i deal with this sort of thing all the time.
it's best to remember one thing:
has any of your teachers ever let you get away with saying "well gee teach, it was MAGIC ! !"?
the same applies here.
Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
it's best to remember one thing:
has any of your teachers ever let you get away with saying "well gee teach, it was MAGIC ! !"?
the same applies here.
I brought up conservative and transitional genes, in my last post, and would like to see how the evolutionary theory deals with this molecular effect.
this might not be true.
different rates of evolution implies a structure related process, not an environmental one.
maybe only ONE "defect" need arise that just happens to be the catalyst for the change.
or, one "defect" that causes a misfolded protein which happens to be the catalyst.
no, different rates of evo is most certainly structurally related.
structurally as in molecular structure.
That's definitely true. Change just one gene in the HOX complex and you get new body segmentation for example. Want legs on a fruit fly's head? That's the place to make the change.
Also true. The molecular structure of DNA determines the organism's genotype and subsequently its genotype.
something just keeps hanging in my craw about all of this:
life and the universe, both will defy adequate description.
but will they forever?
i believe they have some complete DNA sequences from plants/ animals.
doesn't it seem just a matter of time?
the same was said after miller-urey too.
could we really be dealing with quantuum physics and the transdimensional?
life and the universe, both will defy adequate description.
but will they forever?
i believe they have some complete DNA sequences from plants/ animals.
doesn't it seem just a matter of time?
the same was said after miller-urey too.
could we really be dealing with quantuum physics and the transdimensional?
Please confirm or deny you are talking about the Jenkins-Fishbach collaboration.
Not credible:
J.H. Jenkins and E. Fischbach, "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates during the solar flare of 2006 December 13." Astroparticle Physics, 2009. 31(6): p. 407-411.
J.H. Jenkins, E. Fischbach, J.B. Buncher, J.T. Gruenwald, D.E. Krause, J.J. Mattes , "Evidence of Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance." Astroparticle Physics, 2009. 32(1): p. 42-46.
J.H. Jenkins, K.R. Herminghuysen, T.E. Blue, E.Fischbach, D. Javorsek II, A.C. Kauffman, D.W. Mundy, P.A. Sturrock, and J.W. Talnagi, "Additional experimental evidence for a solar influence on nuclear decay rates." Astroparticle Physics, 2012. 37(1): p. 81-88.
Credible:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3265
http://geoneutrino.nl/Publications/ARI5127-No Evidence -2011.pdf
http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/2011 Prog...ons, and Astrophysics/I_34_test of claims.pdf
News and discussion:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/oct/02/the-mystery-of-the-varying-nuclear-decay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates
http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/
But it basically has zero impact on the reliability of radiometric dating on establishing the antiquity of the Earth.
More like a logic-distorting, no-mocking-of-Hitler's-opinions perspective.
Last edited:
That is too bad because that is about the only quasi-reasonable excuse I could concieve of for embracing the bat-shit crazy idea that the earth is only 10,000 years old.
So you asked me for a concrete example of why the I think the earth is older than 10,000 years and I gave you the Hawaiian Islands. I am curious how you are going to dismiss that information.
here is a link on radioactive dating methods and the various assumptions about them:
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html#Assumptions
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html#Assumptions
But those aren't untested assumptions. Those are requirements for isochrons.
Last edited:
Isocrons huh? That's a funny word for math based off assumptions. Let me see if I can't be objective over more than the whole thread. There are these things called tektites which fall from the sky and look like plates. Maybe finding these in human history caused us to eat off plates. Perhaps the proper assumption here is god given plates.
Though I suppose it wouldn't matter if a smart person say one a long time ago and said, "Hey these look like water falling on a pond" and began to stop questioning the age of the materials. Why? He had found the truth behind materialism. All materials are the same age! The only thing that matters is how they effect one another. Should I reiterate or is this anecdote sufficient?
Though I suppose it wouldn't matter if a smart person say one a long time ago and said, "Hey these look like water falling on a pond" and began to stop questioning the age of the materials. Why? He had found the truth behind materialism. All materials are the same age! The only thing that matters is how they effect one another. Should I reiterate or is this anecdote sufficient?
AGE!
But to be perfectly contingent with your mindset here I would have to say the pieces which make lead and gold different are in fact the same.
But to be perfectly contingent with your mindset here I would have to say the pieces which make lead and gold different are in fact the same.
Right, because the heavier elements aren't really the result of stellar nucleosynthesis, they were just there all along!
@En --
See, that's what I get for posting in haste, it leads to mistakes like this one, my bad.
However it's demonstrable that not all materials are the same age, even the cells in my body are not all the same age. Hell, most of the atoms that constitute my body were probably made in different stars at different points in time.
See, that's what I get for posting in haste, it leads to mistakes like this one, my bad.
However it's demonstrable that not all materials are the same age, even the cells in my body are not all the same age. Hell, most of the atoms that constitute my body were probably made in different stars at different points in time.
Ok and here the debate starts over on such an grander scale that we are all about to uphold. If they are lost may we help find them.
Let me get this straight Rav. You are assuming the first elements made were godly, yet the rest were the creation of something which God did not intend? Something alive from the linguistic standpoint of the root nucleo-
1704, "kernel of a nut," 1708, "head of a comet," from Latin nucleus "kernel," from nucula "little nut," diminutive of nux (genitive nucis) "nut," from PIE *kneu- "nut" (cf. Middle Irish cnu, Welsh cneuen, Middle Breton knoen "nut," Old Norse hnot, Old English hnutu "nut"). General sense of "central part or thing, about which others cluster"1704, "kernel of a nut," 1708, "head of a comet," from Latin nucleus "kernel," from nucula "little nut," diminutive of nux (genitive nucis) "nut," from PIE *kneu- "nut" (cf. Middle Irish cnu, Welsh cneuen, Middle Breton knoen "nut," Old Norse hnot, Old English hnutu "nut"). General sense of "central part or thing, about which others cluster"
Nuts are in fact alive. Yes this is some sort of logical fallacy to which the word was not intended for this use! But I believe we would also have to ask the man who created most of its usage today if that is really what he intended? Did this man who has put so much effort into centralizing the main vain of information into such a singular living aspect for as to expect us to subconsciously realize which words pertain to the living and which pertain to God? was it many men? Did the do this purposefully then still allow us to choose them! That is madness. It rightfully makes me so.
Constituted but not equivocated.
Isochrons. (Now fixed in the original which was an iPhone post.)
They are gravel-size, not saucer, plate or platter-sized. Their shapes are split into splash-type droplets, aerodynamic-shaped buttons and blocky layered types -- none of which remind me of the shape of any dinner plate. I think you have over-relied on two-D images of aerodynamic-shaped buttons along their axis of symmetry.
There are two things wrong with that assumption.
There are three things wrong with that assumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektite
https://www.google.com/search?q=tektites&tbm=isch
What people say doesn't have any bearing on what was and only rarely on what will be.
What?
What?
That is not true and that does not follow.
Since that sentence is vague enough to describe all physical phenomena, I am force to concur and point out that your expression is nearly vacuous.
Anecdotes are stories -- we want comprehensive, detailed, precise, useful and predictive descriptions of phenomena here.
And not all materials are the same age. In fact given the great age of the Earth, short-lived isotopes which are not decay products from longer-lived isotopes should have low abundances.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof6 Odds of isotopic composition of Earth consistent with age less than 10,000 years is at least 72 quadrillion to one. Earth has exactly the isotopes one would naively guess if it started with every isotope ever described by science and was about 4.5 billion years old. (// Edit: Since 1991 when that table was found, both the half-life and abundance of Sm-146 have been updated so it crosses the line and the basic story remains the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_isotope Older estimation of Sm-146's half-life must have been based on samples contaminated with other, shorter-lived, isotopes.)
http://gsmnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/80.full.pdf $$( 4.5 \pm 0.3 ) \times 10^9 \, \textrm{years}$$ From 1954
Last edited:
What the fuck are you on about?
You said all materials were the same age. I responded with the assertion that the heavier elements are created inside the nuclear furnace of stars. Do you deny this?
If you can't manage to converse in a reasonable, logical, coherent fashion, you're going directly into the crackpot bin.
- Status