Scientists believe the platypus and humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, Graves said.
Scientists map the genetic makeup of the platypus
funny little buggers ...
What science are you talking about? It's an editorial that is purely opinion. Statements like "The research could help explain", "Scientists believe" and "scientists hope to" are all subjective opinion. Sure there are statements in the editorial that are based on scientific fact like "The platypus is classed as a mammal because it has fur and feeds its young with milk. But it also has bird and reptile features — it lays eggs, has a duck-like bill and webbed feet, it and lives mostly underwater. Males also have spurs on their heels that inject pain-causing venom to ward off mating rivals.". However there is nothing in there that says that goo to you evolution is scientifically valid. It just says that my 100 scientist friends and I say it's valid so you should believe it too.
QUOTE (IMCREATED+)
What science are you talking about? It's an editorial that is purely opinion. Statements like "The research could help explain", "Scientists believe" and "scientists hope to" are all subjective opinion.
Maybe, but it still doesn't invalidate the possibilty of this research having scientific merit. The research could help explain how mammals evolved. Seeing that the research could do this, scientist hope to use it to fill in the gaps about mammals' evolution.
Just as there is nothing that proves creationism or ID is scientifically valid except "me and my fellow churchgoers say so".
Maybe, but it still doesn't invalidate the possibilty of this research having scientific merit. The research could help explain how mammals evolved. Seeing that the research could do this, scientist hope to use it to fill in the gaps about mammals' evolution.
QUOTE
However there is nothing in there that says that goo to you evolution is scientifically valid except me and my 100 scientist friends say so.
Just as there is nothing that proves creationism or ID is scientifically valid except "me and my fellow churchgoers say so".
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 10 2008, 11:02 PM)
Just as there is nothing that proves creationism or ID is scientifically valid except "me and my fellow churchgoers say so".
You're just parroting that tired phrase. Here is a list of "scientists" that state creationism is scientifically valid.
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
QUOTE
Maybe, but it still doesn't invalidate the possibilty of this research having scientific merit.
Nor does it validate it. It's just opinion.
QUOTE (IMCREATED+)
You're just parroting that tired phrase.
Oh? And what about the creationists and ID'ers that parrot the phrase "Evolution isn't scientifically valid", despite having been given evidence that supported evolution? What about the fundamentalists that parrot the phrase "Evolution has several holes in it", even though they can't point out even one?
Link?
Link?
of "scientists" that state creationism is scientifically valid.
They can state it all they want - but until they come up with actual evidence that suggests creationism might be true, their words are nothing more than opinions.
Right back at you.
the ability to decode the genome has provided yet more evidence that a process of evolution has occurred on earth.
and all thanks to evidence based reasoning!
hey it could be true, if we just have faith ... (where is that sarcasm emoticon)...
PS i will be adding that book to my reading list, it looks very clever. i seem to remember you mentioning this author befor and that leads me to ask a question i think you may be able to answer. is the satirical style of this novel common of the author?
Oh? And what about the creationists and ID'ers that parrot the phrase "Evolution isn't scientifically valid", despite having been given evidence that supported evolution? What about the fundamentalists that parrot the phrase "Evolution has several holes in it", even though they can't point out even one?
QUOTE
Here is a list
Link?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here is a list |
Link?
of "scientists" that state creationism is scientifically valid.
They can state it all they want - but until they come up with actual evidence that suggests creationism might be true, their words are nothing more than opinions.
QUOTE
Nor does it validate it. It's just opinion.
Right back at you.
QUOTE
IMCREATED Posted: Today at 2:35 PM What science are you talking about?
the science that relies on evidence to sustain a theory. the ability to decode the genome has provided yet more evidence that a process of evolution has occurred on earth.
imcreated-
You stated in one of your posts that you work at tech support so you must be familiar with the "mechanics" of how things work. You cant put a 30 amp load on a 15 amp circuit for instance. It just wont work. So you must understand the for B to follow A there are some requirements.
With this in mind I have two questions.
On another post you said that Noah put the koala and kangaroo pairs on the ark (and the platypus pairs I guess) but you didn't mention how he got them from Australia to the Middle East. For the koalas and kangaroos to be in the ark someone had to get them to the ark. Can you explain how that happened with only Noah and his sons working on the project.
The other question is a matter of space on the ark. The ark was 450' long, 75' wide and 45' high. Ive seen lengths for blue whales given from 85 feet to 110 feet. If we go with 95' for their container (85" plus five 5' in front and back) that would mean that 43% of the length of one side of the ark was taken up by two blue whales.
What if their containers were stacked one above the other? I couldn't find a height or width for blue whales so we'll have to guess. Lets say 20' diameter. They're shaped like a sausage. So a rectangle container 90'x30'x30' (with 5' top-bottom, side to side.) Nope, wont make it. The ark was only 45' high.
Then there are two right whales and two humpback whales and so on.
Now, elephants. They eat "from 150 to 400 kilograms a day." Let's go in the middle, 300 kilos. That would be 661lbs a day x 40 days = (wow!) 52,880 lbs of food for two elephants. No, it would be twice that, or more, because they stayed in the ark longer then 40 days waiting for the land to dry.
I wont go any further, I'm sure you understand my questions. So, Sir Technician, user of logic, 1. how did the animals from Australia get to the middle east and 2. how did they get housed and fed on the ark. I've checked some creationist sites and all they said was "The ark was big."
If you don't logically explain the questions then you are a hypocrite, using science to make a living and feed your family and then denying it when it tells you "no that's not what happened."
You stated in one of your posts that you work at tech support so you must be familiar with the "mechanics" of how things work. You cant put a 30 amp load on a 15 amp circuit for instance. It just wont work. So you must understand the for B to follow A there are some requirements.
With this in mind I have two questions.
On another post you said that Noah put the koala and kangaroo pairs on the ark (and the platypus pairs I guess) but you didn't mention how he got them from Australia to the Middle East. For the koalas and kangaroos to be in the ark someone had to get them to the ark. Can you explain how that happened with only Noah and his sons working on the project.
The other question is a matter of space on the ark. The ark was 450' long, 75' wide and 45' high. Ive seen lengths for blue whales given from 85 feet to 110 feet. If we go with 95' for their container (85" plus five 5' in front and back) that would mean that 43% of the length of one side of the ark was taken up by two blue whales.
What if their containers were stacked one above the other? I couldn't find a height or width for blue whales so we'll have to guess. Lets say 20' diameter. They're shaped like a sausage. So a rectangle container 90'x30'x30' (with 5' top-bottom, side to side.) Nope, wont make it. The ark was only 45' high.
Then there are two right whales and two humpback whales and so on.
Now, elephants. They eat "from 150 to 400 kilograms a day." Let's go in the middle, 300 kilos. That would be 661lbs a day x 40 days = (wow!) 52,880 lbs of food for two elephants. No, it would be twice that, or more, because they stayed in the ark longer then 40 days waiting for the land to dry.
I wont go any further, I'm sure you understand my questions. So, Sir Technician, user of logic, 1. how did the animals from Australia get to the middle east and 2. how did they get housed and fed on the ark. I've checked some creationist sites and all they said was "The ark was big."
If you don't logically explain the questions then you are a hypocrite, using science to make a living and feed your family and then denying it when it tells you "no that's not what happened."
QUOTE (IMCREATED+May 11 2008, 05:48 AM)
You're just parroting that tired phrase. Here is a list of "scientists" that state creationism is scientifically valid.
You need to have a link, not a cut-and-pasted link.
Anyone can make a list.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
But that way to express confidence in what "scientists" (and your scare-quotes are appropriate since you have both Morris and Gish on the list) have as average opinion is not to make a list of those that believe as you do, but to sample randomly the millions of biologists who might have an informed opinion on the subject.
You need to have a link, not a cut-and-pasted link.
Anyone can make a list.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
But that way to express confidence in what "scientists" (and your scare-quotes are appropriate since you have both Morris and Gish on the list) have as average opinion is not to make a list of those that believe as you do, but to sample randomly the millions of biologists who might have an informed opinion on the subject.
QUOTE (IMCREATED+May 11 2008, 05:48 AM)
You're just parroting that tired phrase. Here is a list of "scientists" that state creationism is scientifically valid.
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Nor does it validate it. It's just opinion.
One must seriously wonder at the tragic events that led them to their frightfully cretinous conclusion???
I'll wager after gaining their PhD's; many obviously suffered horrendously severe brain trauma, others, no-doubt horribly threatened by sickenenly ulgy evil ID activists, whilst the remaining few must have gone potty experimenting with savagely hallucinogenic drugs.
Sad innit!
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Nor does it validate it. It's just opinion.
One must seriously wonder at the tragic events that led them to their frightfully cretinous conclusion???
I'll wager after gaining their PhD's; many obviously suffered horrendously severe brain trauma, others, no-doubt horribly threatened by sickenenly ulgy evil ID activists, whilst the remaining few must have gone potty experimenting with savagely hallucinogenic drugs.
Sad innit!
QUOTE (kjw+May 11 2008, 02:11 AM)
Scientists believe the platypus and humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, Graves said.
Scientists map the genetic makeup of the platypus
funny little buggers ...
I think it is just gorgeous, that we have now evolved to the point of being able to understand these things about our own existence. This is true Cosmological beauty in action!
g.
Scientists map the genetic makeup of the platypus
funny little buggers ...
I think it is just gorgeous, that we have now evolved to the point of being able to understand these things about our own existence. This is true Cosmological beauty in action!
g.
"If" there was an intelligent designer, I would have (at least) an extra eye to watch my back for me. 
Here's about 30 minutes of facts that show that Luskin has abandoned science for advocacy with science jargon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0...D950D0F&index=0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0...D950D0F&index=0
QUOTE (rpenner+May 11 2008, 12:31 PM)
Here's about 30 minutes of facts that show that Luskin has abandoned science for advocacy with science jargon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0...D950D0F&index=0
This just keeps getting better and better when it comes to debunking ID.
Thanks for the "sane" info, rpenner!!
How can one deny scientific findings that put holes in all that IDers profess?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0...D950D0F&index=0
This just keeps getting better and better when it comes to debunking ID.
Thanks for the "sane" info, rpenner!!
How can one deny scientific findings that put holes in all that IDers profess?
QUOTE (Bloy+)
How can one deny scientific findings that put holes in all that IDers profess?
Some of them are just trying to make a buck. The others are simply idiots.
Some of them are just trying to make a buck. The others are simply idiots.
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Today at 3:43 AM I think it is just gorgeous, that we have now evolved to the point of being able to understand these things about our own existence. This is true Cosmological beauty in action!
and all thanks to evidence based reasoning!
A logical theory based upon scientific observation. Proven by biochemical analysis, genetic studies, and the fossil record.
versus
An ancient myth recorded by religious zealots after centuries of oral history from a tribe of ignorant, inbred goat herders. Based upon superstition and ramblings from psychotic nutters. Proven by, um...
versus
An ancient myth recorded by religious zealots after centuries of oral history from a tribe of ignorant, inbred goat herders. Based upon superstition and ramblings from psychotic nutters. Proven by, um...
QUOTE (N O M+May 11 2008, 10:51 PM)
A logical theory based upon scientific observation. Proven by biochemical analysis, genetic studies, and the fossil record.
versus
An ancient myth recorded by religious zealots after centuries of oral history from a tribe of ignorant, inbred goat herders. Based upon superstition and ramblings from psychotic nutters. Proven by, um...
Ben Stein?
versus
An ancient myth recorded by religious zealots after centuries of oral history from a tribe of ignorant, inbred goat herders. Based upon superstition and ramblings from psychotic nutters. Proven by, um...
Ben Stein?
QUOTE (kjw+May 11 2008, 09:53 PM)
and all thanks to evidence based reasoning!
Precisely!
g.
Precisely!
g.
Terry Pratchet suggested a good explaination of the platypus 
QUOTE
N O M Posted: Today at 10:48 AM Terry Pratchet suggested a good explaination of the platypus
hey it could be true, if we just have faith ... (where is that sarcasm emoticon)...
PS i will be adding that book to my reading list, it looks very clever. i seem to remember you mentioning this author befor and that leads me to ask a question i think you may be able to answer. is the satirical style of this novel common of the author?
Oh Lord yes,
I LOVE Terry Pratchett. He has an incredible number of books out of the "Ringworld" series, all funny as heck, very good reading. Tolkien Fantasy meets Monty Python kind of thing.
I LOVE Terry Pratchett. He has an incredible number of books out of the "Ringworld" series, all funny as heck, very good reading. Tolkien Fantasy meets Monty Python kind of thing.
QUOTE (Bloy+May 11 2008, 05:50 PM)
"If" there was an intelligent designer, I would have (at least) an extra eye to watch my back for me.
How about simply having eyes that don't have a blind spot?
Heck I would settle for eyes that don't lose the ability to focus close up when you hit around 40.
How about simply having eyes that don't have a blind spot?
Heck I would settle for eyes that don't lose the ability to focus close up when you hit around 40.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 12 2008, 09:24 AM)
How about simply having eyes that don't have a blind spot?
Heck I would settle for eyes that don't lose the ability to focus close up when you hit around 40.
What about eyes that can see further into the infrared or ultraviolet spectrum?
What about biological radar?
Wouldn't those things be rather simple to include in the human "design" and at the same time leave us much better equipped to survive and thrive, and also to experience the glory of God's creation? I kinda feel sorry for all those poor souls unable to see the beauty of forest through an infrared lense because they were born dozens or hundreds or thousands of years too early...
Heck I would settle for eyes that don't lose the ability to focus close up when you hit around 40.
What about eyes that can see further into the infrared or ultraviolet spectrum?
What about biological radar?
Wouldn't those things be rather simple to include in the human "design" and at the same time leave us much better equipped to survive and thrive, and also to experience the glory of God's creation? I kinda feel sorry for all those poor souls unable to see the beauty of forest through an infrared lense because they were born dozens or hundreds or thousands of years too early...
Intelligent (Christian) Design predicts that people will need their good close-up vision to read more Bible as they grow older.
Evolution predicts that people will need good vision until they create and raise offspring to be independent, and after that all bets are off, but the general trend would be for removal of the increasingly irrelevant redundant non-reproducers.
pwned!
Evolution predicts that people will need good vision until they create and raise offspring to be independent, and after that all bets are off, but the general trend would be for removal of the increasingly irrelevant redundant non-reproducers.
pwned!
QUOTE (kjw+May 12 2008, 08:43 PM)
PS i will be adding that book to my reading list, it looks very clever.
The book I was suggesting was The Last Continent.
The book I was suggesting was The Last Continent.
QUOTE
i seem to remember you mentioning this author befor and that leads me to ask a question i think you may be able to answer. is the satirical style of this novel common of the author?
Umm... yes.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| i seem to remember you mentioning this author befor and that leads me to ask a question i think you may be able to answer. is the satirical style of this novel common of the author? |
Umm... yes.
I LOVE Terry Pratchett. He has an incredible number of books out of the "Ringworld" series, all funny as heck, very good reading. Tolkien Fantasy meets Monty Python kind of thing.
I LOVE Terry Pratchett. He has an incredible number of books out of the "Ringworld" series, all funny as heck, very good reading. Tolkien Fantasy meets Monty Python kind of thing.
Though you spell his name more accurately than I did, you have the series confused. Ringworld was Larry Niven, also an excellent read.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 12 2008, 04:53 PM)
Intelligent (Christian) Design predicts that people will need their good close-up vision to read more Bible as they grow older.
Evolution predicts that people will need good vision until they create and raise offspring to be independent, and after that all bets are off, but the general trend would be for removal of the increasingly irrelevant redundant non-reproducers.
pwned!
Evolution predicts that people will need good vision until they create and raise offspring to be independent, and after that all bets are off, but the general trend would be for removal of the increasingly irrelevant redundant non-reproducers.
pwned!
I could spend alot of time to respond to every one of you specifically, but I simply don't have that kind of time. Suffice it to say that no matter how educated I was, how many degrees I held, how much scientific evidence I provided or make my case in any way, all of you wouldn't or couldn't see through your evolutionary biases. My original post to this thread was to point out that the article linked had no science in it as the thread title boasted. It gave conclusions to scientific experiments, but conclusions are not science. Conclusions are derived from the interpretations of the data. There was no data in the article. However it is reasonable for the scientists to make a statement like "What we found was the genome, just like the animal, is an amazing amalgam of reptilian and mammal characteristics with quite a few unique platypus characteristics as well,". However it is not reasonable to make a conclusion like "Scientists believe the platypus and humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, Graves said." based on the sequencing of the platypus genome. To come to that conclusion is a huge assumption. It is based on the evolutionary biases of the scientists involved. Like it or not, that is the reality. I know you all are probably foaming at the mouth right now, and that's o.k. I've been raked over the coals by many of the evolutionary crowd before. So it really is worthless to try to provide any realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation because your minds are made up and cannot be swayed.
QUOTE (IMCREATED+May 12 2008, 09:08 PM)
So it really is worthless to try to provide any realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation because your minds are made up and cannot be swayed.
No No! go on! I've got an open mind....
Do provide your evidence to support creation!
No No! go on! I've got an open mind....
Do provide your evidence to support creation!
QUOTE (IMCREATED+)
I could spend alot of time to respond to every one of you specifically, but I simply don't have that kind of time.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...
That's a cop-out and you know it.
You're just parroting that tired old phrase.
That's a cop-out and you know it.
You're just parroting that tired old phrase.
However it is not reasonable to make a conclusion like "Scientists believe the platypus and humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, Graves said."
Notice how it specifically says "Scientists believe"? No conclusions have been made. It's a theory, a hypothesis, an idea, but not a conclusion.
Like it or not, that is not the reality. Until you can prove that these scientists are biased towards the theory of evolution, you're just parroting another tired old phrase.
Like it or not, that is not the reality. Until you can prove that these scientists are biased towards the theory of evolution, you're just parroting another tired old phrase.
I know you all are probably foaming at the mouth right now
Gee, it sure is nice having someone around that knows me better than I do!
Yeah, don't try to support your argument! That's an excellent way to 'sway' us
You're a hypocrite. EVERY TIME dad1, or Messenger, or SoLoved, or MisterBelfry was presented with evidence for evolution, they either tried to pass it off as "untruths" or they stuck their heads in the sand. And given your pathetic recycling of excuses about how you can't provide evidence for CS/ID because we're "biased", I'd wager that's exactly what you're trying to do now.
quick lesson in the beauty of science.
Options:
a ) if you do not provide realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation, you will never know how Bloy, or any one is to react.
b ) if you provide realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation, you will know how Bloy, or any one is to react.
science works by the principle of Option b i.e. the only way to know what Bloys reaction will be, is to test how Bloy is to react. the use of Option a, will leave you not really knowing only believing something to be the case
PICK AND CHOOSE ! PICK AND CHOOSE !
and i find the counter arguement just as satisfying, you know the one "well the bible is not meant to be taken literally". fine then do not take creationism to be literally true.
can we post and listen... ...
excellent, just in time for calibrating the upper limit on my "prison and warzone activity detection device". the protocol is rather simple:
Step 1: ask BDW to counter this arguement
excellent, just in time for calibrating the upper limit on my "prison and warzone activity detection device". the protocol is rather simple:
Step 1: ask BDW to counter this arguement
If a supercomputer is obviously the product of intelligent design, how much more obviously is the eye a product of intelligent design?
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...
QUOTE
Suffice it to say that no matter how educated I was, how many degrees I held, how much scientific evidence I provided or make my case in any way, all of you wouldn't or couldn't see through your evolutionary biases.
That's a cop-out and you know it.
You're just parroting that tired old phrase.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Suffice it to say that no matter how educated I was, how many degrees I held, how much scientific evidence I provided or make my case in any way, all of you wouldn't or couldn't see through your evolutionary biases. |
That's a cop-out and you know it.
You're just parroting that tired old phrase.
However it is not reasonable to make a conclusion like "Scientists believe the platypus and humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, Graves said."
Notice how it specifically says "Scientists believe"? No conclusions have been made. It's a theory, a hypothesis, an idea, but not a conclusion.
QUOTE
It is based on the evolutionary biases of the scientists involved. Like it or not, that is the reality.
Like it or not, that is not the reality. Until you can prove that these scientists are biased towards the theory of evolution, you're just parroting another tired old phrase.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is based on the evolutionary biases of the scientists involved. Like it or not, that is the reality. |
Like it or not, that is not the reality. Until you can prove that these scientists are biased towards the theory of evolution, you're just parroting another tired old phrase.
I know you all are probably foaming at the mouth right now
Gee, it sure is nice having someone around that knows me better than I do!
QUOTE
So it really is worthless to try to provide any realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation because your minds are made up and cannot be swayed.
Yeah, don't try to support your argument! That's an excellent way to 'sway' us
You're a hypocrite. EVERY TIME dad1, or Messenger, or SoLoved, or MisterBelfry was presented with evidence for evolution, they either tried to pass it off as "untruths" or they stuck their heads in the sand. And given your pathetic recycling of excuses about how you can't provide evidence for CS/ID because we're "biased", I'd wager that's exactly what you're trying to do now.
QUOTE (IMCREATED+May 13 2008, 03:08 AM)
I've been raked over the coals by many of the evolutionary crowd before.
Hey, but this is Physorg; where being raked over hot coals is like, a sign of convivial affection - we do filthy painful stuff with thermonuclear-warheads, diabolical napalm devices with flesh mincing attachments and we'll call you names.
Hey, but this is Physorg; where being raked over hot coals is like, a sign of convivial affection - we do filthy painful stuff with thermonuclear-warheads, diabolical napalm devices with flesh mincing attachments and we'll call you names.
QUOTE (orestis+May 11 2008, 01:46 AM)
imcreated-
You stated in one of your posts that you work at tech support so you must be familiar with the "mechanics" of how things work. You cant put a 30 amp load on a 15 amp circuit for instance. It just wont work. So you must understand the for B to follow A there are some requirements.
With this in mind I have two questions.
On another post you said that Noah put the koala and kangaroo pairs on the ark (and the platypus pairs I guess) but you didn't mention how he got them from Australia to the Middle East. For the koalas and kangaroos to be in the ark someone had to get them to the ark. Can you explain how that happened with only Noah and his sons working on the project.
The other question is a matter of space on the ark. The ark was 450' long, 75' wide and 45' high. Ive seen lengths for blue whales given from 85 feet to 110 feet. If we go with 95' for their container (85" plus five 5' in front and back) that would mean that 43% of the length of one side of the ark was taken up by two blue whales.
What if their containers were stacked one above the other? I couldn't find a height or width for blue whales so we'll have to guess. Lets say 20' diameter. They're shaped like a sausage. So a rectangle container 90'x30'x30' (with 5' top-bottom, side to side.) Nope, wont make it. The ark was only 45' high.
Then there are two right whales and two humpback whales and so on.
Now, elephants. They eat "from 150 to 400 kilograms a day." Let's go in the middle, 300 kilos. That would be 661lbs a day x 40 days = (wow!) 52,880 lbs of food for two elephants. No, it would be twice that, or more, because they stayed in the ark longer then 40 days waiting for the land to dry.
I wont go any further, I'm sure you understand my questions. So, Sir Technician, user of logic, 1. how did the animals from Australia get to the middle east and 2. how did they get housed and fed on the ark. I've checked some creationist sites and all they said was "The ark was big."
If you don't logically explain the questions then you are a hypocrite, using science to make a living and feed your family and then denying it when it tells you "no that's not what happened."
I will take the time however to respond specifically to you orestis. Just to verify your questions. It looks like you have three not two as you indicated.
1. How did Noah get the Koala and Kangaroo pairs to the ark when they were in Australia, not the Middle east?
2. How could Noah have put a Blue Whale on the ark when it clearly wasn't big enough?
3. How could Noah and his family have cared for all the animals including elephants and other large animals?
I will respond to questions 2 first. The Blue Whale wasn't on the ark. Nor was any sea creature. It was only air breathing LAND animals.
Now for question 1. In order for me to answer the question it needs to be accepted that the flood actually did occur and that God caused it to do so. So with that in mind the logic follows like this. If God is mighty and powerful enough to have caused the entire earth to be flooded in a very short time then it is logical to conclude that He would have provided Noah with all the required animals to put on the ark. If you don't accept that the flood took place, and I assume that you don't, then all bets are off.
Question 3 is rather simple. The animals were not full grown adult animals. The quantity of food needed would be much less than to sustain full grown elephants and rhinos and the like. Also the space needed to house them would be smaller.
I hope the logic didn't escape you. If so, here are some links for you to read.
How did animals spread?
How Did Noah Gather the Animals?
Caring for the Animals on the Ark
Two of Every Kind
How Could Noah and His Family Care for the Animals?
You stated in one of your posts that you work at tech support so you must be familiar with the "mechanics" of how things work. You cant put a 30 amp load on a 15 amp circuit for instance. It just wont work. So you must understand the for B to follow A there are some requirements.
With this in mind I have two questions.
On another post you said that Noah put the koala and kangaroo pairs on the ark (and the platypus pairs I guess) but you didn't mention how he got them from Australia to the Middle East. For the koalas and kangaroos to be in the ark someone had to get them to the ark. Can you explain how that happened with only Noah and his sons working on the project.
The other question is a matter of space on the ark. The ark was 450' long, 75' wide and 45' high. Ive seen lengths for blue whales given from 85 feet to 110 feet. If we go with 95' for their container (85" plus five 5' in front and back) that would mean that 43% of the length of one side of the ark was taken up by two blue whales.
What if their containers were stacked one above the other? I couldn't find a height or width for blue whales so we'll have to guess. Lets say 20' diameter. They're shaped like a sausage. So a rectangle container 90'x30'x30' (with 5' top-bottom, side to side.) Nope, wont make it. The ark was only 45' high.
Then there are two right whales and two humpback whales and so on.
Now, elephants. They eat "from 150 to 400 kilograms a day." Let's go in the middle, 300 kilos. That would be 661lbs a day x 40 days = (wow!) 52,880 lbs of food for two elephants. No, it would be twice that, or more, because they stayed in the ark longer then 40 days waiting for the land to dry.
I wont go any further, I'm sure you understand my questions. So, Sir Technician, user of logic, 1. how did the animals from Australia get to the middle east and 2. how did they get housed and fed on the ark. I've checked some creationist sites and all they said was "The ark was big."
If you don't logically explain the questions then you are a hypocrite, using science to make a living and feed your family and then denying it when it tells you "no that's not what happened."
I will take the time however to respond specifically to you orestis. Just to verify your questions. It looks like you have three not two as you indicated.
1. How did Noah get the Koala and Kangaroo pairs to the ark when they were in Australia, not the Middle east?
2. How could Noah have put a Blue Whale on the ark when it clearly wasn't big enough?
3. How could Noah and his family have cared for all the animals including elephants and other large animals?
I will respond to questions 2 first. The Blue Whale wasn't on the ark. Nor was any sea creature. It was only air breathing LAND animals.
Now for question 1. In order for me to answer the question it needs to be accepted that the flood actually did occur and that God caused it to do so. So with that in mind the logic follows like this. If God is mighty and powerful enough to have caused the entire earth to be flooded in a very short time then it is logical to conclude that He would have provided Noah with all the required animals to put on the ark. If you don't accept that the flood took place, and I assume that you don't, then all bets are off.
Question 3 is rather simple. The animals were not full grown adult animals. The quantity of food needed would be much less than to sustain full grown elephants and rhinos and the like. Also the space needed to house them would be smaller.
I hope the logic didn't escape you. If so, here are some links for you to read.
How did animals spread?
How Did Noah Gather the Animals?
Caring for the Animals on the Ark
Two of Every Kind
How Could Noah and His Family Care for the Animals?
QUOTE (IMCREATED+May 12 2008, 09:08 PM)
it really is worthless to try to provide any realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation
Hey! really!
If you've got evidence, lay it out. If it has merit we'll notice! At least someone will. Isn't that worth showing your evidence?
Hey! really!
If you've got evidence, lay it out. If it has merit we'll notice! At least someone will. Isn't that worth showing your evidence?
IMCREATED
No, it is impossible because there is none.
Grumpy
QUOTE
it really is worthless to try to provide any realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation
No, it is impossible because there is none.
Grumpy
QUOTE
IMCREATED Posted: Today at 1:08 PM So it really is worthless to try to provide any realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation because your minds are made up and cannot be swayed.
quick lesson in the beauty of science.
Options:
a ) if you do not provide realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation, you will never know how Bloy, or any one is to react.
b ) if you provide realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation, you will know how Bloy, or any one is to react.
science works by the principle of Option b i.e. the only way to know what Bloys reaction will be, is to test how Bloy is to react. the use of Option a, will leave you not really knowing only believing something to be the case
Credit where it's due! IMCREATED is the first to realise that Whales do not need a boat!
However...now you must explain how all the plant life was able to survive 40 days and nights under an ocean of salt water!
Godd luck!
g.
However...now you must explain how all the plant life was able to survive 40 days and nights under an ocean of salt water!
Godd luck!
g.
Imcreated you are working backwards.
You are starting with the flood story, then looking for evidence for it.
You are starting with the flood story, then looking for evidence for it.
That's okay, two centuries ago the scientists and the naturalists did the same thing. They looked for evidence of Genesis being true.
Then, over time, they devised a better theory which not only explained the data better but was better at making predictions.
Then, over time, they devised a better theory which not only explained the data better but was better at making predictions.
QUOTE (IMCREATED+May 13 2008, 12:15 AM)
I will take the time however to respond specifically to you orestis. Just to verify your questions. It looks like you have three not two as you indicated.
1. How did Noah get the Koala and Kangaroo pairs to the ark when they were in Australia, not the Middle east?
2. How could Noah have put a Blue Whale on the ark when it clearly wasn't big enough?
3. How could Noah and his family have cared for all the animals including elephants and other large animals?
I will respond to questions 2 first. The Blue Whale wasn't on the ark. Nor was any sea creature. It was only air breathing LAND animals.
Now for question 1. In order for me to answer the question it needs to be accepted that the flood actually did occur and that God caused it to do so. So with that in mind the logic follows like this. If God is mighty and powerful enough to have caused the entire earth to be flooded in a very short time then it is logical to conclude that He would have provided Noah with all the required animals to put on the ark. If you don't accept that the flood took place, and I assume that you don't, then all bets are off.
Question 3 is rather simple. The animals were not full grown adult animals. The quantity of food needed would be much less than to sustain full grown elephants and rhinos and the like. Also the space needed to house them would be smaller.
I hope the logic didn't escape you. If so, here are some links for you to read.
How did animals spread?
How Did Noah Gather the Animals?
Caring for the Animals on the Ark
Two of Every Kind
How Could Noah and His Family Care for the Animals?
Now, now. Be a good fundi.
Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is the flesh of men, another flesh of animals, and another flesh of fish ...
Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing 'of all flesh' you shall bring into the ark...
You're not going to start fudging now are you? If your going to be a fundi then be a fundi. If he said all flesh he meant all flesh. What ever wasn't in the ark was going to be destroyed. That was the whole purpose of the flood. Or can we pick and choose what is meant in the bible? If we can pick and choose that's when all bets are off.
1. How did Noah get the Koala and Kangaroo pairs to the ark when they were in Australia, not the Middle east?
2. How could Noah have put a Blue Whale on the ark when it clearly wasn't big enough?
3. How could Noah and his family have cared for all the animals including elephants and other large animals?
I will respond to questions 2 first. The Blue Whale wasn't on the ark. Nor was any sea creature. It was only air breathing LAND animals.
Now for question 1. In order for me to answer the question it needs to be accepted that the flood actually did occur and that God caused it to do so. So with that in mind the logic follows like this. If God is mighty and powerful enough to have caused the entire earth to be flooded in a very short time then it is logical to conclude that He would have provided Noah with all the required animals to put on the ark. If you don't accept that the flood took place, and I assume that you don't, then all bets are off.
Question 3 is rather simple. The animals were not full grown adult animals. The quantity of food needed would be much less than to sustain full grown elephants and rhinos and the like. Also the space needed to house them would be smaller.
I hope the logic didn't escape you. If so, here are some links for you to read.
How did animals spread?
How Did Noah Gather the Animals?
Caring for the Animals on the Ark
Two of Every Kind
How Could Noah and His Family Care for the Animals?
Now, now. Be a good fundi.
Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is the flesh of men, another flesh of animals, and another flesh of fish ...
Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing 'of all flesh' you shall bring into the ark...
You're not going to start fudging now are you? If your going to be a fundi then be a fundi. If he said all flesh he meant all flesh. What ever wasn't in the ark was going to be destroyed. That was the whole purpose of the flood. Or can we pick and choose what is meant in the bible? If we can pick and choose that's when all bets are off.
QUOTE
orestis Posted: Today at 7:44 AM Or can we pick and choose what is meant in the bible? If we can pick and choose that's when all bets are off.
PICK AND CHOOSE ! PICK AND CHOOSE !
and i find the counter arguement just as satisfying, you know the one "well the bible is not meant to be taken literally". fine then do not take creationism to be literally true.
Might as well add the view of an actual scientist to a thread entitled "...Contains Actual Science."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24598856/?GT1=43001
QUOTE
In it, Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24598856/?GT1=43001
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 13 2008, 05:49 AM)
Credit where it's due! IMCREATED is the first to realise that Whales do not need a boat!
However...now you must explain how all the plant life was able to survive 40 days and nights under an ocean of salt water!
Godd luck!
g.
g-
Don't be so free with your credit. Whales did need the boat.
Genesis 6:11-17 ....I am going to bring flood waters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my convent with you and you will enter the ark-you and your sons and your wife and your sons wives. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures-male and female-to keep them alive with you.
Biblegateway.com
So either they were on that boat or they were dead. Or, or they did some damn fast evolving from land mammals in the last 10,000 years.
However...now you must explain how all the plant life was able to survive 40 days and nights under an ocean of salt water!
Godd luck!
g.
g-
Don't be so free with your credit. Whales did need the boat.
Genesis 6:11-17 ....I am going to bring flood waters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my convent with you and you will enter the ark-you and your sons and your wife and your sons wives. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures-male and female-to keep them alive with you.
Biblegateway.com
So either they were on that boat or they were dead. Or, or they did some damn fast evolving from land mammals in the last 10,000 years.
Orestis: I think that you wouldn't find any scholars which thought the whales were supposed to be on the boat. Of course the story is not true, but some of the words have context. The words they use for "animals" mostly means birds and land mammals (at least in those days).
So if the 'fundi' tries to waffle out by stating that the whales weren't on the boat, then you might as well drop it. There's no point on attacking a strawman version of their beliefs. Especially when there are a gazillion points on their actual beliefs that aren't true.
So if the 'fundi' tries to waffle out by stating that the whales weren't on the boat, then you might as well drop it. There's no point on attacking a strawman version of their beliefs. Especially when there are a gazillion points on their actual beliefs that aren't true.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+May 13 2008, 09:26 PM)
Orestis: I think that you wouldn't find any scholars which thought the whales were supposed to be on the boat. Of course the story is not true, but some of the words have context. The words they use for "animals" mostly means birds and land mammals (at least in those days).
So if the 'fundi' tries to waffle out by stating that the whales weren't on the boat, then you might as well drop it. There's no point on attacking a strawman version of their beliefs. Especially when there are a gazillion points on their actual beliefs that aren't true.
We aren't talking about scholars. We are talking about fundamentalist. Scholars can talk about context. Fundamentalist think every word in the bible has a literal meaning. If they are going to believe the world was created in six days then, according to the quote from Genesis, they will have to believe that whatever wasn't on the ark was killed.
And if their beliefs catch them in absurdities then they should be made aware of it.
But more then that it's the smugness.
So if the 'fundi' tries to waffle out by stating that the whales weren't on the boat, then you might as well drop it. There's no point on attacking a strawman version of their beliefs. Especially when there are a gazillion points on their actual beliefs that aren't true.
We aren't talking about scholars. We are talking about fundamentalist. Scholars can talk about context. Fundamentalist think every word in the bible has a literal meaning. If they are going to believe the world was created in six days then, according to the quote from Genesis, they will have to believe that whatever wasn't on the ark was killed.
And if their beliefs catch them in absurdities then they should be made aware of it.
But more then that it's the smugness.
More than 24 hours later and IMCREATED still hasn't responded. So much for his 'scientific evidence of creation'.
IMCREATED can't come up with ANY 'scientific evidence of creation.' 
Gary Gaulin can't even come up with a "theory" of creationism!
Creationism contains NO actual science! (())
Evolution solves "the riddle of life" with accuracy, predictive powers, beauty and simplicity.
It contains actual science.
Gary Gaulin can't even come up with a "theory" of creationism!
Creationism contains NO actual science! ((
))Evolution solves "the riddle of life" with accuracy, predictive powers, beauty and simplicity.
It contains actual science.
QUOTE
TheDoc Posted on Today at 2:23 PM More than 24 hours later and IMCREATED still hasn't responded. So much for his 'scientific evidence of creation'.
must of went option a QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| TheDoc Posted on Today at 2:23 PM More than 24 hours later and IMCREATED still hasn't responded. So much for his 'scientific evidence of creation'. |
must of went option a kjw Posted: Yesterday at 6:55 PM Options:
a ) if you do not provide realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation, you will never know how Bloy, or any one is to react.
a ) if you do not provide realistic explanations of the scientific evidence for creation, you will never know how Bloy, or any one is to react.
which i think most of those who thought "which one will IMCREATED choose?" would of thought of.
to all creationists, the evidence box must be ticked if it is to be called scientific. if the evidence box is left blank, it is by definition, not scientific.
to all creationists, the evidence box must be ticked if it is to be called scientific. if the evidence box is left blank, it is by definition, not scientific.
Ladies and gentlemen,
By all means, go and visit the sites that imcreated provided for us. There were 16,000 animals on the ark. And that's a liberal estimate. The way it was done was that there were stem bears and stem snakes and stem penguins. They diversified afterwords.
The dinosaurs were mentioned. I forgot about the dinosaurs. And what did they eat? Dried meat. There was no mention of how the dried meat got there. Everybody was busy building the ark so I would guess..FedEx? Oh, wait, there wasn't any FedEx then. This is one of those sticky situations. Aha, fundis know how to get out of sticky situations. God did it! Tada!
And there was only one continent 10,000 years ago. For your information that's how the kangaroos got to the middle east. Wait a second, the earth was made 10,000 years ago. Anybody know when the flood took place?
And tortoises. There were live tortoises on the ark to slaughter for the meat eaters.. Poor buggers, I wonder who they pissed off.
And then there was a section on how the animals spread after they got off of the ark. Geometrically. Two dogs made four dogs made eight dogs... Same with lions I guess. They didn't address a puzzling question though. I'm sure the lions and gazelles, the dogs and rabbits all sat around the ark singing Kumbaya, my lord. But once they got off the ark one of some of those pairs got eaten so how did they repopulate? Eh, never mind. God fixed it.
I wasted all that time on whales and boats and Genesis and trying to be serious when all I had to do was go those sites and realize that creationism is a comedy.
By all means, go and visit the sites that imcreated provided for us. There were 16,000 animals on the ark. And that's a liberal estimate. The way it was done was that there were stem bears and stem snakes and stem penguins. They diversified afterwords.
The dinosaurs were mentioned. I forgot about the dinosaurs. And what did they eat? Dried meat. There was no mention of how the dried meat got there. Everybody was busy building the ark so I would guess..FedEx? Oh, wait, there wasn't any FedEx then. This is one of those sticky situations. Aha, fundis know how to get out of sticky situations. God did it! Tada!
And there was only one continent 10,000 years ago. For your information that's how the kangaroos got to the middle east. Wait a second, the earth was made 10,000 years ago. Anybody know when the flood took place?
And tortoises. There were live tortoises on the ark to slaughter for the meat eaters.. Poor buggers, I wonder who they pissed off.
And then there was a section on how the animals spread after they got off of the ark. Geometrically. Two dogs made four dogs made eight dogs... Same with lions I guess. They didn't address a puzzling question though. I'm sure the lions and gazelles, the dogs and rabbits all sat around the ark singing Kumbaya, my lord. But once they got off the ark one of some of those pairs got eaten so how did they repopulate? Eh, never mind. God fixed it.
I wasted all that time on whales and boats and Genesis and trying to be serious when all I had to do was go those sites and realize that creationism is a comedy.
Aaah, look at all the negative and arrogant replies I get. Not one of them has disputed my statement that the title if this thread was inaccurate at best. All I have gotten was that I need to provide "proof" of Creation. It's funny that none of you are providing proof of evolution. I guess it's because I'm a "Creationist Fundi" and the burden of proof is all on me. 
QUOTE (IMCREATED+May 15 2008, 03:48 AM)
Aaah, look at all the negative and arrogant replies I get. Not one of them has disputed my statement that the title if this thread was inaccurate at best. All I have gotten was that I need to provide "proof" of Creation. It's funny that none of you are providing proof of evolution. I guess it's because I'm a "Creationist Fundi" and the burden of proof is all on me.
Yes deary. That's how it works in Science. You propose a theory and if you want anyone to believe you then you back it up with evidence. I'm sure you expect Science to disprove god but that isn't how it works. If science has to assume the burden of disproving god then it must assume the burden of disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster as creator, and the Lightning Brothers, and whatever freaky mythological being to whom the Hindu's ascribe creation.
Your mythology expects (nay DEMANDS) that we accept it on faith. But you know what? So does every other fairy tale.
Use your mind. It evolved over billions of years to give you an advantage over the rest of the creatures in your environment.
Believing in "god" is like being a chronic masturbator. It is disrespectful of your body. Don't be a wanker for god.
Yes deary. That's how it works in Science. You propose a theory and if you want anyone to believe you then you back it up with evidence. I'm sure you expect Science to disprove god but that isn't how it works. If science has to assume the burden of disproving god then it must assume the burden of disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster as creator, and the Lightning Brothers, and whatever freaky mythological being to whom the Hindu's ascribe creation.
Your mythology expects (nay DEMANDS) that we accept it on faith. But you know what? So does every other fairy tale.
Use your mind. It evolved over billions of years to give you an advantage over the rest of the creatures in your environment.
Believing in "god" is like being a chronic masturbator. It is disrespectful of your body. Don't be a wanker for god.
IMCREATED, Evolution IS already proven. 
READ A BOOK! 
READ A BOOK!
QUOTE (IMCREATED+)
Not one of them has disputed my statement that the title if this thread was inaccurate at best.
Fine, I'll dispute it: They used science to make a scientific (duh!) observation. See how it says they mapped the genetic makeup of the platypus? They used science to do that. And, in doing that, they may have found a way to better explain and fill in the gaps about mammals' evolution.
See? All of those things involve science.
Throughout the history of this subforum several people have provided examples of evidence for evolution, transitional fossils, and the like. They've refuted arguments against evolution. They've explained the logic and reasoning of evolution. So yeah, the burden of proof is on you. So go on now, put forth some evidence for creationism/ID. You've implied that you have 'realistic explanations' for creation science; why not post up a couple and prove wrong the people who say you don't?
The ball's in your court, and we're all listening...
Fine, I'll dispute it: They used science to make a scientific (duh!) observation. See how it says they mapped the genetic makeup of the platypus? They used science to do that. And, in doing that, they may have found a way to better explain and fill in the gaps about mammals' evolution.
See? All of those things involve science.
QUOTE
All I have gotten was that I need to provide "proof" of Creation. It's funny that none of you are providing proof of evolution. I guess it's because I'm a "Creationist Fundi" and the burden of proof is all on me.
Throughout the history of this subforum several people have provided examples of evidence for evolution, transitional fossils, and the like. They've refuted arguments against evolution. They've explained the logic and reasoning of evolution. So yeah, the burden of proof is on you. So go on now, put forth some evidence for creationism/ID. You've implied that you have 'realistic explanations' for creation science; why not post up a couple and prove wrong the people who say you don't?
The ball's in your court, and we're all listening...
QUOTE
TheDoc Posted on Today at 2:05 PM The ball's in your court, and we're all listening...
... ...can we post and listen... ...
QUOTE (IMCREATED+May 15 2008, 03:48 AM)
Aaah, look at all the negative and arrogant replies I get. Not one of them has disputed my statement that the title if this thread was inaccurate at best. All I have gotten was that I need to provide "proof" of Creation. It's funny that none of you are providing proof of evolution. I guess it's because I'm a "Creationist Fundi" and the burden of proof is all on me.
Human embryos for a short time have a vesitgal tail that disappears.
Evolution can pass a tabla rasa test. That is all evidence can be ignored and new evidence found.
Creationism can not. Without the existing stories where would you come up with the six days? what evidence can you find fresh that it took six days?
We can do more ultrasounds on fetuses. Can you get a fresh copy of the Bible from God?
Human embryos for a short time have a vesitgal tail that disappears.
Evolution can pass a tabla rasa test. That is all evidence can be ignored and new evidence found.
Creationism can not. Without the existing stories where would you come up with the six days? what evidence can you find fresh that it took six days?
We can do more ultrasounds on fetuses. Can you get a fresh copy of the Bible from God?
I'll point out that studying the evolution of the embryo is a fascinating topic, especially whenever a mutation increases the time of gestation but also augments the ability of the adult.
IMCREATED, check out this link.
List of evidence supporting evolution
Even the discovery institute can't compile 'evidence' that thoroughly.
Evidence of intelligent design from a speech by Michael Behe
In fact, if you look at that, he offers no empirical evidence whatsoever. He merely argues, despite the misleading title of the page.
Compare that with the first page, which is a highly comprehensive (though by no means exhaustive!) list of evidence in favor of evolution.
IMCREATED, I'll tell you what. Provide one piece (just one!) of empirical evidence in favor of Intelligent Design or Creationism (whatever you call it) and I'll back you up for the rest of our time here. Seriously. Just give me one example of an organ, tissue or organism which could not possibly have come into being without the interference of an intelligent agent.
List of evidence supporting evolution
Even the discovery institute can't compile 'evidence' that thoroughly.
Evidence of intelligent design from a speech by Michael Behe
In fact, if you look at that, he offers no empirical evidence whatsoever. He merely argues, despite the misleading title of the page.
Compare that with the first page, which is a highly comprehensive (though by no means exhaustive!) list of evidence in favor of evolution.
IMCREATED, I'll tell you what. Provide one piece (just one!) of empirical evidence in favor of Intelligent Design or Creationism (whatever you call it) and I'll back you up for the rest of our time here. Seriously. Just give me one example of an organ, tissue or organism which could not possibly have come into being without the interference of an intelligent agent.
Hey BDW,
I'll help out IMCREATED with an argument he can try to expand upon.
Don't shoot the messenger
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html
QUOTE
IMCREATED, I'll tell you what. Provide one piece (just one!) of empirical evidence in favor of Intelligent Design or Creationism...
I'll help out IMCREATED with an argument he can try to expand upon.
Don't shoot the messenger
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 17 2008, 06:02 PM)
Hey BDW,
I'll help out IMCREATED with an argument he can try to expand upon.
Don't shoot the messenger
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html
Come on now, X. You're going to make IMCREATED think that unfalsifiable claims about subjective observations count as empirical evidence!
Of course, he's free to take you up. I hope he doesn't grow too attached to that argument, though. Cause I'm gonna do some bad bad things to it if he uses it.
The kind of things that normally only happen in prisons and warzones.
I'll help out IMCREATED with an argument he can try to expand upon.
Don't shoot the messenger
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html
Come on now, X. You're going to make IMCREATED think that unfalsifiable claims about subjective observations count as empirical evidence!
Of course, he's free to take you up. I hope he doesn't grow too attached to that argument, though. Cause I'm gonna do some bad bad things to it if he uses it.
The kind of things that normally only happen in prisons and warzones.
QUOTE
BigDumbWeirdo Posted on Today at 11:11 AM Of course, he's free to take you up. I hope he doesn't grow too attached to that argument, though. Cause I'm gonna do some bad bad things to it if he uses it. The kind of things that normally only happen in prisons and warzones.
excellent, just in time for calibrating the upper limit on my "prison and warzone activity detection device". the protocol is rather simple:
Step 1: ask BDW to counter this arguement
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BigDumbWeirdo Posted on Today at 11:11 AM Of course, he's free to take you up. I hope he doesn't grow too attached to that argument, though. Cause I'm gonna do some bad bad things to it if he uses it. The kind of things that normally only happen in prisons and warzones. |
excellent, just in time for calibrating the upper limit on my "prison and warzone activity detection device". the protocol is rather simple:
Step 1: ask BDW to counter this arguement
If a supercomputer is obviously the product of intelligent design, how much more obviously is the eye a product of intelligent design?
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html
QUOTE (kjw+May 17 2008, 08:23 PM)
Step 1: ask BDW to counter this arguement
Well, I'm gonna wait for IMCREATED to make it, but here's a teaser...
This is misleading to an enourmous degree.
1: The nerve cells in the retina are themselves complex molecular machines, seperate from the rods and cones which actually perform the function of the human eye, serving instead to relay information to the eye at a rate far below what a typical nerve cell can handle, due to the relative dearth of information provided by the eye.
2: The acuity of the human eye is measured in angular resolution, a form of resolution similar to the resolution measurements of digital cameras. The only difference is that the human eye does not pick up images of a certain size like a digital camera, and thus they use degrees instead of inches, however this can be easily converted, thanks to the common method of measuring angular resolution. Thus, the human eye can be compared to the resolution of a high resolution camera, a relatively simple form of technology that has been around for several decades. By using the same subjective logic that argues from incredulity about the 'amazing' complexity of the human eye, we can argue from incredulity about the 'amazing' inefficiency of the human eye.
3: The amount of information contained in an 82 megapixel image is approximately 1.3 gigabytes, which can be bussed by any modern home computer from hard drive to memory in less than 2 seconds. High performance computers can bus it in less than 1/1000th of a second. As evidenced by the speed of modern digital video cameras, a 2 megapixel image can be taken over 45 times per second, easily demonstrating a cpu's ability to process and store such information with even greater ability. This puts into perspective the claims made about the amount of information certain nerve cells CAN process in comparison to super computers, by showing the actual amount of information they DO process in comparison to home computers.
4: All of this is off the top of my head. I haven't bothered to do any research past what I could look up in a common designer's reference.
5: For the record, the AVERAGE human eye only has a resolution of about 40 megapixels, so you can safely assume that your average professional digital camera is every bit as powerful as a human eye.
Well, I'm gonna wait for IMCREATED to make it, but here's a teaser...
QUOTE
While today's digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina's real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second."
This is misleading to an enourmous degree.
1: The nerve cells in the retina are themselves complex molecular machines, seperate from the rods and cones which actually perform the function of the human eye, serving instead to relay information to the eye at a rate far below what a typical nerve cell can handle, due to the relative dearth of information provided by the eye.
2: The acuity of the human eye is measured in angular resolution, a form of resolution similar to the resolution measurements of digital cameras. The only difference is that the human eye does not pick up images of a certain size like a digital camera, and thus they use degrees instead of inches, however this can be easily converted, thanks to the common method of measuring angular resolution. Thus, the human eye can be compared to the resolution of a high resolution camera, a relatively simple form of technology that has been around for several decades. By using the same subjective logic that argues from incredulity about the 'amazing' complexity of the human eye, we can argue from incredulity about the 'amazing' inefficiency of the human eye.
CODE
A human eye with high visual acuity might be able to make out a resolution of about 82 megapixels. Compare this to optical cameras commonly used in labs since the 1960's, capable of 67 megapixels. It does not seem to be much of an improvement. Then consider the most powerful cameras in existence today, which can top 4 gigapixels! Then consider the blind spot the human eye has directly in the center of it's field of view. This could easily have been corrected for by any 'designer' and indeed, many transhumanists point to this as one of the first changes they would make to the human form, given the chance. Next, consider the lack of a reflective coating in the eye to increase lighting in low light conditions. Surely any designer who intended mankind to survive in the forest at night (as countless men and women have spent their nights over the millenium) would have blessed us with acute low-light vision. That such is not the case can only be said to be evidence of a lack of design.
3: The amount of information contained in an 82 megapixel image is approximately 1.3 gigabytes, which can be bussed by any modern home computer from hard drive to memory in less than 2 seconds. High performance computers can bus it in less than 1/1000th of a second. As evidenced by the speed of modern digital video cameras, a 2 megapixel image can be taken over 45 times per second, easily demonstrating a cpu's ability to process and store such information with even greater ability. This puts into perspective the claims made about the amount of information certain nerve cells CAN process in comparison to super computers, by showing the actual amount of information they DO process in comparison to home computers.
4: All of this is off the top of my head. I haven't bothered to do any research past what I could look up in a common designer's reference.
5: For the record, the AVERAGE human eye only has a resolution of about 40 megapixels, so you can safely assume that your average professional digital camera is every bit as powerful as a human eye.
Direct correlation between speed of computers and the human brain is exceedingly difficult.
Especially because computers are limited to binary, linear operation, while the Neuron can have many many connections and do some very complicated differentiation on its own.
The brain is more like a massively parallel LEARNING processor network, with each neuron reinforcing and making new and different connections based on its work load.
So while the computer could perhaps tranfer information as quickly, if the transformation and interpretation natural to the neuron network was also required of the computer (not just simple moving of the data), the difference would probably be in the Brain's favor by several factors of 10.
Especially because computers are limited to binary, linear operation, while the Neuron can have many many connections and do some very complicated differentiation on its own.
The brain is more like a massively parallel LEARNING processor network, with each neuron reinforcing and making new and different connections based on its work load.
So while the computer could perhaps tranfer information as quickly, if the transformation and interpretation natural to the neuron network was also required of the computer (not just simple moving of the data), the difference would probably be in the Brain's favor by several factors of 10.
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.