A DECADE Younger--than the published book by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris.
OR
>>> NOTICE THE DATE, About a Decade
OR
July 1956(& Ralph Stair) versus (R. S. Boekl &) January 1972
>>> NOTICE THE DATE, About a Decade Older than _The Genesis Flood_. <<<
A DECADE Younger--than the published book by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris.
OR
>>> NOTICE THE DATE, About a DecadeOlder than after _The Genesis Flood_. <<<
OR
July 1956(& Ralph Stair) versus (R. S. Boekl &) January 1972
A DECADE Younger--than the published book by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris.
OR
>>> NOTICE THE DATE, About a Decade
OR
July 1956(& Ralph Stair) versus (R. S. Boekl &) January 1972
Bats
I notice that you just repeat erroneous data after being informed of the uselessness of that data. That make you useless.
Grumpy
I notice that you just repeat erroneous data after being informed of the uselessness of that data. That make you useless.
Grumpy
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/64/
13. R. S. Boekl, "Search for Carbon 14 in Tektites", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 77, No. 2 (1972), pp. 367-368.
MrB.
You have not "informed" anyone, Grumpy!
I believe I pasted the above Boekl some pages back.
13. R. S. Boekl, "Search for Carbon 14 in Tektites", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 77, No. 2 (1972), pp. 367-368.
MrB.
You have not "informed" anyone, Grumpy!
I believe I pasted the above Boekl some pages back.
Bats
Institute of Creation Research(an oxymoron). No wonder everything you post is garbage.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Institute of Creation Research(an oxymoron). No wonder everything you post is garbage.
Grumpy
>>> Creation Research(an oxymoron). <<<
Untrue.
Untrue.
QUOTE (Verdad+Oct 30 2005, 12:55 PM)
Does anyone have any evidence at all for evolution in order to get this topic started?
I have said it before and I will say it again. I or any half-*** scientist can prove evolution in the classroom or field setting. For one example: Take a course of antibiotics for any period of time and there are infectious organisms that will not be killed off, but will survive and reproduce. The "off spring" of this resistant bacteria will after they reproduce pass this immunity onto their next generation. Has anyone out there herd of "flesh eating bacteria"? How do you think it got to be such a major problem? With antibiotic resistance now is so extreme today, for this and many other problems. All life is incredibly tough. And that includes simple microorganisms. And then you have serious problems if the bugs are killing you...
Then under the category "for something else to prove this". Consider what we call punctuated equilibrium. This is where a major change can occur in one generation for any species. Are you searching for the so called "missing link"? Don't give up your day job. It has been demonstrated, using a multitude of simulations that if there was a major change in one, or just a few generations, finding that fossil link would be ultra-improbable. If the creationist really think they have proof of divine intervention(I really don't know what that means). then spit it out. Science by its nature must provide a format of debate based on many observations. The statement "God says so", just wont cut it with me.
We have observed creatures like Mayflies, they have a life span so short we can see the evolutionary effects on them. I know there are those out there that won't want to be compared to a bug...Its nothing to be ashamed about...
If as the monotheistic religions claim we are all created from and will return to dust, can that be any less dignified then to say we evolved from a more primitive form of life?. As a man who has strong religious views, I know science can provide us with an answer to very hard questions. Any one out there with a product of technology shouldn't require proof of anything. You can hold on to myopic views of creation. Or you can believe as I do: Science and religion don't have to be separate forever, as each incombatibity when viewd in a "cosmic" sense" but given our current state of development they have to be. Perhaps you could say "science has and will in time, followed the path that the Universe IS knowable. Religion would ask the question "who cares? or how does this effect me?In one case you have a value judgment. But even after that you have the tangible effects of scientific advancement that you have in your hands an ability to change a societal status quot. Just scaring the powers that be has been an historical, if back door deal.
Problem is science WORKS. Religion can not be tested because any evidence supporting it is subjective. For all those who profess to one religion or another, if it states we are all in this together, I can be part of that. For me science has nothing in common with religious dogma. But to verbally assault those who have certain religious views, is a disgrace. to the left of the body of individuals who encompass in my rejection of religion if it claims to be a catalyst to something beyond us. We will see... To me science gives me the answers, religion gives me the answer to why should I care?
I have said it before and I will say it again. I or any half-*** scientist can prove evolution in the classroom or field setting. For one example: Take a course of antibiotics for any period of time and there are infectious organisms that will not be killed off, but will survive and reproduce. The "off spring" of this resistant bacteria will after they reproduce pass this immunity onto their next generation. Has anyone out there herd of "flesh eating bacteria"? How do you think it got to be such a major problem? With antibiotic resistance now is so extreme today, for this and many other problems. All life is incredibly tough. And that includes simple microorganisms. And then you have serious problems if the bugs are killing you...
Then under the category "for something else to prove this". Consider what we call punctuated equilibrium. This is where a major change can occur in one generation for any species. Are you searching for the so called "missing link"? Don't give up your day job. It has been demonstrated, using a multitude of simulations that if there was a major change in one, or just a few generations, finding that fossil link would be ultra-improbable. If the creationist really think they have proof of divine intervention(I really don't know what that means). then spit it out. Science by its nature must provide a format of debate based on many observations. The statement "God says so", just wont cut it with me.
We have observed creatures like Mayflies, they have a life span so short we can see the evolutionary effects on them. I know there are those out there that won't want to be compared to a bug...Its nothing to be ashamed about...
If as the monotheistic religions claim we are all created from and will return to dust, can that be any less dignified then to say we evolved from a more primitive form of life?. As a man who has strong religious views, I know science can provide us with an answer to very hard questions. Any one out there with a product of technology shouldn't require proof of anything. You can hold on to myopic views of creation. Or you can believe as I do: Science and religion don't have to be separate forever, as each incombatibity when viewd in a "cosmic" sense" but given our current state of development they have to be. Perhaps you could say "science has and will in time, followed the path that the Universe IS knowable. Religion would ask the question "who cares? or how does this effect me?In one case you have a value judgment. But even after that you have the tangible effects of scientific advancement that you have in your hands an ability to change a societal status quot. Just scaring the powers that be has been an historical, if back door deal.
Problem is science WORKS. Religion can not be tested because any evidence supporting it is subjective. For all those who profess to one religion or another, if it states we are all in this together, I can be part of that. For me science has nothing in common with religious dogma. But to verbally assault those who have certain religious views, is a disgrace. to the left of the body of individuals who encompass in my rejection of religion if it claims to be a catalyst to something beyond us. We will see... To me science gives me the answers, religion gives me the answer to why should I care?
>>> I have said it before and I will say it again. I or any half-*** scientist can prove evolution in the classroom or field setting. <<<
Silly Wrong, Hawksecho! What needs to be proved "in the field" is natural selection.
Your following example only proves pressure by artifical means.
One has to realize, that all we are doing is telling stories to one another. Some maybe true; none maybe true.
MisterBelfry Posted: Oct 15 2008, 05:41 AM Showtopic= 3757 &Post= 381563----->
Same topic thread as posted in Showtopic= 3691------->
The salient statement of thirty plus years ago reads:
The idea of punctuated equilibria is just as much a preconceived picture as that of phyletic gradualism.
...
I emphasized this better than four years ago.
At that time, I could not find the full paper on the Web{and I haven't bothered checking since and had almost forgotten it}.
But no matter, the story-telling shall always be significant with the adjacent science (as a falsifiable method to the story-telling) questionable.
This, I suppose, is as it should be. Science is not in the truth business in as much as various religious Works claim "proof" to that realm.
MrB.
Read _Of Moths and Men_ and open the truth of the situation in regards to the supposed 'prime example' of 'natural selection'. As one could imagine, the peer review correction process is a stubborn thing. People after all, are still just people.
Silly Wrong, Hawksecho! What needs to be proved "in the field" is natural selection.
Your following example only proves pressure by artifical means.
One has to realize, that all we are doing is telling stories to one another. Some maybe true; none maybe true.
MisterBelfry Posted: Oct 15 2008, 05:41 AM Showtopic= 3757 &Post= 381563----->
Same topic thread as posted in Showtopic= 3691------->
The salient statement of thirty plus years ago reads:
The idea of punctuated equilibria is just as much a preconceived picture as that of phyletic gradualism.
...
I emphasized this better than four years ago.
At that time, I could not find the full paper on the Web{and I haven't bothered checking since and had almost forgotten it}.
But no matter, the story-telling shall always be significant with the adjacent science (as a falsifiable method to the story-telling) questionable.
This, I suppose, is as it should be. Science is not in the truth business in as much as various religious Works claim "proof" to that realm.
MrB.
Read _Of Moths and Men_ and open the truth of the situation in regards to the supposed 'prime example' of 'natural selection'. As one could imagine, the peer review correction process is a stubborn thing. People after all, are still just people.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.