What exactly is the NGDC's agenda? Please provide a link to that website.That cheesy link you provided is from the National Geophysical Data Center. (NGDC)
An organization that has an agenda and has been proven wrong and has many flaws.
If your going to pull out more false evidence to prove Darwin's half baked theories? at least try to find a credible organization, not the NGDC
Weeeeeeeee
And just because your website says they have been proven wrong really doesn't mean they have.
I don't really know about you, but I'm having fun. Weeeeeeee
The National Geophysical Data Center itself, has no agenda other than providing the most accurate geoscience data they can. I would imagine individual employees do. James Hansen for example is the head of one of NASA's departments. He has an agenda of promoting antropogenic global warming and uses his position to do so. However, the truth has been coming out:
NASA Office Is Criticized on Climate ReportsHansen has stated that NASA administrators have tried to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change. Hansen claims that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. NASA responded that its policies are similar to those of any other federal agency in requiring employees to coordinate all statements with the public affairs office without exception. Two years after Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general found that the NASA Office of Public Affairs had mischaracterized the science of climate change intended for the public.
Hansen has also appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the White House edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening. He claimed that he was unable to speak freely without the backlash of other government officials, and that he has not experienced that level of restrictions on communicating with the public during his career.
He did provide a link to the map, but I do wonder if he knows just who they are.
NOAA: National Geophysical Data Center
The websites he references has no credibility. I have shown how false the information they use is.
I feel sorry for him, he may as well believe the world is flat.
There is no god, and creationism is just ing irrational
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Multiple rock formations, are analysed and found to be identical chemically, are found on different sides of an ocean. These formations have layering charactoristics that are also fully identical.
It is known from careful, extremely precise measurements that the two different continents, are moving apart from each other at the rate of one inch per year.
Rearranging the map of the continents shows that the two continents fit together almost precisely.
The rock formations and coastlines are roughly 1000 miles apart.
1000 miles in inches is 63,120,000
Is it logical to conclude that at some point, these two continents were actually together at a point approximately 63 million years ago?
I did not give a date for the rock formations. I noted that only that multiple, chemically identical rock formations were observed at opposite sides of the ocean.
I also asked, given the evidence presented, if it was logical to conclude that two continents drifting at 1 inch per year apart from each other, and 63 million inches apart, might have been joined at some point approximately 63 million years ago?
Either it is logical or it is not.
If God created something that just MADE all this appear to look like continents were joined at one large continent at some time in the very distant past, why did God bother to do that?
ok so you got mouse on the sediment the score is still
mouse 11
atheist 2
Mouse exposing the Evolutionist's ice core theory is what blew the Darwin lovers out of the water, I actually think that was epic!
http://www.good.is/post/the-good-100...hotosynthesis/
What happens when we start improving on God's design and end up doing better?
Not to worry the world is still full of Wild Cobra's that will be more than happy to remind you 24/7 that your great great great grandfather was a fish.
My God, I've spawned a monster!
This thread I mean, not my kid.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog
We have not only seen it, we have proved it, and have the living organisms that evolved during the experiment.
YOu mean the one that lies about what the ice core datings say?
Hard to "expose" something by lying.
I read Mouse's ice core post and that story is all over the www how can you call it a lie? When will you admit when one of your ed up theories turns out to be a fraud? Or are you another Blake you walk on water?
I'm a big believer in this, johnsmith:
7. Pommer’s Law: Proposed by Rob Pommer on rationalwiki.com in 2007, this states: “A person's mind can be changed by reading information on the internet. The nature of this change will be from having no opinion to having a wrong opinion.”
What caused you to contradict it?
I'm not a big believer in this johnsmith[.].
mouse got ya.
How did I know someone would piggy back off of the Internet Rules thread to 'boost' their pro-evolution worldview back in this thread... you all are like clock work (I guess I am too by responding). Is pasting this link your way of suggesting you've won the argument? Ironic... no?
I'm very familiar with Lenski's experiment, and the history of that dialogue on its way to becoming a 'wiki-legend'. Suffice it to say that the Conservapedia guy was about as ill-prepared and inept as can be to enter a discussion of that nature... he didn't even read Lenski's work... wth?? He unwillingly became a redux incarnation of William Jennings Bryan and his inept role in the in/famous Scopes Trial... albeit on a less publicized scale.
Unfortunately for your camp and what they try to claim from Lenski's well do ented work is that conclusive proof of evolution is still being sought in the genome of the citrate-tolerant E.Coli strain. Fortunately for my camp, Lenksi's do entation is thorough and elegant enough to point out two aspects of his project (even he mentions this much) that don't allow for everyone to simpy claim... "Hoorray! We finally proved Evolution!!!"
Evolution can be proven only if mutations were singled out as the sole driver for the change that allowed E.Coli to develop tolerance to a citrate environment. There are over 15 do ented ways in which genetic information can recombine to form "new" material. Most of these processes reverse themselves as part of the overall translation or replication process but every now and then our genes can purposefully absorb other material found within other locations of the genome. These processes are slow and infrequent in most species but occur with greater frequency in other Taxidermic families... such as E-genus bacteria, or my favorite family of the animal kingdom... the Canines.
More importantly, we can't ignore the fact that Lenski and his staff are avid participants in this lifelong experiment. They have allowed themselves to become a significant factor. I'm not saying his team staged the results or falsified the data, far from it. But much like the Miller-Urey experiment before it, or the fruit fly experiments, one cannot simply toss out the scientist's input (his many tinkerings/ selective changes / population segregations/isolations etc...) from the assessment of the data when drawing conclusions from it. If you read about the methods Lenski's team used, and their approach do the personnel involved not participate in a designer-like role? The moment one interferes with what is strictly supposed to be an "observe and measure" task the experiment has taken on a new factor... human analysis and interjection. Much like quality control in a manufacturing facility, or the control of the kinetic parameters in a reaction, human input is very much a part of the equation.
Not to be forgotten is the fact that E.Coli bacteria are asexual organisms... where most large animal species are sexual. This is huge. The genetic mechanisms, the overall dynamics of gene transmission, and the implications on natural selection from this very simple distinction are significant when it comes to concluding that results from one class of organisms prescribes the behavior for another... in light of an all-encompassing theory like Evolution.
Having said that... I truly believe that Lenski genuinely wants to find that elusive evolutionary process in his 'miraculous' citrate tolerant E.Coli strain, unlike other agenda driven experiments out there... He has the strain in his possession; all he has to do now is systematically rule out the possibility that the other genetic recombination processes were not responsible for the strains' remarkable adaptation. If subsequent data soundly supports that conclusion then he will have taken a major step towards validating one of biology's most controversial theories. His teams are undertaking that very task now.
Now don't get all worked-up from my comments above... I know you're going to want to splice and dice my response and counter every single sentence with something that supports your own worldview. I don't have the time for that nor feel like entering a pissing match... and since we never see eye-to-eye on anything concerning this topic. Why bother? Pride? nah... not this time.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-29-2009 at 01:17 AM.
???
not sure you know what ironic means
Does your camp know how to make a fire using flint rocks?Unfortunately for your camp and what they try to claim from Lenski's well do ented work is that conclusive proof of evolution is still being sought in the genome of the citrate-tolerant E.Coli strain. Fortunately for my camp, Lenksi's do entation is thorough and elegant enough to point out two aspects of his project (even he mentions this much) that don't allow for everyone to simpy claim... "Hoorray! We finally proved Evolution!!!"
yet you took the time to post a mini-thesis on the Lenski project.I don't have the time for that nor feel like entering a pissing match...
That's almost ironic.......though it's pretty much just lying.
why did you bother?and since we never see eye-to-eye on anything concerning this topic. Why bother? Pride? nah... not this time.
How old do you think the earth is?
RG, yes, I mentioned the citrate ability waaaayy back in the thread, and to his credit, zosa mentioned that it was pretty good evidence. I forget what the others in the thread thought of it.
Wow...Not to worry the world is still full of Wild Cobra's that will be more than happy to remind you 24/7 that your great great great grandfather was a fish.
You sure are ignorant to believe that is my viewpoint.
Hey Mr. "I have an axe to grind!" Blake...
As a fellow molecular geneticist, I'm familiar with Lenski's projects... I've been following them for years. Consequently, writing on this subject comes easy to me... writing at a level that doesn't convey any ill-perceived condescension, however, takes time.... hence the length... We can't just all take your approach and pretend to know that we're familiar with the field... in that regard, your belligerent suggestion that I'm somehow lying... is a convenient ploy to detract from what I had to say... it's also an admission that you lack the comprehension to even understand that what I wrote is relevant.
whatever helps you sleep at night. Don't let the facts get in the way of spoiling your little wet dream that the theory of Evolution had been conclusively proven. Lying?
I don't know... why do you care?
Given the strength of the magnetic field and it's rate of decay... hmm...
Again, why do you care?
We get it... you hate the thought of a personal Creator... but why should your beliefs infringe my own?
Just let me be...
Let it go...
Again, this is too time consuming...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-29-2009 at 08:40 AM.
WHere is the rational in evolution?
^Proof Blake is a lier!
The only reason I don't have him on ignore is his extremely humorous self-pwnage he's completely unaware of.
"I am right, you are wrong!"
"You're a liar!"
"You're stupid!"
He's like a little ing kid with ADD, unable to control himself yet unable to understand why everyone considers him re ed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
