tradition in this sense. Look at the rules that Jewish people abide by, for instance, only eating things that are "kosher". It is a command for them, and it is also tradition/custom. The same goes with circumcision.

[rjv]

And of course science can't explain everything. That's why philosophy exists. :lol

as someon with a degree in philosophy, i'd have to say you are absolutely right ! :lol

[RandomGuy]

Do all minerals dissolve in water at the same rate?



Are you a part time politician? When you enter a cave and the guide tells you not to touch the 25 million year old stalactites, and when you read a school text book it reads.."stalactite take million years to form" they don't go into detail about how much fluoride is in the water. They make a point.

The earth is very old it has to be so the Bible can be proven wrong.

If you admit it only takes 20 thousand years to do something your giving in to creationism. If you stay hardheaded and insist the earth is 4 billion years old you find yourself always having to explain things that don't make sense so you find a warm happy place and participate in the discussion.

But I must warn you this is one of my stronger areas, even more than the NASA debates so proceed with caution...

you tree hugging underwater tea bagging man-seed drinking ......oops.....sorry, I was just warming up for the next Mavs vs Spurs debate...

dude your going to pull out the H2O X the power of one...bullshit? Why would you cave in so fast? The books clearly read Stalactites take millions of years to form, I posted a "stalactite" that was formed in 40 years..what part of scoreboard do you not understand?


:lmao "my stronger areas"

Ah mouse, yer killin' me.

One long rambling dodge after another, true to form.

The answer to my question is yes, both the rate and amounts of minerals dissolving in water will vary, depending on the temperature and pressure.

"the books clearly read" is another vaguely supported statement. Which books? (I am fairly sure you have an answer for this one, yay)

The fact that you have some of these formation that formed in 40 years in no way conclusively demonstrates that all of the formations formed in short periods of time.

It's a bit like showing me a picture of a black cat and scoffing at the existance of white cats.

"The books clearly said that some cats are white, so therefore this picture of a black cat disproves the existance of white cats!"

At best you have a case of some sloppy editing in a statement "stalactites take millions of years to form" should then be modified to say "some stalactities take millions of years to form"

One of the problems you face in trying to show that even really large stalactites are "only a few thoustand years old" is that volume is a cubic measurement.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/08/09/Cobb.stalactite.jpg

The implication of this is that when the volume gets larger, the amount of time required to form that thing gets larger by cubed (time*time*time) factors.

http://z.about.com/d/math/1/5/t/L/conerr.jpg

For example:
A cone with a base radius of about 1.1 units, and 2 units long has a volume of about 2.53 cubic units

Double the measurements and you get a massive increase in the volume.

A cone with a base radius of 2.2 units, and 4 units long has a volume of 20.26 cubic units.

Double the measurements yet again and you get yet another massive increase in the volume.

A cone with a base radius of 4.4 units, and 8 units long has a volume of 162.1 cubic units.

In the course of making the object 4 times larger, we have made the volume increase by 64-fold.

This mathmatical relationship is yet another outgrowth of immutable laws of physics.

Given a steady rate or even fairly consistant rate of formation, as the size of any given formation doubles, the time it took to form that object increased by a factor of EIGHT.

Since this is your "area of strength" mouse, perhaps you can get me the phsyical measurements of those 40 year old stalactites.
Then we can find the physical measurement of a really large one, and we can see this in action.

If it is the case that really really large stalactites only formed over 10,000 years, then mouse, you are essentially telling me one of the following happened:

The rate of time passing in these caves was different from the rest of the universe.

The laws of chemistry were different in these caves than from the rest of the universe.

The laws of volume are today different than those of the rest of the universe.

Which law of phsyics are you disputing mouse?

[LnGrrrR]

Given a steady rate or even fairly consistant rate of formation, as the size of any given formation doubles, the time it took to form that object increased by a factor of EIGHT.


Which is why there's no Giant-Man in real life... sadly. :(

[TheManFromAcme]

Right, but you're only following the Commandments because you believe in the religion. That would make it a custom of that religion, unique to that religion. (Well, technically, unique to the Judeo-Christian religion.)

A command is nearly the same as a custom/tradition in this sense. Look at the rules that Jewish people abide by, for instance, only eating things that are "kosher". It is a command for them, and it is also tradition/custom. The same goes with circumcision.


Good point.

Gotta joke for you Ln, regarding circumcisions;

"Did you hear about the Rabbi who performed free circumcisions?
All he took was tips.

:lol

[LnGrrrR]

"Did you hear about the Rabbi who performed free circumcisions?
All he took was tips.

:lol

Nice. :D

Definitely made me chuckle. I'm a huge fan of cheesy puns; I'll have to try to remember this one.

[mouse]

:lmao "my stronger areas"

Ah mouse, yer killin' me.

One long rambling dodge after another, true to form.

The answer to my question is yes, both the rate and amounts of minerals dissolving in water will vary, depending on the temperature and pressure.

"the books clearly read" is another vaguely supported statement. Which books? (I am fairly sure you have an answer for this one, yay)

The fact that you have some of these formation that formed in 40 years in no way conclusively demonstrates that all of the formations formed in short periods of time.

It's a bit like showing me a picture of a black cat and scoffing at the existance of white cats.

"The books clearly said that some cats are white, so therefore this picture of a black cat disproves the existance of white cats!"

At best you have a case of some sloppy editing in a statement "stalactites take millions of years to form" should then be modified to say "some stalactities take millions of years to form"

One of the problems you face in trying to show that even really large stalactites are "only a few thoustand years old" is that volume is a cubic measurement.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/08/09/Cobb.stalactite.jpg

The implication of this is that when the volume gets larger, the amount of time required to form that thing gets larger by cubed (time*time*time) factors.

http://z.about.com/d/math/1/5/t/L/conerr.jpg

For example:
A cone with a base radius of about 1.1 units, and 2 units long has a volume of about 2.53 cubic units

Double the measurements and you get a massive increase in the volume.

A cone with a base radius of 2.2 units, and 4 units long has a volume of 20.26 cubic units.

Double the measurements yet again and you get yet another massive increase in the volume.

A cone with a base radius of 4.4 units, and 8 units long has a volume of 162.1 cubic units.

In the course of making the object 4 times larger, we have made the volume increase by 64-fold.

This mathmatical relationship is yet another outgrowth of immutable laws of physics.

Given a steady rate or even fairly consistant rate of formation, as the size of any given formation doubles, the time it took to form that object increased by a factor of EIGHT.

Since this is your "area of strength" mouse, perhaps you can get me the phsyical measurements of those 40 year old stalactites.
Then we can find the physical measurement of a really large one, and we can see this in action.

If it is the case that really really large stalactites only formed over 10,000 years, then mouse, you are essentially telling me one of the following happened:

The rate of time passing in these caves was different from the rest of the universe.

The laws of chemistry were different in these caves than from the rest of the universe.

The laws of volume are today different than those of the rest of the universe.

Which law of phsyics are you disputing mouse?



I don't have to dispute anyone, I just point out that you and many teachers and professors in class are misinforming the students. What is so hard in saying..."Some stalactites are believed to be millions of years old but many have been found to be 40 to 100 years old" let the class decide for themselves who is spot on and who is off the mark.

Just like Evolution, why not give the students more than one option? why must it be we evolved from hot soup,then snails,to fish,then monkey then man. why can't the text books say there are other explanations?

Did you know there are many countries in this world that don't believe or teach evolution and most countries have no idea who Darwin even is.

I thought science was world wide? I thought the law of gravity was for all humans not just for Americans. Why is Evolution and Darwin (a theory made into a religion) Taylor made for Americans?

Just like John Smith and the Mormons.


oh and another thing. don't try and show me a very large stalactite and try and make it look like a million years old. If you knew anything about minerals you would know they don't take that long to form something long or big.



This mineral fountain was made in 1903 when a man stuck a pipe in the ground and allowed it to drip over a just a few years.

http://img2.photographersdirect.com/img/21621/wm/pd1541586.jpg

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Mouse, why the fuck is stalactite/mite growth evidence for a young earth? It's a simple physical-chemical deposition process that can occur very quickly or very slowly. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Why don't you take a Geology 101 course at your local university. That will teach you a little about the last 500 million years or so of geology on the planet. Then we'll talk. But of course you won't do that because you'd be subjecting yourself to a massive bout of cognitive dissonance - where your beliefs are contradicted by the physical and observable evidence (gathered independently by millions of people over the last few centuries, so you can forget grand conspiracies).

As for countries that don't teach evolution, please make a list. I bet it consists entirely of fundamentalist nations. You won't find a modern democracy on the list.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Just like Evolution, why not give the students more than one option? why must it be we evolved from hot soup,then snails,to fish,then monkey then man. why can't the text books say there are other explanations?

This is very simple - no-one is saying you can't talk about alternatives during religious instruction, but you should not discuss what cannot be proven in a science class. 'Intelligent design' cannot be proven because it relies on a grand creator for which there is no evidence. This point has already been fought in courts across your own country and lost. ID is NOT a scientific theory - science must be TESTABLE, and ID, something that relies on faith, cannot be tested.

OTOH, Darwinian evolution is being tested every day in numerous scientific disciplines from paleontology to ecology to genetics. It has a huge cannon of evidence to support it.

Do whatever you like, but to pretend that your faith is somehow scientific is absurd.

[RandomGuy]

Here is what an actual scientist says, and be warned he uses chemistry and shit to make his point, so don't let your eyes glaze over too much.

My favorite bit: "The chemistry of all this is not particularly complex and is very well understood."

--by everbody except the people that mouse believes are telling him the truth about "what geologists say".





How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
by Dave E. Matson
Copyright © 1994-2002

Young-earth "proof" #22: The largest stalactites and flowstones could have formed in about 4400 years.

Since when is the age of the earth related to the age of a stalactite? If, in fact, a fat stalactite can form in 4400 years, so what? However, it does seems a bit suspicious that the minimum age given by Dr. Hovind is exactly that allotted to the post-flood period. Such a figure begs investigation, but let's take first things first.

Did you ever wonder how a cave, like Carlsbad Caverns, formed? It wasn't dissolved out by rushing flood waters, being that calcium carbonate (the substance of limestone) is less soluble in water than granite! (Loftin, 1988, p.22). How many gorgeous caves have you seen carved out of granite by rushing flood waters? Nor was it carved out of soft sediment. The whole thing would have caved in like a cold soufflé long before the job was finished. Nor was it eroded out by rapid, underground rivers and streams. Vadose caves are formed in that manner, but their shape is very unlike the phreatic (solution) caves such as Carlsbad Caverns and Mammoth Cave. Diagrams of phreatic caves often resemble city maps with lots of streets intersecting at right angles. Hamilton Cave, in West Virginia, is an excellent example. You don't get that kind of pattern with river or stream erosion. "Streams often flow through caves and contribute very slightly to the process, but this is almost always a later, secondary development." (Loftin, 1988, p.22).

Carlsbad Caverns was eaten out, cubic inch by cubic inch, by carbonic acid which turned the calcium carbonate to calcium bicarbonate. (The Caverns are unusual in that sulfuric acid has also played a leading role.) Calcium bicarbonate dissolves easily in water and is carried away. Carbonic acid is a weak acid produced when carbon dioxide combines with water. Almost all the carbon dioxide involved in this cave-making process comes from "...the activity of plants and animals in the soil rather than from the air (Moore and Nicholas, 1964, p.7)." (Loftin, 1988, p.22). The atmospheric concentration is way too low to be of much use. It is the metabolism of plants and soil organisms which build up the carbon dioxide concentration to a point where it can do some good.

As rainwater percolates through the soil it combines with the carbon dioxide to form the weak, carbonic acid which becomes part of the general flow of water through the limestone. Cracks deep within the limestone are widened over the ages, and underwater caverns are eventually formed. Most of the etching action apparently goes on just below the water level, thus the tendency for phreatic caves to have distinct levels.

Before any stalactites, stalagmites, or flowstones can form, the water must be drained out of that portion of the cave. In allowing 4400 years for the largest stalactites and flowstones, Dr. Hovind has neglected to allot any time at all to the cave-making process! In his scenario the oldest stalactites start forming right after Noah's flood drains away. Sorry, but I don't buy the implied claim that Carlsbad Caverns was deposited by that flood! I know that Noah's flood can perform miracles in the hands of scientific creationists, but I absolutely draw the line there! The cave-making process requires a whole lot more time than the stalactite-making process.


The [stalactites, stalagmites, and flowstones] are formed when calcium carbonate in solution in the water is deposited out, but this process is not one of simple evaporation. The air in most caves, even in the most arid regions, is highly moist; therefore, when water soaking down from above reaches the air of the open cave, it does not lose water to the air and leave minerals behind. This is clearly shown by the composition of the deposits, which consists of almost pure calcium carbonate. When the slightly acid water with its dissolved minerals meets the moist air of the cave, a minute amount of the carbon dioxide leaves the water and goes into the air. This process is almost exactly the reverse of the major process of cave formation, for, when carbon dioxide goes into the air, the solution becomes supersaturated and a small amount of calcium carbonate is precipitated out (Moore and Nicholas, 1964).

(Loftin, 1988, p.23)

Needless to say, this is not the kind of operation you can turn up the spigot on. A rapid flow of water would simply carry the minerals with it, not to mention diluting the carbonic acid which is produced in limited quantities. We're dealing with a drip-by-drip scenario.

Creationists sometimes point to some very rapid accumulations which superficially resemble the calcium carbonate formations in caves.


For example, on the mortared brickwork of old forts and places of that sort, formations which look to the naked eye like stalactites and stalagmites sometimes form in less than one hundred years. However, those formations are composed of gypsum, which is a salt of calcium sulfate. Unlike calcium carbonate, gypsum is moderately soluble in water, which means that transport and recrystallization can take place much more rapidly (White, 1976, p.304). There is a whole class of cave deposits called evaporite minerals which consist of those minerals which dissolve readily in water. As might be expected, these formations are ephemeral when compared to the carbonates which form all the really large and impressive cave formations. The chemistry of all this is not particularly complex and is very well understood.
(Loftin, 1988, p.23)

Here's some more information. This point is particularly important since creationists love to point out such examples.


Many people have found that stalactites forming on concrete or mortar outdoors may grow several centimeters each year. Stalactite growth in these environments, however, bears little relation to that in caves, because it does not proceed by the same chemical reaction. Although cement and mortar are made from limestone, the same rock in which the caves form, the carbon dioxide has been driven off by heating. When water is added to these materials, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times as soluble in water as calcite is. A calcium hydroxide solution absorbs carbon dioxide rapidly from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate, and produce stalactites. This is why stalactites formed by solution from cement and mortar grow much faster than those in caves. To illustrate, in 1925, a concrete bridge was constructed inside Postojna Cave, Yugoslavia, and adjacent to it an artificial tunnel was opened. By 1956, tubular stalactites 45 centimeters long were growing from the bridge, while stalactites of the same age in the tunnel were less than 1 centimeter long.

(Moore and Sullivan, 1978, p.47)

By the way, geologic opinion holds that the Carlsbad Caverns began to be etched out 60 million years ago. The present chambers were excavated from 1 to 8 million years ago, depending on their depth. As for stalactites, the Bulletin of the National Speleological Society (37: p.21, 1975) gave their observed growth rates as ranging from 0.1 to 10 centimeters per thousand years. An exceptional spurt of growth might exceed the higher rate for short periods of time, but it could no more be maintained than a winning streak at the Las Vegas poker tables. Moore and Sullivan (1978, p.47) give an upper average rate of "only a little more" than 0.1 mm/year [10 centimeters or 2.5 inches per thousand years]. Stalagmites grow at a similar rate. Areas with a lot of overgrowth and tropical temperatures would have the higher rates. Thus, a 60-foot giant, as might be found in Carlsbad Caverns, would have a minimum estimated age of about 180,000 years

Fornaca and Rinaldi (1968) used the (thorium-230) Th-230 (thorium-232) Th-232 ratio method to date an old stalagmite, probably in Europe, and got an age of 180,000 years for its formation. That stalagmite had stopped growing 90,000 years ago, as indicated by the radiometric dating method, so its true age is 270,000 years. A flowstone in the famous Romanelli cave of Apulia was dated at 40,000 years. Thus, an extrapolation of the observed rates of stalactite formation and the radiometric dating method (using thorium) put us in the same ball park for large cave formations. Dr. Hovind's figure of 4400 years for the oldest stalactites is much too modest!

As it turns out, a careful study of the ratios of Oxygen-18 and Oxygen-16 allows us to estimate the temperature at the time a particular layer was added to a stalactite or stalagmite. Studies of this type have built up an interesting picture:


As we go to press, research is very active in this field. In the latest results, speleothems indicate that the average surface temperature in mid-latitude cave regions reached a peak 3 degrees C above the present about 8000 years ago, that it was as much as 10 degrees C colder than at present from 15,000 to 80,000 years ago, warmer than now from 80,000 to 120,000 years ago, colder from 120,000 to 170,000 years ago, warmer from 170,000 to 200,000 years ago, and colder for an undetermined period before that.

(Moore and Sullivan, 1978, p.65)

What we have here is a remarkable record of the last three advances of the present Ice Age! The warm period of 80,000-120,000 years is centered on the Last Interglacial (Ipswichian) interlude; the warm period of 170,000-200,000 years ago takes in the Penultimate Interglaciation (Hoxnian) interlude. The cold period of 15,000-80,000 years starts near the known beginning of the last ice advance, which corresponds to our Main Wisconsinan glaciation. Is that just a coincidence? This data is also beautifully reflected in the study of foraminifera in deep-sea cores (Strahler, 1987, p.252). Another coincidence?

Dr. Hovind claims that there was only one glacial episode which began after the earth had a collision with an ice-packed comet. Overlooking the numerous impossibilities involved in that scenario, we might ask if there is any direct evidence for more than one glacial advance. The answer is a resounding "Yes!"


But as the study of the glacial deposits was carried westward into Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, two distinct sheets of drift were found at many places to be separated by old soil, beds of peat, or layers of till that had been leached and decayed (Fig. 18-10). Here the uppermost drift, like that in New England, appeared fresh, but the buried drift sheet showed the effect of chemical decay and was obviously much the older. Moreover, in places, the soil and peat, or gravels, between two such sheets of till included fossil wood, leaves, or bones, recording the existence of animals and plants of temperate climate. Thus it came to be realized, about 1870, that a continental ice sheet had developed more than once, and that warm interglacial ages had intervened.

(Dunbar & Waage, 1969, pp.434-435)

In time it was found that there were several major advances of the present Ice Age, and that major fluctuations within these advances had occurred. The following table lists the approximate times of the glaciations in North America during the last two million years. These periods match a study of ocean-water temperatures interpreted from data of foraminifera in deep-sea cores (Strahler, 1987, p.252).

As you can see, various evidences for an old Earth tie together. From a study of oxygen isotopes in stalactites we got the last few periods of glacial advance. Studies of the foraminifera of deep-sea cores support the findings gleaned from stalactites. The study of foraminifera also supply information to flesh out the periods of the last three major glacial episodes. That there is more than one major glacial episode is, in turn, supported by the remains of temperate forests and animal fossils found between some of the sheets of drift, the bottom sheet showing a sharp increase in age as indicated by chemical weathering and other observations.

In passing, let me point out that clear evidence for glaciation exists as far back as the Precambrian. Great eras of glaciation have come and gone long before the present polar caps were ever established! (See Topic A5).

We can forget about Dr. Hovind's simple snowball theory of the Ice Age. It can't begin to explain the facts that we now have.

http://www.evolution-creationism.us/young_earth/stalactite_formation_rates.html

[RandomGuy]

The [stalactites, stalagmites, and flowstones] are formed when calcium carbonate in solution in the water is deposited out, but this process is not one of simple evaporation. The air in most caves, even in the most arid regions, is highly moist; therefore, when water soaking down from above reaches the air of the open cave, it does not lose water to the air and leave minerals behind. This is clearly shown by the composition of the deposits, which consists of almost pure calcium carbonate. When the slightly acid water with its dissolved minerals meets the moist air of the cave, a minute amount of the carbon dioxide leaves the water and goes into the air. This process is almost exactly the reverse of the major process of cave formation, for, when carbon dioxide goes into the air, the solution becomes supersaturated and a small amount of calcium carbonate is precipitated out (Moore and Nicholas, 1964).

I actually learned something. These things are not formed by evaporative processes, as I had kind of assumed in my mind. I also learned about the formation of some types of caves.

YAY. Thanks mouse! Without your pestering, I would have never stumbled across this. I mean that very sincerely.

[RandomGuy]

Lastly in all this, you will note that the people who show the 40 year old stalactites to scoff at "geologists, who claim stalactites to be millions of years old", never really talk about the chemistry of the formations they picture.

Wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that they don't know how the things in their pictures are formed, or if they do, they are deliberately not telling that part of it to hide the truth?

Which do you think it is, mouse, ignorance or duplicity?

[mouse]

Mouse, why the fuck is stalactite/mite growth evidence for a young earth? It's a simple physical-chemical deposition process that can occur very quickly or very slowly. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Why don't you take a Geology 101 course at your local university. That will teach you a little about the last 500 million years or so of geology on the planet. Then we'll talk. But of course you won't do that because you'd be subjecting yourself to a massive bout of cognitive dissonance - where your beliefs are contradicted by the physical and observable evidence (gathered independently by millions of people over the last few centuries, so you can forget grand conspiracies).

As for countries that don't teach evolution, please make a list. I bet it consists entirely of fundamentalist nations. You won't find a modern democracy on the list.




Ruff you don't have the class and patients to debate me and others in the forum. you seem to have a short fuse, you take things personal, and when your not tooting your horn about all the education you have?
your rambling in areas that are not necessary and do not add to the topic.

but to answer some of your rant.....





Mouse, why the fuck is stalactite/mite growth evidence for a young earth?

When did I say the earth was young? I just said you and all your educated Scientist buddy have no proof it's 4 Billion years old that is pure speculation.




It's a simple physical-chemical deposition process that can occur very quickly or very slowly. It's absolutely irrelevant.

The same "simple physical-chemical deposition process" that was used to say in the school text books Stalactites take millions of years to form? Why can't you and your super intelligent buddies add the pictures of the subway and say in some cases stalactites can form in just 40 years? What are you scared of?



Why don't you take a Geology 101 course at your local university. That will teach you a little about the last 500 million years or so of geology on the planet.

Why don't you live in Texas for 20 years before you become a Spurs fan?

Why don't you get married 4 times before you give out advice to the young teens in the forum about relationships?

Why don't you take a two year collage course in fashion design before you tell your girlfriend what dress to wear?

You think a paper in a frame hanging in your wall makes you special?
you want a list of well respected people who we look up to that never finished high school?

Stop tooting your horn about all your education you have and just answer the dam questions without acting like some Aussie tree hugging Foster drinking homo.


I keep it simple stop lying to the kids in school what is so hard to understand?

I don't give a rats ass how many courses you took when you was living on the top of Mt Kilimanjaro with professor whoopee studying the plant life of the very rare Gardenia tubifera kula flower.

So get off your master degree white horse and try and keep it real brah!

simple questions need simple answers. I don't care who wins I want the lies to stop.



Then we'll talk. But of course you won't do that because you'd be subjecting yourself to a massive bout of cognitive dissonance - where your beliefs are contradicted by the physical and observable evidence (gathered independently by millions of people over the last few centuries, so you can forget grand conspiracies).

Well if you knew this already you shouldn't waste your time with me!




As for countries that don't teach evolution, please make a list. I bet it consists entirely of fundamentalist nations. You won't find a modern democracy on the list.

Modern democracy, you mean brained-washed to think like us? So that is why we are in Iraq..... we want them to worship Darwin?

Now it all makes sense I can see why our troops are dying its to help spread the lies of Evolution. (sorry I said our troops, there could be some Aussie's in Iraq also) the ones who didn't go to collage for 11 years just to get on a message board just to be humiliated by a pot smoking midget.

[mouse]

Lastly in all this, you will note that the people who show the 40 year old stalactites to scoff at "geologists, who claim stalactites to be millions of years old", never really talk about the chemistry of the formations they picture.

Wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that they don't know how the things in their pictures are formed, or if they do, they are deliberately not telling that part of it to hide the truth?

Which do you think it is, mouse, ignorance or duplicity?


I really can't speak for others. Some poeple have an agenda they want to prove the earth is young to help support the Bible. I on the other hand don't care about the Bible I do care about some young kid who goes to collage and becomes a scientist just to tell me I came from hot suop 4 billion years ago.

We live in a world where we can't even cure cancer or keep from fighting each other like a bunch of savages. We can't even figure out how to feed the everyone even though we have more food than we can eat. And you really think these same assholes are smart enough to know exactly what took place billions of years ago from looking at old fossils and arctic ice?

I don't mind people supporting the Scientist be lets be real, they are humans and have made many mistakes and miscalculations. it's the people like Ruff who are very bias and will never admit they may be wrong, it's guys like him that make the rest of the intelligent people on earth look bad. Who wants to see Darwin and the scientist's get their salads tossed daily? ....not me....

[mouse]

One of my main problems with this whole schtick is that I haven't seen a single "textbook" or claim from a reputable geologist that "stalactites are millions of years old".


Elementary school book.

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

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/book2.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/book4.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/book6.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/book8.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/book-8.jpg

[tlongII]

mouse getting pwned again. nothing to see here.

[mouse]

mouse getting pwned again. nothing to see here.

First off, how do you know people don't want to see me pwn3d?
I love topics people get p3wnd. They are some of the most entertaining like when agel_luv gets attacked by the Sinners or when Ruff gets taint ripped open those are topics worth reading sometimes and you want to deprive the Club poster of that right and luxury? just because your like me and have no one to spoon with tonight there is really no need for the rude gestapo treatment,this is not Germany and I am not a Jew

Second ,why would you make a topic if you don't want others to read it?

And third, in order for you to get posters to read your reply of you telling them to move along, I'm afraid your in a catch 22 since the only way they can read what you are saying, don't they kinda have to first open the topic and if so, wouldn't that really increase the lurkers and therefore bring more traffic of posters to read your topic that you want to move along in, wouldn't that sorta defeat the whole purpose of the post you just made?

[mouse]

I will say this though, after watching Avatar you Darwin lovers have to now act like you don't like the movie or think it could never happen because if you do then you support a creator,

that movie was a combination of Riven and Mechwarrior,with a touch of brave heart.


http://www.gossipcraze.com/_mm/_d/_ext/39528/big_Mechwarrior%20501.jpg
http://www.mobiletopsoft.com/images/news/riven_coverartwork.jpg
http://www.fisicx.com/exile/images/exile042.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

I will say this though, after watching Avatar you Darwin lovers have to now act like you don't like the movie or think it could never happen because if you do then you support a creator,

You make no sense.

That's like saying if you like South Park you can't believe in God, because they make fun of God.

[RandomGuy]

Lastly in all this, you will note that the people who show the 40 year old stalactites to scoff at "geologists, who claim stalactites to be millions of years old", never really talk about the chemistry of the formations they picture.

Wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that they don't know how the things in their pictures are formed, or if they do, they are deliberately not telling that part of it to hide the truth?

Which do you think it is, mouse, ignorance or duplicity?



I really can't speak for others. Some poeple have an agenda they want to prove the earth is young to help support the Bible. I on the other hand don't care about the Bible I do care about some young kid who goes to collage and becomes a scientist just to tell me I came from hot suop 4 billion years ago.

We live in a world where we can't even cure cancer or keep from fighting each other like a bunch of savages. We can't even figure out how to feed the everyone even though we have more food than we can eat. And you really think these same assholes are smart enough to know exactly what took place billions of years ago from looking at old fossils and arctic ice?

I don't mind people supporting the Scientist be lets be real, they are humans and have made many mistakes and miscalculations. it's the people like Ruff who are very bias and will never admit they may be wrong, it's guys like him that make the rest of the intelligent people on earth look bad. Who wants to see Darwin and the scientist's get their salads tossed daily? ....not me....

That's not really an answer to my question.

I have out right proven to you that the people with the 40 year old stalactite pictures have ONLY TOLD YOU HALF THE TRUTH.

They showed you a picture of something that looks like a cave stalactite, but DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT IT WAS FORMED DIFFERENTLY.

Either:
They are ignorant of the fact that of different rates/methods of formation,

Or:
They know about it and deliberately withheld the fact of the different rates/methods of formation

What do you think the reason they only told you half the truth is, mouse, ignorance of science or duplicity?

[RandomGuy]

I really can't speak for others. Some poeple have an agenda they want to prove the earth is young to help support the Bible. I on the other hand don't care about the Bible I do care about some young kid who goes to collage and becomes a scientist just to tell me I came from hot suop 4 billion years ago...

The weight of evidence for an old earth and an old universe is incontrovertible, and overwhelming. There is evidence from multiple fields of science, all supporting each other, and all ultimately backed by solid princples of chemistry and physics.

In case you didn't actually read the whole long article I posted, not only were the stalactites provably much longer lived, the people showing you those 40 year old pictures never really addressed that the chemical processes that form some caves take similarly long periods of time, if not longer.

You also imply that only SOME of the people attempting to prove a young earth having an agenda to support ONE interpretation of the Bible. That is untrue, it is ALL of them that have the exact same agenda.

Some of them are more honest about that agenda than others, but they ALL have the same agenda.

That agenda is attempting to dissuade people that their dogma, i.e. the earth is young because they literally interpret the Bible, is not provably false.

Doubt is the enemy of belief, and provable facts that contradict dogma is the surest way to introduce doubt. Doubt this therefore seen as a tool of evil, of Satan.

If you are fighting Satan, what is a little sin of lying a little? It then becomes so easy to rationalize lies and illogical statements.

These are the people you are putting your faith in to tell you the truth. People that have the utmost motivation NOT to tell the truth.

[mouse]

You make no sense.

IBM said the same thing when the mouse was first introduced.



That's like saying if you like South Park you can't believe in God, because they make fun of God.

First off I never said you can or can't do anything. I said the Evolutionist/hard core Darwin supporters have to criticize the movie and say man can not be created by someone intelligent it goes against their beliefs.

It blows the snail to man theory out of the water man must evolve from monkey and apes anything else is Intelligent design and they can't support that.

Look pal, you would have to know a little about Evolution and creation in order to understand my point and frankly I don't have time to explain it to you.

[mouse]

What do you think the reason they only told you half the truth is, mouse, ignorance of science or duplicity?

Since I have not researched the photo or the history of it I may not reply just yet on why they left out certain elements of the photo.

I will as soon as i can and if you have any links you could save me sometime.

But keep in mind that is only one of many stalactites photos that are popping up all over the world. The point was that Science in the text books only give on side of all issues they never mention an alternative solution.


They don't start a book saying many years ago, or thousands of years ago,

they flat out say 4 Billion years ago ....like these Jesus haters really tink with carbon dating and fossils can tells us not only how old the earth is but what took place. How in the HELL is anyone going to tells us about the big bang billions of years ago when we can't even figure out how stone henge and the pyramids were built?

How in the name of all that is holy can any man with a straight face try to explain to me what happened 4 billion years ago when that same man can't even tell me what the Antikythera mechanism is it is only dates back to 100 BC. Scientist can't explain all kinds of shit that has been around for only 100 to 1000 years but we know in great detail what took place 4 Billion years ago? Come on already stop the bullshit.

You want to go into carbon dating? I have my list of scientific fuck ups ready just say the word.

[tlongII]

mouse, you keep saying 4 billion years ago. It is actually closer to 4.5 billion years ago. Just a heads up... :tu

[Blake]

How in the name of all that is holy can any man with a straight face try to explain to me what happened 4 billion years ago when that same man can't even tell me what the Antikythera mechanism is it is only dates back to 100 BC.

Because the same man is not an expert in how that mechanism might work.

That same man, however, did tell you it dates back to 150-100 BC though because that's what that same man does for a living.


Come on already stop the bullshit.

exactly

[mouse]

mouse, you keep saying 4 billion years ago. It is actually closer to 4.5 billion years ago. Just a heads up... :tu


Why not just round it off to 5 Billion?

[admiralsnackbar]

Why not just round it off to 5 Billion?

Because there's no scientific basis for doing so.

[mouse]

Because the same man is not an expert in how that mechanism might work.
That same man, however, did tell you it dates back to 150-100 BC though because that's what that same man does for a living.


And how did he find out this information a book? It's one thing to study old tools used in the BC era when you have the tool in your hand and you have many manuscripts of people who used such a tool.

But where is the manuscript of when the big bang took place that supports your theory of the earth being a ball of hot soup that cooled off after a few billion years then we crawled out of the slime grew legs swung from trees and became human? How do you become an expert on something your speculating about?


You want to tell me 2000 years ago men used to sit down to pee I may believe you. But don't try and tell me what took place billions of years ago save that shit for the Sheeple of the club.

[RandomGuy]

Some poeple have an agenda they want to prove the earth is young to help support the Bible. I on the other hand don't care about the Bible...


these Jesus haters really [think] with carbon dating and fossils can tells us not only how old the earth is.

Man, what people say in the heat of the moment tends to really reveal what is going on in their heads.

People who really, truly, "don't care about the Bible" don't tend to use phrases like "Jesus haters".

People who really, truly, "don't care about the Bible" don't tend to use phrases like "Darwinists" or "Darwin lovers".

Psychologists and linguists make much of how people self-identify with groups and prove group identity by using certain phrases, and in this case that is rather telling.

As with any creationist, you are disingenuious about your true motives.

I think, based on this, you are not attempting to further good science. You are attempting to disprove evidence that contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible you believe in.

That you aren't honest about that, also says volumes.

People like you don't want "alternative solutions" in textbooks. You want them scrubbed of anything that might vaguely hint at contradicting this belief in the literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. You would be perfectly happy if the book of Genesis was the only version of natural history taught in schools, without any mention of the alternative evidence showing the universe being billions of years old.

[mouse]

Because there's no scientific basis for doing so.

Are you sure? Are you saying Scientist are never wrong?
Take a deep breath: Believe it or not, scientists are not always right. We really put them up on a pedestal, though, don't we? We quote scientists as experts, buy things if they're "scientifically proven" to work better ... but scientists are human, too. It's just not fair to expect perfection out of them, is it? But come on, can't we at least ask for a reasonable level of competency?

Some examples.......................

The Earth Is the Center of the Universe
Chalk it up to humanity's collectively huge ego. Second-century astronomer Ptolemy's (blatantly wrong) Earth-centered model of the solar system didn't just stay in vogue for 20 or 30 years; it stuck around for a millennium and then some.

It wasn't until almost 1,400 years later that Copernicus published his heliocentric (sun-centered) model in 1543. Copernicus wasn't the first to suggest that the we orbited the sun, but his theory was the first to gain traction.

Ninety years after its publication, the Catholic Church was still clinging to the idea that we were at the center of it all and duking it out with Galileo over his defense of the Copernican view. Old habits die hard.


Germs in Surgery

Laugh or cry (take your pick), but up until the late 19th century, doctors didn't really see the need to wash their hands before picking up a scalpel.

The result? A lot of gangrene. Most early-19th century doctors tended to attribute contagion to "bad air" and blamed disease on imbalances of the "four humors" (that's blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile, in case you weren't familiar).

"Germ theory" (the revolutionary idea that germs cause disease) had been around for a while, but it wasn't till Louis Pasteur got behind it in the 1860s that people started listening. It took a while, but doctors like Joseph Lister eventually connected the dots and realized that hospitals and doctors had the potential to pass on life-threatening germs to patients.





DNA: Not So Important

DNA was discovered in 1869, but for a long time, it was kind of the unappreciated assistant: doing all the work with none of the credit, always overshadowed by its flashier protein counterparts.

Even after experiments in the middle part of the 20th century offered proof that DNA was indeed the genetic material, many scientists held firmly that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity. DNA, they thought, was just too simple to carry so much information.

It wasn't until Watson and Crick published their all-important double-helical model of the structure of DNA in 1953 that biologists finally started to understand how such a simple molecule could do so much. Perhaps they were confusing simplicity with elegance.



you want more?

[mouse]

Man, what people say in the heat of the moment tends to really reveal what is going on in their heads.

People who really, truly, "don't care about the Bible" don't tend to use phrases like "Jesus haters".

That's your opinion you missed my point.



People who really, truly, "don't care about the Bible" don't tend to use phrases like "Darwinists" or "Darwin lovers".

I use Darwin lovers , just like I use Bush lovers, coach Pop lovers...whats your point?


Psychologists and linguists make much of how people self-identify with groups and prove group identity by using certain phrases, and in this case that is rather telling.

As with any creationist, you are disingenuious about your true motives.

I think, based on this, you are not attempting to further good science. You are attempting to disprove evidence that contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible you believe in.

That you aren't honest about that, also says volumes.

People like you don't want "alternative solutions" in textbooks. You want them scrubbed of anything that might vaguely hint at contradicting this belief in the literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. You would be perfectly happy if the book of Genesis was the only version of natural history taught in schools, without any mention of the alternative evidence showing the universe being billions of years old.

You can put your religious spin on this it won't work all your doing is stalling time since you know no matter what you show me i will shoot it down.

I showed you many examples of how your Science gets shit wrong. I showed you how the text books lie. You want to play armchair psychiatrist go right ahead, I will move on to others who stick with the facts.

[admiralsnackbar]

Are you sure? Are you saying Scientist are never wrong?
Take a deep breath: Believe it or not, scientists are not always right. We really put them up on a pedestal, though, don't we? We quote scientists as experts, buy things if they're "scientifically proven" to work better ... but scientists are human, too. It's just not fair to expect perfection out of them, is it? But come on, can't we at least ask for a reasonable level of competency?

Some examples.......................

The Earth Is the Center of the Universe
Chalk it up to humanity's collectively huge ego. Second-century astronomer Ptolemy's (blatantly wrong) Earth-centered model of the solar system didn't just stay in vogue for 20 or 30 years; it stuck around for a millennium and then some.

It wasn't until almost 1,400 years later that Copernicus published his heliocentric (sun-centered) model in 1543. Copernicus wasn't the first to suggest that the we orbited the sun, but his theory was the first to gain traction.

Ninety years after its publication, the Catholic Church was still clinging to the idea that we were at the center of it all and duking it out with Galileo over his defense of the Copernican view. Old habits die hard.


Germs in Surgery

Laugh or cry (take your pick), but up until the late 19th century, doctors didn't really see the need to wash their hands before picking up a scalpel.

The result? A lot of gangrene. Most early-19th century doctors tended to attribute contagion to "bad air" and blamed disease on imbalances of the "four humors" (that's blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile, in case you weren't familiar).

"Germ theory" (the revolutionary idea that germs cause disease) had been around for a while, but it wasn't till Louis Pasteur got behind it in the 1860s that people started listening. It took a while, but doctors like Joseph Lister eventually connected the dots and realized that hospitals and doctors had the potential to pass on life-threatening germs to patients.





DNA: Not So Important

DNA was discovered in 1869, but for a long time, it was kind of the unappreciated assistant: doing all the work with none of the credit, always overshadowed by its flashier protein counterparts.

Even after experiments in the middle part of the 20th century offered proof that DNA was indeed the genetic material, many scientists held firmly that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity. DNA, they thought, was just too simple to carry so much information.

It wasn't until Watson and Crick published their all-important double-helical model of the structure of DNA in 1953 that biologists finally started to understand how such a simple molecule could do so much. Perhaps they were confusing simplicity with elegance.



you want more?

Of course science can and will be wrong. Unlike you, however, it always bases it's estimates on the best data and research available to it at the time.

(as an interesting aside that doesn't relate to the discussion, Ptolemy's astronomical theory was extremely more accurate than Galileo's)

[mouse]

Of course science can and will be wrong. Unlike you, however, it always bases it's estimates on the best data and research available to it at the time.


So you have loop hole? Anyone else is wrong they are full of shit. Your scientist are wrong it's (well given the data at the time)

what kind of punk ass shit is that? You guys need to move on to another debate, maybe health care or Gays in the military, something your well educated on before I really get going and pull out some shit not even Eisenstein can explain away.

[admiralsnackbar]

So you have loop hole? Anyone else is wrong they are full of shit. Your scientist are wrong it's (well given the data at the time)

what kind of punk ass shit is that? You guys need to move on to another debate, maybe health care or Gays in the military, something your well educated on before I really get going and pull out some shit not even Eisenstein can explain away.

Nigga please. "Punk ass" from the guy who can't concede he's wrong and hides his ignorance in streams of babble, cut-and-paste, hearsay, youtube... don't make me go on: this is one of my stronger subjects.

You purport to be so well educated in science and it's shortcomings, yet you also wear your pronounced lack of education or intellectual honesty as a badge of honor, to the point that you're scarcely able to understand even the most elementary examples presented to you, much less how they systematically explode your premises and assumptions. Just the fact that you think anyone is saying that science is always right reveals what a nitwit you are. Like I said, science may be wrong, but it always bases it's conclusions on the best evidence available. What do you base your conclusions on when you throw out science? Nonsense you pull out of your clown ass.

I know you troll to entertain yourself and I honestly appreciate the distraction on slow days at work, but don't you think it's depressing that any serious conversation you take part -- whatever the topic -- in ultimately ends with your interlocutors expressing pity for you, the endless hours you log on this board, and your subsistence on corn-nuts, beer, and pills?

[RandomGuy]

You can put your religious spin on this it won't work

The religious spin is all yours.

You are right to a point. As dishonest as you may or may not be about your ultimate motivations, they are irrelevant to how wrong you are about the science.

You do that all on your own. :p:

[RandomGuy]

So you have loop hole? Anyone else is wrong they are full of shit. Your scientist are wrong it's (well given the data at the time)

what kind of punk ass shit is that? You guys need to move on to another debate, maybe health care or Gays in the military, something your well educated on before I really get going and pull out some shit not even Eisenstein can explain away.

That is the way science works. Theory, experiment, then accept or reject the theory.

This is called a "null hypothesis" by the way.

That human understanding of the universe and the way it works in the past has been wrong does not mean that our understanding is inherently incorrect today.

That is really, really, REALLY flawed logic.

"You were wrong in the past when you said this revolver had a bullets in it. I pointed it at my head and pulled the trigger and it just went 'click', so I can do that repeatedly without worrying about it."

That argument is, by the way, yet another example of an "ad hominem" logical fallacy.

Science is, and does, come up with the best explanation to fit observed data.

That is what makes it so much better than a literal interpretation of Genesis, and that is why we can say with as much certainty as is possible to muster:

The universe, and the Earth are billions of years old.

It is the collection and summation of thousands and thousands of experiments by people over literally hundreds of years, all of which independently come to the same conclusion. It is a vast weight of evidence that you have yet to, despite your bravado, dent at all.

Against all of this data, the best you have is half-truths and logical fallacies.

[Blake]

You want to tell me 2000 years ago men used to sit down to pee I may believe you. But don't try and tell me what took place billions of years ago save that shit for the Sheeple of the club.

what makes 2000 years different for you than 4.5 billion years?

[mouse]

what makes 2000 years different for you than 4.5 billion years?

I am using my keyboard on another pc let me finish so I can get back to.

[admiralsnackbar]

what makes 2000 years different for you than 4.5 billion years?

And by the same token, what makes life ex nihilo and authored by a anthropomorphic deity less absurd than the idea that life/energy exists or is potential in all matter and that all matter has existed forever?

[Blake]

I am using my keyboard on another pc let me finish so I can get back to.

take your time.

[Blake]

And by the same token, what makes life ex nihilo and authored by a anthropomorphic deity less absurd than the idea that life/energy exists or is potential in all matter and that all matter has existed forever?

Intelligent design seems less absurd because we as humans create and design things all the time. We also have never witnessed abiogenesis in action.

Occam's razor seems to point to ID, imo.

[admiralsnackbar]

Intelligent design seems less absurd because we as humans create and design things all the time. We also have never witnessed abiogenesis in action.

Occam's razor seems to point to ID, imo.

On a level, I agree that makes more sense intuitively, but the fact is we don't actually make anything, we just re-shape and re-arrange it. In that way, we have nothing in common with God, if I'm being clear.

[Blake]

On a level, I agree that makes more sense intuitively, but the fact is we don't actually make anything, we just re-shape and re-arrange it. In that way, we have nothing in common with God, if I'm being clear.

Nothing in common with the God of the Bible, I'm guessing.

It depends on your belief of what God is or who the intelligent designer(s) is.

[admiralsnackbar]

Nothing in common with the God of the Bible, I'm guessing.

It depends on your belief of what God is or who the intelligent designer(s) is.

Touché.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Ruff you don't have the class and patients to debate me and others in the forum. you seem to have a short fuse, you take things personal, and when your not tooting your horn about all the education you have?
your rambling in areas that are not necessary and do not add to the topic.

but to answer some of your rant.....

When did I say the earth was young? I just said you and all your educated Scientist buddy have no proof it's 4 Billion years old that is pure speculation.

The same "simple physical-chemical deposition process" that was used to say in the school text books Stalactites take millions of years to form? Why can't you and your super intelligent buddies add the pictures of the subway and say in some cases stalactites can form in just 40 years? What are you scared of?

Why don't you live in Texas for 20 years before you become a Spurs fan?

Why don't you get married 4 times before you give out advice to the young teens in the forum about relationships?

Why don't you take a two year collage course in fashion design before you tell your girlfriend what dress to wear?

You think a paper in a frame hanging in your wall makes you special?
you want a list of well respected people who we look up to that never finished high school?

Stop tooting your horn about all your education you have and just answer the dam questions without acting like some Aussie tree hugging Foster drinking homo.

I keep it simple stop lying to the kids in school what is so hard to understand?

I don't give a rats ass how many courses you took when you was living on the top of Mt Kilimanjaro with professor whoopee studying the plant life of the very rare Gardenia tubifera kula flower.

So get off your master degree white horse and try and keep it real brah!

simple questions need simple answers. I don't care who wins I want the lies to stop.

Well if you knew this already you shouldn't waste your time with me!

Modern democracy, you mean brained-washed to think like us? So that is why we are in Iraq..... we want them to worship Darwin?

Now it all makes sense I can see why our troops are dying its to help spread the lies of Evolution. (sorry I said our troops, there could be some Aussie's in Iraq also) the ones who didn't go to collage for 11 years just to get on a message board just to be humiliated by a pot smoking midget.

You are such a fucking dipshit. I am not "tooting my horn" about my education, I'm suggesting you get one so that you understand the evidence. That way you wouldn't make such an arse of yourself by suggesting that scientists are "making it up".

As for not having the "class or patience" to debate people on the forum, I certainly do, but I don't see the point when most of those who pretend they are "debating" know very little about the evidence. What is the point in "debating" someone who is regurgitating questions that have already been settled?

I am not arguing that science is perfect and all-knowing - it certainly is NOT, it's a process of progressively testing and re-testing ideas and evidence to gain a better understanding of the physical world. But if you are going to ignore what is self-evident to those who actually know what they are talking about (ie. the thousands of scientists across the planet studying whatever topic it may be), then I don't see the point in "debating" you.

I also really appreciate the fact that you accuse me of having no class yet in just about every post you slate my country and call me a homosexual. Real class, mouse, just fucking top class. :rolleyes

As for this:

"Why can't you and your super intelligent buddies add the pictures of the subway and say in some cases stalactites can form in just 40 years? "

Can't you read? I already said they can form very quickly, in 40 years if you like, and I don't think you'll find a chemist or geologist who would disagree, so what the fuck are you talking about?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

If you want some starting points when talking about the age of the earth, learn about:
*radiometric dating (radioactive decay series, half-lives and concentrations of stable end products of a range of elements - over 40 different techniques used and they all come up with similar results)
*studies of rock strata (most of the planet has been mapped kms deep - England is especially interesting, as is the south cast of NSW)
*studies of geographical features (eg. mountain ranges, different kinds of valleys)
*fossils (how, for example, do you explain aquatic fossils in strata in the middle of continents, and even in the strata found in mountain ranges, if you believe in a young earth?).

There is so much physical, observable evidence out there and you seem to love to ignore it. Good luck with that.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Nigga please. "Punk ass" from the guy who can't concede he's wrong and hides his ignorance in streams of babble, cut-and-paste, hearsay, youtube... don't make me go on: this is one of my stronger subjects.

You purport to be so well educated in science and it's shortcomings, yet you also wear your pronounced lack of education or intellectual honesty as a badge of honor, to the point that you're scarcely able to understand even the most elementary examples presented to you, much less how they systematically explode your premises and assumptions. Just the fact that you think anyone is saying that science is always right reveals what a nitwit you are. Like I said, science may be wrong, but it always bases it's conclusions on the best evidence available. What do you base your conclusions on when you throw out science? Nonsense you pull out of your clown ass.

I know you troll to entertain yourself and I honestly appreciate the distraction on slow days at work, but don't you think it's depressing that any serious conversation you take part -- whatever the topic -- in ultimately ends with your interlocutors expressing pity for you, the endless hours you log on this board, and your subsistence on corn-nuts, beer, and pills?

BTW, thank you admiralsnackbar, that is an eloquent expression of exactly what I've been trying to say. Spot fucking on. :toast

[LnGrrrR]

Intelligent design seems less absurd because we as humans create and design things all the time. We also have never witnessed abiogenesis in action.

Occam's razor seems to point to ID, imo.

I would think that abiogenesis is less of a stretch than an unseen "creator", personally. YMMV.

[mouse]

take your time.

Poor guy he is just now getting online, he has a 633MHZ PC with 64 mb of ram.
He is an old guy like me, he knows his electric and plumbing but he is messy.
He is re-wiring the whole house there is Sheetrock dust and pink insulation all over the place. These guys are messy as hell.. Why would you just tear up all the walls and ceilings all you have to do is cut out the section you need to run the wire. I have been using the PC in the main office and I try not to have ST or my favorite torrent site on the screen. I kinda want them to think I am busy working.

Here are a few pics.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Picture132.jpg

Instead of crawling through the attic they made a shortcut.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Picture130.jpg

Anyway let me try and clean my room so I can pick up where I left off proving you Darwin lovers wrong.

[Blake]

I would think that abiogenesis is less of a stretch than an unseen "creator", personally. YMMV.

I guess when I said "abiogenesis" I was really thinking matter springing from non matter...

that is, unless matter has always been around

[Blake]

Anyway let me try and clean my room so I can pick up where I left off proving you Darwin lovers wrong.

we already all know to a variable degree what you will post next.

no rush.

[mouse]

In that case I will read more and post less.

[Fpoonsie]

[sigh]

[SpursGirl21]

[sigh]


Is that an alone sigh?

:toast

[LnGrrrR]

I guess when I said "abiogenesis" I was really thinking matter springing from non matter...

that is, unless matter has always been around

I believe the Big Bang Theory doesn't postulate matter from non-matter. Rather, the theory goes that all matter was supercondensed.

[DarkReign]

I believe the Big Bang Theory doesn't postulate matter from non-matter. Rather, the theory goes that all matter was supercondensed.

E = mc² postulates that matter is created from pure energy. Moments/minutes after the BB, energy was plentiful, but atoms (ie matter) hadnt been created.

It was too hot, too dense.

As it expanded, and therefore cooled, particles of energy (electrons, neutrons, etc) could coalesce into the basic elements we know and love today. Helium, Hydrogen and Lithium (iirc?).

The rest just takes time, chance and gravity.

[Blake]

I believe the Big Bang Theory doesn't postulate matter from non-matter. Rather, the theory goes that all matter was supercondensed.

what do you think sparked the big bang?

[tlongII]

what do you think sparked the big bang?

I'm guessing that God farted.

[it's me]

Come on people….. they’ve been finding the “missing link” for centuries now….. that shit don’t exist

[The Reckoning]

its alot more than that. you still have to factor in dark energy and matter, which complicates things well beyond the realm of modern physics. look at Einstein's cosmological constant. we still need a theory of quantum gravity too...

[LnGrrrR]

E = mc² postulates that matter is created from pure energy. Moments/minutes after the BB, energy was plentiful, but atoms (ie matter) hadnt been created.

It was too hot, too dense.

As it expanded, and therefore cooled, particles of energy (electrons, neutrons, etc) could coalesce into the basic elements we know and love today. Helium, Hydrogen and Lithium (iirc?).

The rest just takes time, chance and gravity.

Thanks for the clarification DR! :toast

[LnGrrrR]

what do you think sparked the big bang?

I have no clue, and right now I'm of the belief that the answer is beyond our ability to determine scientifically, and is moreso a philosophical question.

But if you're asking it as a comparison between self-starting Big Bang vs creator-started Big Bang, I'd ask the obvious question...

What started the Creator?

There's also the theory that the universe expands, the contracts, then expands, etc etc. I have no clue which theory is correct, and it's low on my totem pole of philosophical things to figure out. :)

[The Reckoning]

I have no clue, and right now I'm of the belief that the answer is beyond our ability to determine scientifically, and is moreso a philosophical question.

But if you're asking it as a comparison between self-starting Big Bang vs creator-started Big Bang, I'd ask the obvious question...

What started the Creator?

There's also the theory that the universe expands, the contracts, then expands, etc etc. I have no clue which theory is correct, and it's low on my totem pole of philosophical things to figure out. :)

its the arrival and leave of dark energy, which is about as consistent as quantum physics = not at all.

if you're implying there was a time before the Creator then youre philosophically (and scientifically) flawed because time is just another substance of the universe that did not come into being until it was created.

[Blake]

I have no clue, and right now I'm of the belief that the answer is beyond our ability to determine scientifically, and is moreso a philosophical question.

But if you're asking it as a comparison between self-starting Big Bang vs creator-started Big Bang, I'd ask the obvious question...

What started the Creator?

that's one of the obvious questions to be sure.

[Blake]

if you're implying there was a time before the Creator then youre philosophically (and scientifically) flawed because time is just another substance of the universe that did not come into being until it was created.

I don't see any philosophical problems with believing time existed before God.

You are assuming God has been around forever.

[admiralsnackbar]

if you're implying there was a time before the Creator then youre philosophically (and scientifically) flawed because time is just another substance of the universe that did not come into being until it was created.
No offense, but you're assuming time (and/or all other dimensions) were created and haven't always been. There's no reason to do that.

Edit***************
Oops. Kewpie doll for Blake.

[The Reckoning]

I don't see any philosophical problems with believing time existed before God.

You are assuming God has been around forever.


einstein postulated that spacetime was created with the Big Bang, so don't take it up with me but with science.

attaway to jump to conclusions about my post. i said the Creator. a "creator" could be any phenomena like striking a match, thinking a thought, or like Tlong said, farting (though i doubt it)- that would set off a chain reaction.


No offense, but you're assuming time (and/or all other dimensions) were created and haven't always been. There's no reason to do that.

soooo...i do have good reason to believe that time was created with the big bang until science can find a better alternative to the theory of general relativity and back it up with substantial evidence. until then, that's what i believe.

[admiralsnackbar]

einstein postulated that spacetime was created with the Big Bang, so don't take it up with me but with science.

attaway to jump to conclusions about my post. i said the Creator. a "creator" could be any phenomena like striking a match, thinking a thought, or like Tlong said, farting (though i doubt it)- that would set off a chain reaction.



soooo...i do have good reason to believe that time was created with the big bang until science can find a better alternative to the theory of general relativity and back it up with substantial evidence. until then, that's what i believe.

You're welcome to believe what you want, but time existed before the big bang even in the language of spacetime. It was incredibly compressed, but it existed.

[The Reckoning]

You're welcome to believe what you want, but time existed before the big bang even in the language of spacetime. It was incredibly compressed, but it existed.


from my understanding, the big bang was thought to be have happened out of a singularity, which defies the laws of modern physics (think of the core of a black hole). spacetime was created after the big bang when the right conditions arose.

[The Reckoning]

eh trying to review for my cosmology final, so it's a good refresher. my professor resigned not too long ago as president of the American Astronomical Society, so he's really meticulous about details since he wrote my book...

[tlongII]

I thought Reckoning was a kid around 16 years old?

[The Reckoning]

and climate change


thats next semester. i signed up for Troy Kimmel's class - the guy you hear giving weather forecasts on the Austin radio stations.

[Blake]

einstein postulated that spacetime was created with the Big Bang, so don't take it up with me but with science.

spacetime is a substance of the observed universe.

Philosophically speaking, time may have existed in a different manner before our universe came to existence.


attaway to jump to conclusions about my post. i said the Creator. a "creator" could be any phenomena like striking a match, thinking a thought, or like Tlong said, farting (though i doubt it)- that would set off a chain reaction.


Even in this post you say Creator with a capital 'C', which implies a being with purpose.

Was it a random fart or a fart with purpose?

[The Reckoning]

time is a substance of the observed universe.

Philosophically speaking, time may have existed in a different manner before our universe came to existence.

your philosophy cant be backed by mathematics and scientific observations, so i agree to disagree.

and saying "it may have existed" implies that you have faith in something that is intangible or unknown to you. it's a good thought but one that proves your hypocrisy in calling out "believers."

i capitalized Creator as a title because that's how English works - nothing more, nothing less.

[Blake]

your philosophy cant be backed by mathematics and scientific observations, so i agree to disagree.

right, just like a Creator can't be backed by math or science.


i capitalized Creator as a title because that's how English works - nothing more, nothing less.

interesting because English requires that you capitalize "I" when talking about yourself.

and ftr, it's only it English works if you are talking about God. The creator of the Ipad does not get such preferential grammatical treatment.

[Blake]

and saying "it may have existed" implies that you have faith in something that is intangible or unknown to you. it's a good thought but one that proves your hypocrisy in calling out "believers."


saying "it may have existed" implies I don't know shit about shit before the universe came into existence -nothing more, nothing less.

ftr, I don't call out believers per se. I call out the Bible.

[The Reckoning]

look at my posting style and youll see ill throw in a comma there, maybe an apostrophe here, but i hardly ever capitalize "i." i used the word Creator as a title because of a response to LnGrrR's post where he uses it.

come on, you can't use that ad hominem bullshit to debate. just do a little research. education can be a pretty cool thing if you're open-minded about it.

it seems like you need to do some research if your only rebuttal to me is "i don't know shit about shit."

[Blake]

look at my posting style and youll see ill throw in a comma there, maybe an apostrophe here, but i hardly ever capitalize "i." i used the word Creator as a title because of a response to LnGrrR's post where he uses it.

You said it was the English thing to do to capitalize "Creator". Just helping you out.

I was also responding to your fart post:




attaway to jump to conclusions about my post. i said the Creator. a "creator" could be any phenomena like striking a match, thinking a thought, or like Tlong said, farting (though i doubt it)- that would set off a chain reaction.




come on, you can't use that ad hominem bullshit to debate. just do a little research. education can be a pretty cool thing if you're open-minded about it.

it seems like you need to do some research if your only rebuttal to me is "i don't know shit about shit."

I'm open minded. Please explain the way things were before the Big Bang.

[The Reckoning]

I'm open minded. Please explain the way things were before the Big Bang.

i said that's how English works. we both speak English, and you understood me. Ta da!

my fart post was a joke to Tlong's because nobody has any idea what caused the big bang or what happened before it. they do have theories backed by science that spacetime was a phenomenom resulting from the big bang.

come on give it up. socratic arguments only make you look ignorant. ill give you a little hint - they don't work on me :tu.

i don't know why you have spite towards religion and label me as some kind of ambassador of religion, but if you carry that mindset for the rest of your life, people will never take you seriously. you don't want to live like that, do you?

[Blake]

i said that's how English works. we both speak English, and you understood me. Ta da!

I understood you capitalized Creator in line with LnGrrrR's idea that it was a sentient being that created the universe. Is that not the case?


my fart post was a joke to Tlong's because nobody has any idea what caused the big bang or what happened before it.

You used English to confirm you don't know shit about shit before the universe began either. Ta da!


they do have theories backed by science that timespace was a phenomenom resulting from the big bang.

they also have theories backed by science that "the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets."

just do a little research. education can be a pretty cool thing if you're open-minded about it.


come on give it up. socratic arguments only make you look ignorant. ill give you a little hint - they don't work on me :tu.

bad assumptions on your part are actually making you ignorant.


i don't know why you have spite towards religion and label me as some kind of ambassador of religion, but if you carry that mindset for the rest of your life, people will never take you seriously. you don't want to live like that, do you?

I don't or haven't labeled you anywhere as any kind of ambassador of religion and have not shown any spite towards religion in this thread that I can recall.

We are both speaking English, but I have no clue what you are talking about or what you are getting at.

[The Reckoning]

"the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets."

string theorists are considered "radical" physicists in astronomy. their theories are built upon pure speculation that the big bang model is completely and absolutely wrong - contrary to observations and mathematical models. but hey, they got their name out, right? reminds me of you, kind of. who knows, einstein and hawking were considered radical, but their theories have been almost completely confirmed whereas your theorists' have not.

ill post my sources and cut out. you can read up on them and maybe make proper renovations to your train of thought. thanks for the laugh :lol.


http://i40.tinypic.com/2nbc4ns.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/1zqu7t1.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/1zocd48.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/afbtd1.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/t82o0p.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/11vnsp2.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/207xjme.gif

[Blake]

string theorists are considered "radical" physicists in astronomy. their theories are built upon pure speculation that the big bang model is completely and absolutely wrong - contrary to observations and mathematical models. but hey, they got their name out, right? reminds me of you, kind of. who knows, einstein and hawking were considered radical, but their theories have been almost completely confirmed whereas your theorists' have not.

One of these theorists is Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton.

oh the irony.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/what-came-before-the-big-bang-leading-physicists-present-a-radical-theory-weekend-feature.html

Their theories do tend to give some possible insight as to what the dark matter might do, no matter how radical you think this physicist might be.



ill post my sources and cut out. you can read up on them and maybe make proper renovations to your train of thought.

No renovations needed.

Steinhardt > you


http://i40.tinypic.com/t82o0p.jpg


:lol

http://jbjsports.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/michael-crabtree.jpg

[Blake]

http://i43.tinypic.com/207xjme.gif


Texas Tech University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award baccalaureate, masters, and doctorate degrees and certificates.

http://www.ttu.edu/facts/

Did you actually plan to have this much fail today?

[LnGrrrR]

if you're implying there was a time before the Creator then youre philosophically (and scientifically) flawed because time is just another substance of the universe that did not come into being until it was created.

Again, this will break down into a philosophical debate, on whether the universe was "created" or if it's always been there.

[The Reckoning]

One of these theorists is Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton.

oh the irony.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/what-came-before-the-big-bang-leading-physicists-present-a-radical-theory-weekend-feature.html

Their theories do tend to give some possible insight as to what the dark matter might do, no matter how radical you think this physicist might be.






hey blake, why can't you understand that my philosophy is built on accepted science and not works in progress. steinhardt is a million times more intelligent than me (and you), but his new theories on brane cosmology are incomplete. recently, he gave a talk in austin about his theories but has yet to "win" over his peers. the lack of observations of his theory really hurts his case. i say he's "radical" because he chooses to think "outside the box" and that's a good thing - no negative connotation on my part. yet his theories are just that - radical.

however, that's besides the point. the point is, i put my intellectual well-being into the hands of hundreds/thousands of reputed physicists and astronomers and the extensive research that they carry out to build complicated theories with and test, test, test. if steinhardt's theory is accepted and he garners the support of his peers who then publish it in scientific books and journals and teach it in classrooms, good for him, i will put my confidence in his theory.

but.....it hasn't. truth is, physicists can only hypothesize what dark matter and energy is because they have no idea. quantum physics is nowhere near finished, so please stop claiming that it negates the hard work of all the astrophysicists throughout the years - that's really insulting to them, especially from someone of your repertoire. they are still trying to figure it out, and when they have an acceptable theory, i will believe in their hard work.

oh, and in this case, according to your beliefs that you decided to google just to try and counter my argument, the Creator for you is an alternate universe. good for you, i'm glad youre finally on board.

if you want, ill be more than happy to ask my professor what he thinks about spacetime before the universe. chances are he'll say "the accepted theory right now is that it was created after the big bang, but we just don't know anything that happened before the big bang."

want to make a bet?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-probation_13tex.ART.State.Edition1.374363d.html

:rollin

someone's school forgot to do their homework.

http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=7590421

...and doesn't know jack about vaginas. there are so many case studies of Raider Rash. why haven't they taken advantage of that?

[admiralsnackbar]

from my understanding, the big bang was thought to be have happened out of a singularity, which defies the laws of modern physics (think of the core of a black hole). spacetime was created after the big bang when the right conditions arose.

I guess that defies my imagination... but then, theoretical physics often does.:toast

[RandomGuy]

Intelligent design seems less absurd because we as humans create and design things all the time. We also have never witnessed abiogenesis in action.

Occam's razor seems to point to ID, imo.

We still don't know entirely what happened in the first instants after the big bang yet either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

They have gotten a bit closer to figuring out the ultimate process, and getting some kinds of self-replicating simple molecules and figuring out under what conditions those things might form is a Very Interesting part of biology and organic chemistry.

Very Interesting things tend to attract a lot of brainpower.

My take on the concept is that it is just another "God in the gaps" argument where creationists attempt to say "but since you haven't fully shown/explained 100% of the entire process, it must be false".

"You say that Creature A evolved to creature C, but you don't have a fossil of Creature B, the intermediate form, your "theory" must be wrong".

(Scientist finds fossil of creature B)

"You say that Creature A evolved to creature B, but you don't have a fossil of Creature A.5, the intermediate form, your "theory" must be wrong".

(Scientist finds fossil of creature A.5)

"You say that Creature A evolved to creature A.5, but you don't have a fossil of Creature A.25, the intermediate form, your "theory" must be wrong".

(Scientist finds fossil of creature A.25)

etc etc etc.

Abiogenesis is the logical conclusion from the process of evolution.

I am certain we will eventually uncover some mechanism, as we fill in the gaps on our knowledge.

[RandomGuy]

Jeez, looking over the last few pages and an intersting snit fit about astrophysics vs. quantum mechanics makes me love this place even more.

I wonder if the Lakers' equivalent of Spurstalk has arguments over dark matter?

Nah. That would detract from the important coversations about who Jack Nicholas took to the last game...

[DarkReign]

Quantam mechanics is an area that unless you hold a PhD in, you probably dont understand it. Even with a PhD, youre only scratching the surface.

Its is the least understood science in science.

Thus, it is only logical that the Ultimate Quantam Factory (the BB) is a very formidable opponent in terms of wholesale explanation. Quantam Theory, even when two situations are exactly the same, becomes an unpredictable mess.

I dont even touch it beyond a passing interest, even though its importance to "How Shit Works" is of great importance.

The laws of physics that can be applied to any and all observable macro objects fall apart completely once you enter the realm of an electron microscope. Which only heightens the mystery of our universe, IMO.

Ive read more than a few books on M-Theory, String Theory and any GUT thats gets proposed, and it always breaks down when you apply the strong and weak nuclear forces to quantam mechanics.

Quantam mechanics is the last vestige of an all encompassing theory of everything. Judging by the lack of true understanding, we as a species are far away from any GUT in my lifetime.

Then again, who knows?

[LnGrrrR]

Every once in a while, I like to imagine that there was a creator... but after he built us, he just fudged some of the details... like what happens to matter at extremely small or extremely large scales.

Like he just got tired and said, "Oh screw making any of this make sense together... I'm tired. Besides, how the heck will they ever get to this point anyways? They'll probably all eat each other or something like that and be dead within the year. Damn it, I need a strong drink."

[RandomGuy]

Every once in a while, I like to imagine that there was a creator... but after he built us, he just fudged some of the details... like what happens to matter at extremely small or extremely large scales.

Like he just got tired and said, "Oh screw making any of this make sense together... I'm tired. Besides, how the heck will they ever get to this point anyways? They'll probably all eat each other or something like that and be dead within the year. Damn it, I need a strong drink."

Here is my thing:

If you set up the laws of physics and matter to the point where life such as we have on our planet was a statistical certainty, you wouldn't have to do much more.

Set up the different atomic and subatomic forces just so, have different molecules with just the right kind of chemical properties...

Evolutionary processes are pretty powerful things, if somewhat haphazard. All you need is to set up the rules of how things interact from the get-go and wait for massive amounts of time and space to do the rest.

[Blake]

hey blake, why can't you understand that my philosophy is built on accepted science and not works in progress.

great, good for you.

but who exactly are you to say this:



if you're implying there was a time before the Creator then youre philosophically (and scientifically) flawed because time is just another substance of the universe that did not come into being until it was created.

how exactly is that a philosophical flaw if there are respected professionals in the scientific community that hold theories of their own that time did exist before the Creator?


however, that's besides the point. the point is, i put my intellectual well-being into the hands of hundreds/thousands of reputed physicists and astronomers and the extensive research that they carry out to build complicated theories with and test, test, test. if steinhardt's theory is accepted and he garners the support of his peers who then publish it in scientific books and journals and teach it in classrooms, good for him, i will put my confidence in his theory.

but.....it hasn't. truth is, physicists can only hypothesize what dark matter and energy is because they have no idea. quantum physics is nowhere near finished, so please stop claiming that it negates the hard work of all the astrophysicists throughout the years - that's really insulting to them, especially from someone of your repertoire. they are still trying to figure it out, and when they have an acceptable theory, i will believe in their hard work.

me too, but that's besides the point.

exactly what makes LnGrrrR's post philosophically (and scientifically) flawed?


oh, and in this case, according to your beliefs that you decided to google just to try and counter my argument, the Creator for you is an alternate universe. good for you, i'm glad youre finally on board.

I haven't really posted my beliefs regarding pre-Big Bang, have I?

I think you are on board the wrong ship.


if you want, ill be more than happy to ask my professor what he thinks about spacetime before the universe. chances are he'll say "the accepted theory right now is that it was created after the big bang, but we just don't know anything that happened before the big bang."

want to make a bet?

no, because that was exactly the point I made earlier when I talked about not really knowing shit about shit before the big bang.

You appear to be on board several different boats at one time.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-probation_13tex.ART.State.Edition1.374363d.html

:rollin

someone's school forgot to do their homework.

http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=7590421

...and doesn't know jack about vaginas. there are so many case studies of Raider Rash. why haven't they taken advantage of that?

:rollin :rollin

someone likes to post outdated articles and information from 2007 and 2008. The probation were very minor and amounted to nothing more than a frown from the committees.


"The review committee didn't find fault with the quality of care we were providing or academic environment we had created. It was more of a numbers game in certain procedures," says Dr. Hampton......

The OB/GYN program is doing just fine. Hooked on Phonics is a fine reading comprehension program. Why haven't you taken advantage of that?

[Blake]

We still don't know entirely what happened in the first instants after the big bang yet either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

They have gotten a bit closer to figuring out the ultimate process, and getting some kinds of self-replicating simple molecules and figuring out under what conditions those things might form is a Very Interesting part of biology and organic chemistry.

Very Interesting things tend to attract a lot of brainpower.

My take on the concept is that it is just another "God in the gaps" argument where creationists attempt to say "but since you haven't fully shown/explained 100% of the entire process, it must be false".

"You say that Creature A evolved to creature C, but you don't have a fossil of Creature B, the intermediate form, your "theory" must be wrong".

(Scientist finds fossil of creature B)

"You say that Creature A evolved to creature B, but you don't have a fossil of Creature A.5, the intermediate form, your "theory" must be wrong".

(Scientist finds fossil of creature A.5)

"You say that Creature A evolved to creature A.5, but you don't have a fossil of Creature A.25, the intermediate form, your "theory" must be wrong".

(Scientist finds fossil of creature A.25)

etc etc etc.

Abiogenesis is the logical conclusion from the process of evolution.

I am certain we will eventually uncover some mechanism, as we fill in the gaps on our knowledge.

I think abiogenesis is one logical conclusion to be sure.

I misspoke a bit when talking abiogenesis. I was really referring to matter ultimately coming from non-matter. I also can't seem to get around it all being a random act. Again, I think down the line it points to some kind of order.

huh....I guess I did state my pre-big bang beliefs.

[RandomGuy]

I think abiogenesis is one logical conclusion to be sure.

I misspoke a bit when talking abiogenesis. I was really referring to matter ultimately coming from non-matter. I also can't seem to get around it all being a random act. Again, I think down the line it points to some kind of order.

huh....I guess I did state my pre-big bang beliefs.

What if randomness was the preferred method?

If some of what is implied by quantum physics, i.e. multiverses, there may be a rather large amount of universes where the forces that make up the universe differed by juuuuust enough, not to make life, or matter possible.

When you have an infinity to work with, suddenly anything is literally possible, even our universe,even life.

Kinda reminds me of the end of new Battlestar Galactica...

Who knows?

[admiralsnackbar]

Here is my thing:

If you set up the laws of physics and matter to the point where life such as we have on our planet was a statistical certainty, you wouldn't have to do much more.

Set up the different atomic and subatomic forces just so, have different molecules with just the right kind of chemical properties...

Evolutionary processes are pretty powerful things, if somewhat haphazard. All you need is to set up the rules of how things interact from the get-go and wait for massive amounts of time and space to do the rest.

I feel the same way. I'd lost religion in early life for reasons I touched on earlier in the thread, but it wasn't until I read and worked through the ideas of people like Newton (who I didn't think made a case for why a body at rest was a body, or why it retained its body-ness after a collision), Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Plank, Einstein, Schrodinger, etc. that I began to see a place for God as a set of conditions/forces and matter/energy/life as an expression thereof. Condensed this way on a bulletin board, it probably sound trivial; but it was a meaningful moment for me.

[Blake]

What if randomness was the preferred method?

preferred by who?


Who knows?

the concept of outer space might really be a government cover up.

It would explain all the Hollywood effects of the Apollo missions.

[Blake]

I feel the same way. I'd lost religion in early life for reasons I touched on earlier in the thread, but it wasn't until I read and worked through the ideas of people like Newton (who I didn't think made a case for why a body at rest was a body, or why it retained its body-ness after a collision), Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Plank, Einstein, Schrodinger, etc. that I began to see a place for God as a set of conditions/forces and matter/energy/life as an expression thereof. Condensed this way on a bulletin board, it probably sound trivial; but it was a meaningful moment for me.

so which religion do you think is the right one?

[admiralsnackbar]

so which religion do you think is the right one?

I guess I don't think about it that way. I look to the Bible because that's the tradition I was raised in and the type of fellowship I'm drawn to, but I don't begrudge people who choose or are called to seek God through other systems of belief (all or almost all of which have the same moral directives and spiritual aims) and I actively oppose proselytism, and consider prejudice against people of other faiths to be the height of evil.

[Blake]

I guess I don't think about it that way. I look to the Bible because that's the tradition I was raised in and the type of fellowship I'm drawn to, but I don't begrudge people who choose or are called to seek God through other systems of belief (all or almost all of which have the same moral directives and spiritual aims) and I actively oppose proselytism, and consider prejudice against people of other faiths to be the height of evil.

I'm with you. The hope is that nobody begrudges anyone for their beliefs.

I have a problem with the Bible because of its imperfections. If God wanted to send a clear message, the logic of sending it through such a flimsy medium doesn't jive with me.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Blake

I don't see any philosophical problems with believing time existed before God.

You are assuming God has been around forever.

einstein postulated that spacetime was created with the Big Bang, so don't take it up with me but with science.

attaway to jump to conclusions about my post. i said the Creator. a "creator" could be any phenomena like striking a match, thinking a thought, or like Tlong said, farting (though i doubt it)- that would set off a chain reaction.



soooo...i do have good reason to believe that time was created with the big bang until science can find a better alternative to the theory of general relativity and back it up with substantial evidence. until then, that's what i believe.

NqeFlaJItEc

[Blake]

NqeFlaJItEc

cool. which one is you?

[ekalb]

NqeFlaJItEc

?uoy si eno hcihw .looc

[Re-Animator]

This topic was interesting until you ran mouse off.

[Blake]

This topic was interesting until you ran mouse off.

nobody ran you off.

feel free to post your predictable response.

[RandomGuy]

cool. which one is you?

:lol

Couldn't resist a good-natured poke in the ribs. I love anyone who can argue about dark matter, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics.

We'll have to have a beer sometime.

[tlongII]

What happened to this thread? It was supposed to be about human evolution, not the origins of the universe?! :rolleyes

[LnGrrrR]

This topic became interesting after you ran mouse off.

fify

[LnGrrrR]

The one thing I can't stand about the multiverse theory is its inherent untestability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the theory goes that every quantum decision is played out in infinite worlds that have no way of contacting each other... how do you falsify such a theory?

[Blake]

:lol

Couldn't resist a good-natured poke in the ribs. I love anyone who can argue about dark matter, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics.

We'll have to have a beer sometime.

I can't argue any of that. I have an extremely casual working knowledge of that stuff and would much rather read what real experts theorize about it.

I'm more of the philosophical sort. :tu

[mouse]

nobody ran you off.

feel free to post your predictable response.

If I am so predictable why not answer the questions I ask?

[Blake]

If I am so predictable why not answer the questions I ask?

your questions are almost always answered as quickly as you post.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm still waiting for Mouse to explain this...

When I was born, I was 20 inches long. By 2, I was 36 inches long/high.

Given this math, we can see that I should grow roughly 16 inches every 2 years, or 8 inches a year.

I am 28 now, so that means I should be: 20 +8X = Y, where X = 28, means Y = 244 inches tall, divided by 12 equals...

20 feet, 4 inches.

I mean, you can't argue with that math. That's Mouse logic!

[mouse]

your questions are almost always answered as quickly as you post.

If NASA and many Scientist have already confirmed the moon drifts away from earth at about maybe four inches a year how many years would you have to go back in order to put the moon four inches from the Earth?

[LnGrrrR]

If NASA and many Scientist have already confirmed the moon drifts away from earth at about maybe four inches a year how many years would you have to go back in order to put the moon four inches from the Earth?



When I was born, I was 20 inches long. By 2, I was 36 inches long/high.

Given this math, we can see that I should grow roughly 16 inches every 2 years, or 8 inches a year.

I am 28 now, so that means I should be: 20 +8X = Y, where X = 28, means Y = 244 inches tall, divided by 12 equals...

Why aren't I 20 feet, 4 inches tall?

[mouse]

So your answer is?

You see cuz this is not my first age of earth debate...... I have some shit that make you want to change your facebook page. ....This is kinda a subject poster's may say ..."I rule",....in,........but, hey!..,....... It's really your call
I guess.

[mouse]

I'm still waiting for Mouse to explain this...

When I was born, I was 20 inches long. By 2, I was 36 inches long/high.

Given this math, we can see that I should grow roughly 16 inches every 2 years, or 8 inches a year.

I am 28 now, so that means I should be: 20 +8X = Y, where X = 28, means Y = 244 inches tall, divided by 12 equals...

20 feet, 4 inches.

I mean, you can't argue with that math. That's Mouse logic!


How tall does a banana tree have to grow to produce bananas?


Your romper room style of debating will only increase the pain of my huge greasy reply that will leave you listening to Rick Ashley for the next 6 days.

it's your ass, do ass you wish,,,,


I saw it happen...........


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/nsrammstein/lisa.gif

[Blake]

If NASA and many Scientist have already confirmed the moon drifts away from earth at about maybe four inches a year how many years would you have to go back in order to put the moon four inches from the Earth?

you are assuming the moon has been drifting away from the earth at a constant speed over the years. It hasn't been.

where do you get your questions from?

[LnGrrrR]

When I was born, I was 20 inches long. By 2, I was 36 inches long/high.

Given this math, we can see that I should grow roughly 16 inches every 2 years, or 8 inches a year.

I am 28 now, so that means I should be: 20 +8X = Y, where X = 28, means Y = 244 inches tall, divided by 12 equals...

Why aren't I 20 feet, 4 inches tall?


It's a simple question Mouse... why can't you answer it?

[RandomGuy]

If NASA and many Scientist have already confirmed the moon drifts away from earth at about maybe four inches a year how many years would you have to go back in order to put the moon four inches from the Earth?

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

They confirmed that by using lasers bounced back from reflectors put there by the Apollo astronauts during their landings, something else you don't believe happened.

oooh the if only this irony could get the wrinkles out of my shirts.

This question makes the same factually incorrect assumptions that your "Niaga falls" question did, namely that the rate it is drift is the same as in the past.

For someone who levels blanket criticisms at science for speculating about things that happened a long time ago, this is yet another helping of irony.

[RandomGuy]

If I am so predictable why not answer the questions I ask?

I always answer your questions. What are you talking about?

Yet, you never seem to bother answering mine directly.

When you posted pictures of the "40 year old" stalactites as proof that all stalactites had to be very young, I went out and found a an actual scientist who specifically mentioned the chemistry involved in those formations as compared to the normal cave formations.

Have you found any of your creationist websites that talk about the chemistry of those 40 year old stalactites yet mouse?

The ones that I found in my google search invariably didn't talk at all about the chemistry involved in the formation of such young stalactites, versus what takes place in natural caves. If you want, I can repeat the search, and provide links.

MY QUESTION STILL STANDS, AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED IT.

Are those websites ignorant of the actual chemistry/science involved in the formation of natural cave stalactites, or are they deliberately withholding the information in their presentation, what do you think mouse?

[mouse]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

They confirmed that by using lasers bounced back from reflectors put there by the Apollo astronauts during their landings, something else you don't believe happened.

oooh the if only this irony could get the wrinkles out of my shirts.

This question makes the same factually incorrect assumptions that your "Niaga falls" question did, namely that the rate it is drift is the same as in the past.

For someone who levels blanket criticisms at science for speculating about things that happened a long time ago, this is yet another helping of irony.

Seriously Dude I think your mistaking me for someone else, that, or else you don't have a good memory.

First off I never said the moon does not have reflectors on it, in fact I told you all many times the USSR had already sent an "unmanned" rover to the moon to leave a reflector plates and to gather soil samples.

So go back and "re-read" the NASA debate topics and make sure you know where I stand before you make anymore false assumptions on your part.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/th_Roverplantsreflector.jpg (http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=Roverplantsreflector.flv)

[mouse]

I always answer your questions. What are you talking about?


If NASA and many Scientist have already confirmed the moon drifts away from earth at about maybe four inches a year how many years would you have to go back in order to put the moon four inches from the Earth?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/th_WhatHappenedontheMoonCD2of2.jpg (http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=WhatHappenedontheMoonCD2of2.flv)

[mouse]

It's a simple question Mouse... why can't you answer it?


I do apologize if the time chart on the rate your body grows doesn't interest me.

Age of earth, Nasa, 9/11,Evolution, those are the topics I wish to debate. maybe you can find a self help support forum that can answer the many human bodily functions and the rate they developed questions you need answered.

good luck!

[admiralsnackbar]

I do apologize if the time chart on the rate your body grows doesn't interest me.

Age of earth, Nasa, 9/11,Evolution, those are the topics I wish to debate. maybe you can find a self help support forum that can answer the many human bodily functions and the rate they developed questions you need answered.

good luck!

rH6b_lSQst0

Payaso.

[RandomGuy]

Seriously Dude I think your mistaking me for someone else, that, or else you don't have a good memory.

First off I never said the moon does not have reflectors on it, in fact I told you all many times the USSR had already sent an "unmanned" rover to the moon to leave a reflector plates and to gather soil samples.

So go back and "re-read" the NASA debate topics and make sure you know where I stand before you make anymore false assumptions on your part.



Have you found any of your creationist websites that talk about the chemistry of those 40 year old stalactites yet mouse?

The ones that I found in my google search invariably didn't talk at all about the chemistry involved in the formation of such young stalactites, versus what takes place in natural caves. If you want, I can repeat the search, and provide links.

MY QUESTION STILL STANDS, AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED IT.

Are those websites ignorant of the actual chemistry/science involved in the formation of natural cave stalactites, or are they deliberately withholding the information in their presentation, what do you think mouse?

[RandomGuy]

Here is what an actual scientist says, and be warned he uses chemistry and shit to make his point, so don't let your eyes glaze over too much.

My favorite bit: "The chemistry of all this is not particularly complex and is very well understood."

--by everbody except the people that mouse believes are telling him the truth about "what geologists say".





How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
by Dave E. Matson
Copyright © 1994-2002

Young-earth "proof" #22: The largest stalactites and flowstones could have formed in about 4400 years.

Since when is the age of the earth related to the age of a stalactite? If, in fact, a fat stalactite can form in 4400 years, so what? However, it does seems a bit suspicious that the minimum age given by Dr. Hovind is exactly that allotted to the post-flood period. Such a figure begs investigation, but let's take first things first.

Did you ever wonder how a cave, like Carlsbad Caverns, formed? It wasn't dissolved out by rushing flood waters, being that calcium carbonate (the substance of limestone) is less soluble in water than granite! (Loftin, 1988, p.22). How many gorgeous caves have you seen carved out of granite by rushing flood waters? Nor was it carved out of soft sediment. The whole thing would have caved in like a cold soufflé long before the job was finished. Nor was it eroded out by rapid, underground rivers and streams. Vadose caves are formed in that manner, but their shape is very unlike the phreatic (solution) caves such as Carlsbad Caverns and Mammoth Cave. Diagrams of phreatic caves often resemble city maps with lots of streets intersecting at right angles. Hamilton Cave, in West Virginia, is an excellent example. You don't get that kind of pattern with river or stream erosion. "Streams often flow through caves and contribute very slightly to the process, but this is almost always a later, secondary development." (Loftin, 1988, p.22).

Carlsbad Caverns was eaten out, cubic inch by cubic inch, by carbonic acid which turned the calcium carbonate to calcium bicarbonate. (The Caverns are unusual in that sulfuric acid has also played a leading role.) Calcium bicarbonate dissolves easily in water and is carried away. Carbonic acid is a weak acid produced when carbon dioxide combines with water. Almost all the carbon dioxide involved in this cave-making process comes from "...the activity of plants and animals in the soil rather than from the air (Moore and Nicholas, 1964, p.7)." (Loftin, 1988, p.22). The atmospheric concentration is way too low to be of much use. It is the metabolism of plants and soil organisms which build up the carbon dioxide concentration to a point where it can do some good.

As rainwater percolates through the soil it combines with the carbon dioxide to form the weak, carbonic acid which becomes part of the general flow of water through the limestone. Cracks deep within the limestone are widened over the ages, and underwater caverns are eventually formed. Most of the etching action apparently goes on just below the water level, thus the tendency for phreatic caves to have distinct levels.

Before any stalactites, stalagmites, or flowstones can form, the water must be drained out of that portion of the cave. In allowing 4400 years for the largest stalactites and flowstones, Dr. Hovind has neglected to allot any time at all to the cave-making process! In his scenario the oldest stalactites start forming right after Noah's flood drains away. Sorry, but I don't buy the implied claim that Carlsbad Caverns was deposited by that flood! I know that Noah's flood can perform miracles in the hands of scientific creationists, but I absolutely draw the line there! The cave-making process requires a whole lot more time than the stalactite-making process.


The [stalactites, stalagmites, and flowstones] are formed when calcium carbonate in solution in the water is deposited out, but this process is not one of simple evaporation. The air in most caves, even in the most arid regions, is highly moist; therefore, when water soaking down from above reaches the air of the open cave, it does not lose water to the air and leave minerals behind. This is clearly shown by the composition of the deposits, which consists of almost pure calcium carbonate. When the slightly acid water with its dissolved minerals meets the moist air of the cave, a minute amount of the carbon dioxide leaves the water and goes into the air. This process is almost exactly the reverse of the major process of cave formation, for, when carbon dioxide goes into the air, the solution becomes supersaturated and a small amount of calcium carbonate is precipitated out (Moore and Nicholas, 1964).

(Loftin, 1988, p.23)

Needless to say, this is not the kind of operation you can turn up the spigot on. A rapid flow of water would simply carry the minerals with it, not to mention diluting the carbonic acid which is produced in limited quantities. We're dealing with a drip-by-drip scenario.

Creationists sometimes point to some very rapid accumulations which superficially resemble the calcium carbonate formations in caves.


For example, on the mortared brickwork of old forts and places of that sort, formations which look to the naked eye like stalactites and stalagmites sometimes form in less than one hundred years. However, those formations are composed of gypsum, which is a salt of calcium sulfate. Unlike calcium carbonate, gypsum is moderately soluble in water, which means that transport and recrystallization can take place much more rapidly (White, 1976, p.304). There is a whole class of cave deposits called evaporite minerals which consist of those minerals which dissolve readily in water. As might be expected, these formations are ephemeral when compared to the carbonates which form all the really large and impressive cave formations. The chemistry of all this is not particularly complex and is very well understood.
(Loftin, 1988, p.23)

Here's some more information. This point is particularly important since creationists love to point out such examples.


Many people have found that stalactites forming on concrete or mortar outdoors may grow several centimeters each year. Stalactite growth in these environments, however, bears little relation to that in caves, because it does not proceed by the same chemical reaction. Although cement and mortar are made from limestone, the same rock in which the caves form, the carbon dioxide has been driven off by heating. When water is added to these materials, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times as soluble in water as calcite is. A calcium hydroxide solution absorbs carbon dioxide rapidly from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate, and produce stalactites. This is why stalactites formed by solution from cement and mortar grow much faster than those in caves. To illustrate, in 1925, a concrete bridge was constructed inside Postojna Cave, Yugoslavia, and adjacent to it an artificial tunnel was opened. By 1956, tubular stalactites 45 centimeters long were growing from the bridge, while stalactites of the same age in the tunnel were less than 1 centimeter long.

(Moore and Sullivan, 1978, p.47)

By the way, geologic opinion holds that the Carlsbad Caverns began to be etched out 60 million years ago. The present chambers were excavated from 1 to 8 million years ago, depending on their depth. As for stalactites, the Bulletin of the National Speleological Society (37: p.21, 1975) gave their observed growth rates as ranging from 0.1 to 10 centimeters per thousand years. An exceptional spurt of growth might exceed the higher rate for short periods of time, but it could no more be maintained than a winning streak at the Las Vegas poker tables. Moore and Sullivan (1978, p.47) give an upper average rate of "only a little more" than 0.1 mm/year [10 centimeters or 2.5 inches per thousand years]. Stalagmites grow at a similar rate. Areas with a lot of overgrowth and tropical temperatures would have the higher rates. Thus, a 60-foot giant, as might be found in Carlsbad Caverns, would have a minimum estimated age of about 180,000 years

Fornaca and Rinaldi (1968) used the (thorium-230) Th-230 (thorium-232) Th-232 ratio method to date an old stalagmite, probably in Europe, and got an age of 180,000 years for its formation. That stalagmite had stopped growing 90,000 years ago, as indicated by the radiometric dating method, so its true age is 270,000 years. A flowstone in the famous Romanelli cave of Apulia was dated at 40,000 years. Thus, an extrapolation of the observed rates of stalactite formation and the radiometric dating method (using thorium) put us in the same ball park for large cave formations. Dr. Hovind's figure of 4400 years for the oldest stalactites is much too modest!

As it turns out, a careful study of the ratios of Oxygen-18 and Oxygen-16 allows us to estimate the temperature at the time a particular layer was added to a stalactite or stalagmite. Studies of this type have built up an interesting picture:


As we go to press, research is very active in this field. In the latest results, speleothems indicate that the average surface temperature in mid-latitude cave regions reached a peak 3 degrees C above the present about 8000 years ago, that it was as much as 10 degrees C colder than at present from 15,000 to 80,000 years ago, warmer than now from 80,000 to 120,000 years ago, colder from 120,000 to 170,000 years ago, warmer from 170,000 to 200,000 years ago, and colder for an undetermined period before that.

(Moore and Sullivan, 1978, p.65)

What we have here is a remarkable record of the last three advances of the present Ice Age! The warm period of 80,000-120,000 years is centered on the Last Interglacial (Ipswichian) interlude; the warm period of 170,000-200,000 years ago takes in the Penultimate Interglaciation (Hoxnian) interlude. The cold period of 15,000-80,000 years starts near the known beginning of the last ice advance, which corresponds to our Main Wisconsinan glaciation. Is that just a coincidence? This data is also beautifully reflected in the study of foraminifera in deep-sea cores (Strahler, 1987, p.252). Another coincidence?

Dr. Hovind claims that there was only one glacial episode which began after the earth had a collision with an ice-packed comet. Overlooking the numerous impossibilities involved in that scenario, we might ask if there is any direct evidence for more than one glacial advance. The answer is a resounding "Yes!"


But as the study of the glacial deposits was carried westward into Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, two distinct sheets of drift were found at many places to be separated by old soil, beds of peat, or layers of till that had been leached and decayed (Fig. 18-10). Here the uppermost drift, like that in New England, appeared fresh, but the buried drift sheet showed the effect of chemical decay and was obviously much the older. Moreover, in places, the soil and peat, or gravels, between two such sheets of till included fossil wood, leaves, or bones, recording the existence of animals and plants of temperate climate. Thus it came to be realized, about 1870, that a continental ice sheet had developed more than once, and that warm interglacial ages had intervened.

(Dunbar & Waage, 1969, pp.434-435)

In time it was found that there were several major advances of the present Ice Age, and that major fluctuations within these advances had occurred. The following table lists the approximate times of the glaciations in North America during the last two million years. These periods match a study of ocean-water temperatures interpreted from data of foraminifera in deep-sea cores (Strahler, 1987, p.252).

As you can see, various evidences for an old Earth tie together. From a study of oxygen isotopes in stalactites we got the last few periods of glacial advance. Studies of the foraminifera of deep-sea cores support the findings gleaned from stalactites. The study of foraminifera also supply information to flesh out the periods of the last three major glacial episodes. That there is more than one major glacial episode is, in turn, supported by the remains of temperate forests and animal fossils found between some of the sheets of drift, the bottom sheet showing a sharp increase in age as indicated by chemical weathering and other observations.

In passing, let me point out that clear evidence for glaciation exists as far back as the Precambrian. Great eras of glaciation have come and gone long before the present polar caps were ever established! (See Topic A5).

We can forget about Dr. Hovind's simple snowball theory of the Ice Age. It can't begin to explain the facts that we now have.

http://www.evolution-creationism.us/young_earth/stalactite_formation_rates.html


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

That is what an actual scientist says about them. He explains the exact chemical process by which both the "40 year olds" stalactites of the creationists form, and the true cave stalactites that are hundreds of thousands, and yes, millions of years old form.

[RandomGuy]

Creationists talking about stalactites that didn't mention how exactly they were formed:

http://biblicalcreation.blogspot.com/2009/01/creation-of-stalactites-and-stalagmites.html

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/speleotherms-stalagmites-stalactites.htm

Here is the closest thing that creationists actually come to answering this:

http://creationwiki.org/Stalactites_can_grow_very_rapidly

The best they can do is show that some formations CAN grow rapidly, which no actual geologist will dispute.

The logical fail is that not all formations can grow rapidly, and many could ONLY have grown slowly.

It is a bit like saying that some horses can be red, so therefore we can assume that all horses are red.

Logical fail.

[mouse]

Have you found any of your creationist websites

Once again you must think I am someone else.

I don't have any websites and I don't support the creationist or the Bible.

Why must I have to explain this to you guys over and over again in every topic on every page?


what do you think mouse?

It doesn't matter what I think you will forget what I have said come Monday morning. Your really starting to make yourself look bad by trying to get all into your amino acids and genetic compounds that make up the DNA of a who gives a shit elements that have nothing to do with Evolution or lies in the text books.

I tell you there is a Red dog on the elementary school grounds and the kids need to be warned, your reply is "That is really not a red dog it's actually a burgundy colored coyote"

WGAF if its a dog or a wolf the bottom-line is the children are in danger and I exposed you and all your Darwin loving friends in this forum as being wrong and purposely are poisoning the youth of a America and all you can do is pull out your chemistry kit your pappy bought you when you was in the 6th grade to try and make a point that your educated like the great RuffAndreadyOzStyle? For years teachers,Scientist,and Cave tour guides have been telling people stalactites are very fragile don't touch they take "millions" of years to form, I show you some that took only 40 years to form and your going to pull out the E=MC2 slide ruler DNA bullshit card?

Maybe if I shoved both stalactites up your ass you can better tell me which one took millions of years to form I can set that up if you like we can even host it on YouTube.


When your ready to stop bull shitting and talk like you really have some common sense then shoot me a PM, spare the Club readers all your bullshit propaganda.

[mouse]

Also........speaking of answering questions I am still waiting for yours.



If NASA and many Scientist have already confirmed the moon drifts away from earth at about maybe four inches a year how many years would you have to go back in order to put the moon four inches from the Earth?

[phyzik]

Also........speaking of answering questions I am still waiting for yours.

If NASA and many Scientist have already confirmed the moon drifts away from earth at about maybe four inches a year how many years would you have to go back in order to put the moon four inches from the Earth?

First of all, the moon is not moving away from the earth at 4 inches a year. Currently it is moving away at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. This is a mesurable truth because of the reflectors on the moon (which, as a curious side note, some scientists recently found that lost reflector the USSR sent up there). If we use 3.8 cm/yr and the current distance of 385,000 km, we get 10 billion years. Thats not correct either. The difference is Tidal drag and the rotation of the Earth. It's safe to assume that when the moon was closer to earth, the tidal bulges where much greater due to the gravity of the planets. That, coupled with the earths rotation and the way the tidal bulges are a little behind the moon, its safe to assume that the moon was moving away a bit faster "back in the day" so to speak.

Also, creation scientist fail to account for the fact that the continents weren't always as they are today which I would be quite positive would have an effect on the tidal buldges.

DeYoung, which I am assuming Mouse is trying to credit, is assuming in his equation that dissipation and deformation are a constant, which it is not.

De Young did the wrong problem and got the right asnswer for it. Just to reiterate, he got a right answer for a problem that didnt match the situation.

His one-equation model doesnt show the moons maximum age, it merely shows the moons minimum age because dissipation and deformation are variable throughout time and NOT a constant. Because he doesnt account for that, it does not inspire confidence in the value of DeYoung's one-equation model for the evolution of the lunar orbit.

[LnGrrrR]

I do apologize if the time chart on the rate your body grows doesn't interest me.

Age of earth, Nasa, 9/11,Evolution, those are the topics I wish to debate. maybe you can find a self help support forum that can answer the many human bodily functions and the rate they developed questions you need answered.

good luck!


If you can't answer this simple question, why should I believe what else you say?

(Logical fallacies are fun!)

[Re-Animator]

If you can't answer this simple question, why should I believe what else you say?

(Logical fallacies are fun!)

It looked to me like Mouse was giving you a life line.

[Re-Animator]

If you can't answer this simple question, why should I believe what else you say?

(Logical fallacies are fun!)

If you promise to post another avatar.

count me in!

[LnGrrrR]

If you promise to post another avatar.

count me in!

What, you don't like Brock? :D

If I'm changing my avatar... it's definitely going to be Orpheus. :lol

[phyzik]

Bump....

Im interested in a reply about the moon moving away from the Earth regarding my previous post. This thread got too quiet when I submitted my last one.

Mouse wanted to call someone out about the Moon moving away... He got his reply from me with irrefutable evidence. His "generalization" about the moon moving away at 4" a year is bullshit. He cant backtrack and say we DONT have reflectors on the moon since he readily agrees that they are definately there, which gives us PRECISE mesurements via lasers, unless he thinks lasers are another bullshit propoganda effort by the government.

The moon is moving away barely over 1 inch a year accoriding to laser mesurements.

Even if we calculate, using De young's equation, on a constant scale at the current speed the moon is moving away from the earth, which creationists want to believe, that would put the moon at OVER 9 BILLION years old!!!.... Even I dont believe that!

Sorry Mouse. Your wrong.

[mouse]

If you can't answer this simple question, why should I believe what else you say?

(Logical fallacies are fun!)

http://www.annholm.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/the-zax-300x225.gif

[phyzik]

http://www.annholm.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/the-zax-300x225.gif

Your question was answered.... If you insist it must be from LnGrrrR he is more than welcome to copy and paste what I posted.

Creation believers will never be happy until we have a generation-by-generation account of the human evolution. They just cant see the forrest through the tree's. The "good book" is the end all arguement to them and they will listen to nothing else. How can you argue logically with someone that believes there is a being in the sky that knows everything?

Im not at all calling Mouse a bible thumper. He is just stuborn in his belief that "the man" is out to get us, and in a way I kind of agree, but to take it to the Jason Bourne and Matrix level that Mouse does is comical.

I have to give props to their faith though, no matter how unfounded it may be. Either way, this thread has gone WAY off track... The point still stands that scientists have shown, time and time again, that there are transitional species when it comes to the human race. How much more detailed can it be before people realize that we evolved from something less than we are today?

Hell, even then, why cant they just believe that is what our "creator" intended all along?

[mouse]

Your question was answered.... If you insist it must be from LnGrrrR he is more than welcome to copy and paste what I posted.

Creation believers will never be happy until we have a generation-by-generation account of the human evolution. They just cant see the forrest through the tree's. The "good book" is the end all arguement to them and they will listen to nothing else. How can you argue logically with someone that believes there is a being in the sky that knows everything?

Im not at all calling Mouse a bible thumper. He is just stuborn in his belief that "the man" is out to get us, and in a way I kind of agree, but to take it to the Jason Bourne and Matrix level that Mouse does is comical.

I have to give props to their faith though, no matter how unfounded it may be. Either way, this thread has gone WAY off track... The point still stands that scientists have shown, time and time again, that there are transitional species when it comes to the human race. How much more detailed can it be before people realize that we evolved from something less than we are today?

Hell, even then, why cant they just believe that is what our "creator" intended all along?

Are you sure you want to do this?

:wakeup

[boutons_deux]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2010/05/100512131513.jpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512131513.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily% 3A+Latest+Science+News%29

First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry


ScienceDaily (May 17, 2010) — More than 150 years ago, Darwin proposed the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA), linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans. Until now, the theory that makes ladybugs, oak trees, champagne yeast and humans distant relatives has remained beyond the scope of a formal test. Now, a Brandeis biochemist reports in Nature the results of the first large scale, quantitative test of the famous theory that underpins modern evolutionary biology.

The results of the study confirm that Darwin had it right all along. In his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, the British naturalist proposed that, "all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form." Over the last century and a half, qualitative evidence for this theory has steadily grown, in the numerous, surprising transitional forms found in the fossil record, for example, and in the identification of sweeping fundamental biological similarities at the molecular level.

Still, rumblings among some evolutionary biologists have recently emerged questioning whether the evolutionary relationships among living organisms are best described by a single "family tree" or rather by multiple, interconnected trees -- a "web of life." Recent molecular evidence indicates that primordial life may have undergone rampant horizontal gene transfer, which occurs frequently today when single-celled organisms swap genes using mechanisms other than usual organismal reproduction. In that case, some scientists argue, early evolutionary relationships were web-like, making it possible that life sprang up independently from many ancestors.

According to biochemist Douglas Theobald, it doesn't really matter. "Let's say life originated independently multiple times, which UCA allows is possible," said Theobald. "If so, the theory holds that a bottleneck occurred in evolution, with descendants of only one of the independent origins surviving until the present. Alternatively, separate populations could have merged, by exchanging enough genes over time to become a single species that eventually was ancestral to us all. Either way, all of life would still be genetically related."

Harnessing powerful computational tools and applying Bayesian statistics, Theobald found that the evidence overwhelmingly supports UCA, regardless of horizontal gene transfer or multiple origins of life. Theobald said UCA is millions of times more probable than any theory of multiple independent ancestries.

"There have been major advances in biology over the last decade, with our ability to test Darwin's theory in a way never before possible," said Theobald. "The number of genetic sequences of individual organisms doubles every three years, and our computational power is much stronger now than it was even a few years ago."

While other scientists have previously examined common ancestry more narrowly, for example, among only vertebrates, Theobald is the first to formally test Darwin's theory across all three domains of life. The three domains include diverse life forms such as the Eukarya (organisms, including humans, yeast, and plants, whose cells have a DNA-containing nucleus) as well as Bacteria and Archaea (two distinct groups of unicellular microorganisms whose DNA floats around in the cell instead of in a nucleus).

Theobald studied a set of 23 universally conserved, essential proteins found in all known organisms. He chose to study four representative organisms from each of the three domains of life. For example, he researched the genetic links found among these proteins in archaeal microorganisms that produce marsh gas and methane in cows and the human gut; in fruit flies, humans, round worms, and baker's yeast; and in bacteria like E. coli and the pathogen that causes tuberculosis.

Theobald's study rests on several simple assumptions about how the diversity of modern proteins arose.

First, he assumed that genetic copies of a protein can be multiplied during reproduction, such as when one parent gives a copy of one of their genes to several of their children.

Second, he assumed that a process of replication and mutation over the eons may modify these proteins from their ancestral versions.

These two factors, then, should have created the differences in the modern versions of these proteins we see throughout life today.

Lastly, he assumed that genetic changes in one species don't affect mutations in another species -- for example, genetic mutations in kangaroos don't affect those in humans.

What Theobald did not assume, however, was how far back these processes go in linking organisms genealogically. It is clear, say, that these processes are able to link the shared proteins found in all humans to each other genetically. But do the processes in these assumptions link humans to other animals? Do these processes link animals to other eukaryotes? Do these processes link eukaryotes to the other domains of life, bacteria and archaea? The answer to each of these questions turns out to be a resounding yes.

Just what did this universal common ancestor look like and where did it live? Theobald's study doesn't answer this question. Nevertheless, he speculated, "to us, it would most likely look like some sort of froth, perhaps living at the edge of the ocean, or deep in the ocean on a geothermal vent. At the molecular level, I'm sure it would have looked as complex and beautiful as modern life."

Story Source:

Adapted from materials provided by Brandeis University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Journal Reference:

1. Douglas L. Theobald. A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature, 2010; 465 (7295): 219 DOI: 10.1038/nature09014

[polandprzem]

Dajcie spokoj

[TDMVPDPOY]

bump

http://lolsnaps.com/upload_images/real/1094.jpg

[DarkReign]

Funny, but I dont get the Poland spread.

[xellos88330]

bump

http://lolsnaps.com/upload_images/real/1094.jpg

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Man, that is a chart designed to insult most of the people on the planet.

I approve.

[mouse]

Man, that is a chart designed to insult most of the people on the planet.

I approve.


Only people who believe they evolved from an ape would be offended and those people have very low intelligence anyway.

[DarkReign]

Only people who believe they evolved from an ape would be offended and those people have very low intelligence anyway.

Only those with a total misunderstanding of what evolution actually is would ever put the words "...evolved from an ape" in sequence.

Its fine if you disagree, but at least know your enemy.

[mouse]

So if I study what you say i may someday evolve into an intelligent poster?

[RandomGuy]

Only people who believe they evolved from an ape would be offended and those people have very low intelligence anyway.

No one believes we evolved from apes.

Strawman logical fallacy #999,934,193

[mouse]

No one believes we evolved from apes.

Strawman logical fallacy #999,934,193


39% believe in evolution

55% who don't attend church believe in evolution

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/02/12/4427408-poll-just-39-believe-in-evolution

Do some research before you address me in the future.
thank you.