jmog wrote: I did exactly this with U-Pb, I stated that when taking into consideration the "halos" burned into the crystal structure from the release of alpha particles, it is more consistent with Polonium decay to lead and not uranium. If you consider this data set with Polonium decay to Pb, then the rocks suddenly date to less than 10,000 years old instead of 4.5 billion.

The geologists know about these alpha particle/halo problems with U-Pb decay, and they know what the numbers for Polonium would spit out, so they then just find some other radiometric dating technique to give them the answer they want.

Same thing they did when C14 dating was found to have problems, they moved to U-Pb, now that their numbers don't come out to what they want when you REALLY study the issues with U-Pb they move onto some other technique until they get what they want "age" wise.

Instead of saying "well, now that electron microscopes are more powerful we have noticed some inconsistencies with U-Pb assumptions and redated these rocks to 10k years", they just have gone to a different dating technique that will give them the answer they are looking for.

If you don't think scientists (some) manipulate data, then you haven't paid close attention to the Global Warming "science" .

Thanks, that is exactly what I was looking for. I admit I haven't followed this thread from beginning to end, but I don't remember you actually going that far in any of the other threads that this topic has come up.

I'll read up on what you have posted and see what I can learn.

Thanks

Why would all of these scientists "want" the earth to be older than it is?!?!?

If it was 6,000 years old, then the majority would say that....of course there is a little problem with that considering some Chinese history dates back that far, but I guess they don't count cause they are not christian.

If memory serves me right, Jmog contends that the age of the Universe is younger than observed because God basically threw the Universe in motion at that point in space....like scattering of jacks!

ManO'War wrote: Why would all of these scientists "want" the earth to be older than it is?!?!?

If it was 6,000 years old, then the majority would say that....of course there is a little problem with that considering some Chinese history dates back that far, but I guess they don't count cause they are not christian.

If memory serves me right, Jmog contends that the age of the Universe is younger than observed because God basically threw the Universe in motion at that point in space....like scattering of jacks!

You have a very naive few of some scientists. Look at the AGW debacle if you don't believe some scientists skew numbers on purpose to fit their belief system.

Why would most of the scientists "want" the Earth to be old? Because in order for evolution to make ANY sense at all the Earth has to be extremely hold, evolution makes zero sense if the Earth is young. So, to fit the evolution model, they believe the Earth is old before they even do any calculations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they would "want" it old.

I never said I believed the Earth was young because God started the Universe in motion at a point in time, that is a possible explanation IF the Universe is young, huge semantic difference there.

See, the difference between you and I Man O War?

I am willing to accept the fact that I might be wrong, but also know there is a chance they (billions of years scientists) might be wrong as well. The science definitely pokes holes at their calculations, that is not debatable.

You, on the other hand, "know" you/they are right and anyone who doesn't believe it is a moron.

Who is using a more scientific/logical approach here? Myself who is studying both sides and trying to come to a good answer, or you who just accepts what people tells you as fact and then belittles anyone who disagrees?

Think it through for a minute.

Oh, and you are wrong about China, the earliest recorded history in China is around 2100 BC the Xia Dynasty...google it .
Earliest recorded Egyptian history is around 3100 BC.

BCSbunk wrote:

74Leps wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

74Leps wrote:Natural selection can only choose from a subset of what is already present, mutations are copying errors. NEVER is observed a truly beneficial mutation - one that increases qualitative sophistication - NEVER.

Or would you like to provide a valid example . . .

Sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria. That's one mutation that is beneficial.

74Leps wrote: As to the previous poster on Sickle Cell anemia being 'proof' of evolution. Typical evolutionist claptrap. Evos continue to use deception/misinformation to confuse the public about their RELIGIOUS bias.

Nobody said sickle cell anemia is proof of evolution. You asked for an example of a beneficial mutation.

And you miss the point again: beneficial mutations aren't the result of new information that increases the complexity of a system; in fact, it's the result of decay.

And again, evolution is the religious belief as it has NO empirical evidence to back it up, only fairy tales told by those who don't want to believe in a creator, for various reasons.

AGAIN here's the LATEST on the subject of whether micro-evolution can lead to macro evolution - THE ANSWER IS NO - Darwin was WRONG.

Scroll down to the list of references at the end - both secular and 'non'

in the beginning there was information

Those who believe in evolution are highly religious - they believe that life can come from non-life - even though empirical evidence shows that is impossible) - note to the person commenting about rna - those guys are CHEATERS - taking dna and rna apart a bit then playing with it to try to get it to reassemble. Again, there's a 1 million dollar reward out there just waiting since 1998 - google Origin of Life Prize and 'advise' them.

There's NO empirical evidence to show 'macroevolution' is possible - None. Even the nylon bug fails under scrutiny.

ALL the 'real' evidence for evolution is based on interpretations based on assumptions - the assumption that evolution is real, then the data is made to fit the assumption - one of the sillier examples - rocks are dated by fossils and fossils by rocks. Radiometric dating is full of outright fraud.

Even the backers of evolution 'policy' - humanists - admit they are a religion - a belief. Evolution does have a basis in religion, as much (I'd say much more!) than Christianity does.


Just trying to stay on topic.

PROVIDE a single valid example of empirical science that proves evolution is true. Come on, humor me.

This is the worst post ever on this site.

Evolution is not a religion unless of course you want to twist definitions around and white is really black and black is really white.

Evolution is fact. You do not even know what evolution is so until you know that you know nothing.

Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

As far as macroevolution goes it comes from common descent to which there is evidence.

Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

WHAT A PILE OF BS you just posted. Talkorigins is a well known evangelical site for humanists. Go to http://www.trueorigin.org/ to find counters to every major claim made at talkorigins. Trueorigins kicks talkorigins butt - a rep from each site debated whether macroevolution is possible and were supposed to post the results on their sites later - only trueorigin posted the results because trueorigin won the debate.

It's YOUR POST that is terrible and telling: You still can't list a single example of empirical evidence, as your post shows - only interpretations based on the assumption that evolution is true. You're no fun at all. Evolution is steeped in faith, in things unseen, unprovable, and counter to testable, observable science.

Here's another site that shows evolution should be abandoned as bad science:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution - showing that evolution fails in every field of science. The site doesn't mention religion at all. Click on 'essays on evolution' for some samples. The host reads and responds to letters from usually irate evolutionists, then tears their arguments apart, usually in a somewhat humorous manner also, using real testable observable science facts.


FOR THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE the world could be 'young' at all. Try this on your calculator:


How many years would it take for the population of humans on earth to reach 6.5 billion? "Man" is estimated to have been around for about a million years according to evolutionists. Taking into account - famine, war, pestilence, etc. a doubling of population every 150 years is a fairly conservative estimate.

I already know the answer to the above question.

I've done population models before myself 74leps, and haven't really discussed them here yet, but since you bring it up .

The average population growth from year to year, at least over the last 200 years, is about 1%. This is fact from world population censuses taken in that time frame.

Now, lets say that the world population increases over the history of mankind is half of that (0.5%) due to lower life expectancies, etc to "stretch" out human time here on Earth.

Given that parameter, it only takes about 5000 years to go from 2 people to 7 billion.

If humans have been around for a million years like evolution would have you believe, we would have hit the "Earth's max population" of whatever number you want before we run out of resources (lets call it 15 billion for arguments sake) in less than 6000 years of human existance (or roughly 994,000 years ago).

However, we obviously haven't hit this number yet.

I love population models and have used them in my young Earth debates before, but they only work on telling how long humans have been on the Earth.

Hi jmog -

If humans have been around a million years, the ground should be filled so much with fossil remains (going by evo's ideas of how fossils are formed) that they would be everywhere, millions and millions of them.

When you have some reading time check out the below link to how evolutionists like to argue, and how they have nothing to back up their claims. It's quite humorous also.

The guy that runs the site is a former rocket scientist that goes by an anonymous name. At the below link, he's responding to hate mails by evos declaring that he knows nothing about evolution, that evolution has been proven hundreds of times etc. Mr. Jones responds asking for any real evidence, or someone who can correct/advise him with some real facts. He's still waiting.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v14i5e.htm

jmog wrote: I've done population models before myself 74leps, and haven't really discussed them here yet, but since you bring it up .

The average population growth from year to year, at least over the last 200 years, is about 1%. This is fact from world population censuses taken in that time frame.

Now, lets say that the world population increases over the history of mankind is half of that (0.5%) due to lower life expectancies, etc to "stretch" out human time here on Earth.

Given that parameter, it only takes about 5000 years to go from 2 people to 7 billion.

If humans have been around for a million years like evolution would have you believe, we would have hit the "Earth's max population" of whatever number you want before we run out of resources (lets call it 15 billion for arguments sake) in less than 6000 years of human existance (or roughly 994,000 years ago).

However, we obviously haven't hit this number yet.

I love population models and have used them in my young Earth debates before, but they only work on telling how long humans have been on the Earth.

jmog, I've already covered this when it was brought up so long ago over on the other site. I pointed how population growth in limited by the available resources and the reason for the "recent" exponential growth is due to technology. I also pointed out other flaws with using this growth model to try and age the Earth, but I'm not going to redo that whole explanation, instead I'll try to go at this in a different way.

Lets do the population growth of starting with a single bacterium, the size of .5 microns. There are larger bacteria, but for arguments sake let's use one of the smallest! The volume of that bacterium would be 1.25 x 10(-19) cubic meters or about 8 quintillion bacteria per cubic meter.
We'll start with a single bacterium with a generation time of one week; again, there are some bacteria with a much faster generation time, some as fast as 15 minutes, but for argument sake lets go with the longer generation time? So after one week we have two bacteria and after two weeks we have four bacteria and after three weeks we have eight bacteria and so on.

The land surface of the Earth is about 150 trillion square meters. If we think about bacteria covering all of the land surface of the Earth to about 2 meters, that would be about 300 trillion cubic meters. How long do you think it would take to get this many bacteria with the above figures? That would 2.4 x 10^33 individual bacteria.

111 generations of bacteria doubling each time would produce 2.6 x 10^33 bacteria (far more than we'd need to cover the earth!) and that would take place in just over two years! Further more, since their growth rate would be exponential, in just another 22 week, or 133 weeks in all (less than three years) the bacteria would have replace the entire volume of the Earth (about 1.09750955 × 10^21 cubic meters)!

So my question to you is, with the relatively small amount of bacteria that we currently have, does that mean the Earth must be less than two years old? Based on your logic, it must be true!

We did a ton of these things in college (made Calc III so much more fun than any of my other classes)!

74Leps wrote: Hi jmog -

If humans have been around a million years, the ground should be filled so much with fossil remains (going by evo's ideas of how fossils are formed) that they would be everywhere, millions and millions of them.

When you have some reading time check out the below link to how evolutionists like to argue, and how they have nothing to back up their claims. It's quite humorous also.

The guy that runs the site is a former rocket scientist that goes by an anonymous name. At the below link, he's responding to hate mails by evos declaring that he knows nothing about evolution, that evolution has been proven hundreds of times etc. Mr. Jones responds asking for any real evidence, or someone who can correct/advise him with some real facts. He's still waiting.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v14i5e.htm

When you say "humans" are you talking about modern humans or just hominids? If you're talking about modern humans then it is believed that we didn't really make an appearance until about 100,000 years ago. And if you really think we should be finding millions of fossils (regardless of species) then you don't understand how fossils are formed.

Bigred1995 wrote:
jmog, I've already covered this when it was brought up so long ago over on the other site. I pointed how population growth in limited by the available resources and the reason for the "recent" exponential growth is due to technology. I also pointed out other flaws with using this growth model to try and age the Earth, but I'm not going to redo that whole explanation, instead I'll try to go at this in a different way.

Lets do the population growth of starting with a single bacterium, the size of .5 microns. There are larger bacteria, but for arguments sake let's use one of the smallest! The volume of that bacterium would be 1.25 x 10(-19) cubic meters or about 8 quintillion bacteria per cubic meter.
We'll start with a single bacterium with a generation time of one week; again, there are some bacteria with a much faster generation time, some as fast as 15 minutes, but for argument sake lets go with the longer generation time? So after one week we have two bacteria and after two weeks we have four bacteria and after three weeks we have eight bacteria and so on.

The land surface of the Earth is about 150 trillion square meters. If we think about bacteria covering all of the land surface of the Earth to about 2 meters, that would be about 300 trillion cubic meters. How long do you think it would take to get this many bacteria with the above figures? That would 2.4 x 10^33 individual bacteria.

111 generations of bacteria doubling each time would produce 2.6 x 10^33 bacteria (far more than we'd need to cover the earth!) and that would take place in just over two years! Further more, since their growth rate would be exponential, in just another 22 week, or 133 weeks in all (less than three years) the bacteria would have replace the entire volume of the Earth (about 1.09750955 × 10^21 cubic meters)!

So my question to you is, with the relatively small amount of bacteria that we currently have, does that mean the Earth must be less than two years old? Based on your logic, it must be true!

We did a ton of these things in college (made Calc III so much more fun than any of my other classes)!

Bigred, who said I used exponential growth? If you use that then you are not even using calc III level math you are using pre-calc level math.

Exponential growth works only until you start to consider predator/prey, illnesses, boundary limits (aka petry dish for bacteria, the Earth for humans, etc).

Exponential growth sucks as a model after the first few generations, as you pointed out. However, there are many nice models out there that include things like resource consumption (aka too many people on the Earth), predator/prey, sicknesses/plagues, etc.

Also, the typical growth model shows that in real population growths the growth rate gets slower over time due to the constraints I pointed out. So your assertation that we are now (as humans) in an exploding growth rate does typically fit the math.

Think about this, people are not having near the number of kids nowadays as they used to, yes people are living longer (life expectancy) but the overall growth rate wouldn't be significantly higher than say 500+ years ago.

You are right that people are living longer, but we are having far less kids per capita as well.

FYI, the modeling I used in these growth models are typically taught in a senior level Applied Math Modeling class, not Pre-Calc or Calc III. I've taught Pre-Calc and Calc III before, and those models really are VERY simplistic. The first interesting growth model you see is typically in a differential equations class.

I will admit this though, with the way I just briefly stated it above, that would lead someone to believe I was using a simple exponential growth model. I just listed a % growth and didn't go through any detail of the other parameters. Growth percentages are used in all of the different models, but in the others it is one of many parameters where in exponential it is the only parameter.

jmog wrote: Bigred, who said I used exponential growth? If you use that then you are not even using calc III level math you are using pre-calc level math.

Exponential growth works only until you start to consider predator/prey, illnesses, boundary limits (aka petry dish for bacteria, the Earth for humans, etc).

Exponential growth sucks as a model after the first few generations, as you pointed out. However, there are many nice models out there that include things like resource consumption (aka too many people on the Earth), predator/prey, sicknesses/plagues, etc.

Also, the typical growth model shows that in real population growths the growth rate gets slower over time due to the constraints I pointed out. So your assertation that we are now (as humans) in an exploding growth rate does typically fit the math.

Think about this, people are not having near the number of kids nowadays as they used to, yes people are living longer (life expectancy) but the overall growth rate wouldn't be significantly higher than say 500+ years ago.

You are right that people are living longer, but we are having far less kids per capita as well.

FYI, the modeling I used in these growth models are typically taught in a senior level Applied Math Modeling class, not Pre-Calc or Calc III. I've taught Pre-Calc and Calc III before, and those models really are VERY simplistic. The first interesting growth model you see is typically in a differential equations class.

I will admit this though, with the way I just briefly stated it above, that would lead someone to believe I was using a simple exponential growth model. I just listed a % growth and didn't go through any detail of the other parameters. Growth percentages are used in all of the different models, but in the others it is one of many parameters where in exponential it is the only parameter.

Then please post the model that you did use. I simply used the model used by creationist, more specifically Ken Hovind & his son! Oh, and please provide the numbers you used to account for "predator/prey, sicknesses/plagues, etc.", because based on the numbers you provided (which I have issue with, lets just say they're very subjective) led me to believe you used this formula...
P(n) = P(1 + r)n
edit: when I mentioned doing these in Calc. III I was talking about these types of problems (Exponential Growth and Decay) in general. I'm pretty sure it was in Calc III.

74Leps wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

74Leps wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

74Leps wrote:Natural selection can only choose from a subset of what is already present, mutations are copying errors. NEVER is observed a truly beneficial mutation - one that increases qualitative sophistication - NEVER.

Or would you like to provide a valid example . . .

Sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria. That's one mutation that is beneficial.

74Leps wrote: As to the previous poster on Sickle Cell anemia being 'proof' of evolution. Typical evolutionist claptrap. Evos continue to use deception/misinformation to confuse the public about their RELIGIOUS bias.

Nobody said sickle cell anemia is proof of evolution. You asked for an example of a beneficial mutation.

And you miss the point again: beneficial mutations aren't the result of new information that increases the complexity of a system; in fact, it's the result of decay.

And again, evolution is the religious belief as it has NO empirical evidence to back it up, only fairy tales told by those who don't want to believe in a creator, for various reasons.

AGAIN here's the LATEST on the subject of whether micro-evolution can lead to macro evolution - THE ANSWER IS NO - Darwin was WRONG.

Scroll down to the list of references at the end - both secular and 'non'

in the beginning there was information

Those who believe in evolution are highly religious - they believe that life can come from non-life - even though empirical evidence shows that is impossible) - note to the person commenting about rna - those guys are CHEATERS - taking dna and rna apart a bit then playing with it to try to get it to reassemble. Again, there's a 1 million dollar reward out there just waiting since 1998 - google Origin of Life Prize and 'advise' them.

There's NO empirical evidence to show 'macroevolution' is possible - None. Even the nylon bug fails under scrutiny.

ALL the 'real' evidence for evolution is based on interpretations based on assumptions - the assumption that evolution is real, then the data is made to fit the assumption - one of the sillier examples - rocks are dated by fossils and fossils by rocks. Radiometric dating is full of outright fraud.

Even the backers of evolution 'policy' - humanists - admit they are a religion - a belief. Evolution does have a basis in religion, as much (I'd say much more!) than Christianity does.


Just trying to stay on topic.

PROVIDE a single valid example of empirical science that proves evolution is true. Come on, humor me.

This is the worst post ever on this site.

Evolution is not a religion unless of course you want to twist definitions around and white is really black and black is really white.

Evolution is fact. You do not even know what evolution is so until you know that you know nothing.

Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

As far as macroevolution goes it comes from common descent to which there is evidence.

Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

WHAT A PILE OF BS you just posted. Talkorigins is a well known evangelical site for humanists. Go to http://www.trueorigin.org/ to find counters to every major claim made at talkorigins. Trueorigins kicks talkorigins butt - a rep from each site debated whether macroevolution is possible and were supposed to post the results on their sites later - only trueorigin posted the results because trueorigin won the debate.

It's YOUR POST that is terrible and telling: You still can't list a single example of empirical evidence, as your post shows - only interpretations based on the assumption that evolution is true. You're no fun at all. Evolution is steeped in faith, in things unseen, unprovable, and counter to testable, observable science.

Here's another site that shows evolution should be abandoned as bad science:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution - showing that evolution fails in every field of science. The site doesn't mention religion at all. Click on 'essays on evolution' for some samples. The host reads and responds to letters from usually irate evolutionists, then tears their arguments apart, usually in a somewhat humorous manner also, using real testable observable science facts.


FOR THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE the world could be 'young' at all. Try this on your calculator:


How many years would it take for the population of humans on earth to reach 6.5 billion? "Man" is estimated to have been around for about a million years according to evolutionists. Taking into account - famine, war, pestilence, etc. a doubling of population every 150 years is a fairly conservative estimate.

I already know the answer to the above question.

PRATT.

http://www.ediacara.org/harpt.html

Make outrageous claims, but don't dare to support them. Make other people prove them wrong.
Keep repeating your claims. People will believe them eventually.
If someone asks you specific questions about one of your claims, make up answers.
When presented with evidence that contradicts your claims, trivialize it. Say, "ha ha! you only presented X pieces of evidence!" Hope they won't notice that you presented none.
When caught in an error, redefine the English language to accommodate the error.
Refuse to provide references for any claim unless at least 10 people ask for them.
When producing your reference, assuming you have one, provide a vague citation with no page numbers or publisher information.
By all means, do not transcribe the contents of a supporting reference on your own, even if it's only 2 sentences. Make others do your work for you. They probably won't bother.
If somebody actually bothers to look up your reference, misrepresent it. Say it "implied" what you claimed, even if it claimed the opposite.
When the chorus of challenges grows loud, divert attention away from the challenges by whining about name-calling.
Before complaining about name-calling, call your opponents names like "liar" and "history revisionist".
Leave talk.origins, come back a few months later, change the topic of discussion, and hope nobody remembers how well you applied these techniques the last time you were there.
Killfile people who provide particularly effective criticisms, so you do not have to listen to them and can plead ignorance about their comments. [Andrew MacRae]
After avoiding a direct question once, with one of the above techniques, claim that you've "already answered that question" if anyone asks it again. [Doug Turnbull]
In lieu of argument, refer readers to http://www.superb.com/~markh/. [Loren Petrich]
Claim you have "killfiled" someone, even though the headers on your messages show you are using a newsreader which doesn't support killfiles. [Paul Farrar]
When the going gets tough, start a new thread and reiterate your original assertion as fact. After a while, consolidate your threads and repeat. [Michael Keane]
Go on (or pretend to go on) a vacation or trip. When you return, repeat all the same assertions as fact. Forget or ignore all the criticisms that were made before you left. [Michael Keane]
When somebody asks you, weeks later, for evidence of an earlier claim, say "I already dealt with that in an earlier article." [Russell Stewart]
Write a hit-and-run article. Claim to have disproved all your opponents' arguments and then refuse to answer anymore relevant questions or challenges.
If someone disagrees with you, use the "Philosophy 101" argument from authority. Pretend all great philosophers and scientists have endorsed your argument, even when practically none have.
Call your opponents biased against Christianity. If someone disagrees with you, then that person obviously hates Christians.
Have all your past articles purged from Usenet archiving services like DejaNews. That way, there will be no record of you losing all your arguments.
If absolutely, irrevocably proven wrong on some fundamental point, claim that said point was actually "minor". [Dan Breslau]
Quote your opponent out of context so it appears that he's actually agreeing with you, even though he's actually shattered your argument.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Outstanding !!

jmog, I'm going away on a long weekend, so I may not get back to you until Tuesday! Have a good weekend!

BCS, if you truly believe those same arguments don't apply to evolutionists, atheists, etc then you don't pay much attention.

Bigred1995 wrote: jmog, I'm going away on a long weekend, so I may not get back to you until Tuesday! Have a good weekend!

Thanks man, have a good one.

To answer your above question, I introduced "crowding" effects like with a parameter that would limit the population total to say 15 billion people. This parameter is easily adjustable to accomodate any "max population" of humans estimate that someone believes the Earth can handle.

The Predator/Prey was basically microbes (viruses/bacteria) as the predator as they typically are the bigger killers of humans than any other living organism. I used death rates from bacteria/viral sicknesses each year to develop the system of ODEs needed for a predator/prey model.

In the end the "graph" looked more like the "S" curve of a logarithmic growth model (the crowding model) with sinusoidal humps throughout it that accounded for the predator/prey relationship.

I'm not saying it accurately predicts the population of humans throughout history, I'm just saying its much more accurate than any exponential growth model.

Even your example of a bacteria growth model and 2 years is easily fixed to what would really happen in the real world once you put these types of parameters into the growth model.

If you want actual numbers of the parameters, I'll have to get back to you as its on my home PC, not on my work one .

jmog wrote: BCS, if you truly believe those same arguments don't apply to evolutionists, atheists, etc then you don't pay much attention.

I pay attention plenty the above is fact and how creationists argue.

PRATT applies.

The points have been refuted a thousand times. Shown with evidence but when you claim it is not evidence then there is nothing we can do.

There are bird-mammals, reptile mammals transitions found in fossil evidence but it is ignored.

The above is the truth and does not apply to science at all which benefits from proving others wrong in the field.

The science conspiricy theories grow old and tired. Science is all about trying to prove old theories incorrect.

The problem with evolution is the more they dig the more evidence they find to support it.

In fact I invite you here to discuss the falsehoods of evolution.
I encourage all creationists to sign up there.

http://freeratio.org/

Just go to the Evolution creation section.

Show me the "reptile-mammal" or the "bird-mammal" transitions, I'd love to see them.

Again, your use of the word "fact" is hilarious when its nothing more than your opinion.

Actually, the more they dig up the more often they find dinosaur bones with soft tissue in it like blood, etc that is impossible to last millions of years in the ground/rocks. That is typically left out even though there have been MANY dinosaur skeletons dug up with soft tissue found that wasn't fossilized.

jmog wrote: Show me the "reptile-mammal" or the "bird-mammal" transitions, I'd love to see them.

Again, your use of the word "fact" is hilarious when its nothing more than your opinion.

Actually, the more they dig up the more often they find dinosaur bones with soft tissue in it like blood, etc that is impossible to last millions of years in the ground/rocks. That is typically left out even though there have been MANY dinosaur skeletons dug up with soft tissue found that wasn't fossilized.

Sphenacodon

Biarmosuchia

Thrinaxodon

Probainognathus

Diarthrognathus

Those are reptile-mammal transitions. Now which of the how to argue like a creationist fallacies will you invoke?

Now on to the nonsense about soft tissue.

You have no clue to what you are talking about. There has been soft tissue found in T-rex Thighbone NOT many samples which is ambigious.

The great thing about science is it keeps on looking for answers. Turns out that the "blood" and "soft tissue" may not be soft tissue and blood at all.

But instead Biofilm. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808

Jmog, according to google (your source), the earliest "civilizatons" were 6,500 years ago. The earliest "settlements" were 10,000 years ago. The earliest calendar goes back 6,251 years ago.

Also, Chinese history goes back 7,000 to 8,000 years ago, with the ruins of the Daxi culture. So that doesn't give too much time for old Adam and Eve, assuming they are white, to become Asian.

Oh, that's right, you don't believe in evolution. So how does the bible explain all the different variations in humans around the globe??

ManO'War wrote: Jmog, according to google (your source), the earliest "civilizatons" were 6,500 years ago. The earliest "settlements" were 10,000 years ago. The earliest calendar goes back 6,251 years ago.

Also, Chinese history goes back 7,000 to 8,000 years ago, with the ruins of the Daxi culture. So that doesn't give too much time for old Adam and Eve, assuming they are white, to become Asian.

Oh, that's right, you don't believe in evolution. So how does the bible explain all the different variations in humans around the globe??

There are still people out there who argue for a flat earth too and Geocentrism.

They are inconsitent in their positions, if science counters the bible it is bad if not, it is good. It is utter nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

It is laughable that 18% of Americans believe that the Sun circles the Earth and even more do not believe evolution is real.

A gallup poll in the 90's shows 18% of Americans believe that the Sun circles the Earth....... Really?

No wonder they are not capable of understanding evolution. It is very depressing because they fight against science and vote for other idiots who fight against science.

This thread seems to have DEVOLVED into a debate over young earth theory. As a proponent of both intelligent design AND evolution I find myself mostly agreeing with your scientific assertions, but not with your overall elitist mindset with fails to respect other viewpoints especially in matters of religion and politics.

your quote illustrates it all...

"It is laughable that 18% of Americans believe that the Sun circles the Earth and even more do not believe evolution is real.

A gallup poll in the 90's shows 18% of Americans believe that the Sun circles the Earth....... Really?

No wonder they are not capable of understanding evolution. It is very depressing because they fight against science and vote for other idiots who fight against science."


....and perhaps the idiots who vote for and who fight against government interventions in healthcare, business, lifestyle etc.
I remember reading a poll that some obscenely high % of Americans couldn't pick Florida out on a map...and that less than 50% of Americans couldn't tell who we fought against in WWII....or couldn't get within a hundred years of dating the Civil War.
NONE of which means that they don't have equal rights to decide how to live their lives free and unfettered from nattering know it alls who are willing to legislate what's best for them.

HitsRus wrote: This thread seems to have DEVOLVED into a debate over young earth theory. As a proponent of both intelligent design AND evolution I find myself mostly agreeing with your scientific assertions, but not with your overall elitist mindset with fails to respect other viewpoints especially in matters of religion and politics.

your quote illustrates it all...

"It is laughable that 18% of Americans believe that the Sun circles the Earth and even more do not believe evolution is real.

A gallup poll in the 90's shows 18% of Americans believe that the Sun circles the Earth....... Really?

No wonder they are not capable of understanding evolution. It is very depressing because they fight against science and vote for other idiots who fight against science."


....and perhaps the idiots who vote for and who fight against government interventions in healthcare, business, lifestyle etc.
I remember reading a poll that some obscenely high % of Americans couldn't pick Florida out on a map...and that less than 50% of Americans couldn't tell who we fought against in WWII....or couldn't get within a hundred years of dating the Civil War.
NONE of which means that they don't have equal rights to decide how to live their lives free and unfettered from nattering know it alls who are willing to legislate what's best for them.

Live your life free you can even believe in angels that fly around protecting you from demons who will possess your soul and we just cannot see them..... Or fairies and Elves and Gnomes are in your garden etc...

However do not put that into a SCIENCE classroom because that is NOT science it is religion/mythology.

Science belongs to science and in a science classroom. Science needs to be taught. So keep ID or Creationism which are religious/mythological ideals not scientific ones out of the science classroom.

If you consider me elitist so be it. I doubt any amount of evidence to the contrary will sway your opinion.

I don't think any one here suggested that literal creationism be taught in science class.

Yeah, surprisingly this thread has gone on for a long time, when by like page 4 everyone pretty much agreed it should not be taught in science classes (though the 13 pages after that point make you wonder if people just say that and really do want it in science classes).

BCSbunk wrote:

jmog wrote: Show me the "reptile-mammal" or the "bird-mammal" transitions, I'd love to see them.

Again, your use of the word "fact" is hilarious when its nothing more than your opinion.

Actually, the more they dig up the more often they find dinosaur bones with soft tissue in it like blood, etc that is impossible to last millions of years in the ground/rocks. That is typically left out even though there have been MANY dinosaur skeletons dug up with soft tissue found that wasn't fossilized.

Sphenacodon

Biarmosuchia

Thrinaxodon

Probainognathus

Diarthrognathus

Those are reptile-mammal transitions. Now which of the how to argue like a creationist fallacies will you invoke?

Now on to the nonsense about soft tissue.

You have no clue to what you are talking about. There has been soft tissue found in T-rex Thighbone NOT many samples which is ambigious.

The great thing about science is it keeps on looking for answers. Turns out that the "blood" and "soft tissue" may not be soft tissue and blood at all.

But instead Biofilm. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808

Thanks for the reading material, I am definitely looking up those fossil records and going to learn more about it.

However, you are wrong, it has NOT been just one T-Rex. It has been a few, and it appears to be in nearly any dinosaur they actually crack the bones open instead of saving them for museums.

ManO'War wrote: Jmog, according to google (your source), the earliest "civilizatons" were 6,500 years ago. The earliest "settlements" were 10,000 years ago. The earliest calendar goes back 6,251 years ago.

Also, Chinese history goes back 7,000 to 8,000 years ago, with the ruins of the Daxi culture. So that doesn't give too much time for old Adam and Eve, assuming they are white, to become Asian.

Oh, that's right, you don't believe in evolution. So how does the bible explain all the different variations in humans around the globe??

1. Who said Adam and Eve were white?
2. Chinease history does not go back to 8000 years, I stated the earliest Chinese dynasty up above.
3. The earliest calendar goes back, by your own admission, about 6000 years...interesting since any young Earth believer says thats roughly how long humans have been around.
4. No great dating records proof civilizations of 10k years, they use methods we have already discussed to "date" the artifacts of some civilizations.
5. If you actually read what I've said, I believe fully in microevolution (adaptation within a species to its environment), just not macroevolution. So, there goes your theory that I don't believe Adam and Eve could have "evolved" into all of the races over time.