|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 12/04/2009 : 01:01:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Oh come on, Cune and Kil. This Matt came in here full of attitude, both patronizing and insulting. He is an ill-informed buffoon who repeatedly denigrates the group level of education and knowledge which is immeasurably higher than his condition of uninformed ignorance.
I see no reason to afford him much respect.
|
It's not about respecting him, Bill. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 10:07:27 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
Alright, alright, I know, it's because I called him a "fucker". That apellation is patently unfair as I cannot verify either the truth or falsity of the implication. I hereby withdraw the label and apologize.
I actually think Cune has a point. Just as the Forum descended into the gutter occasionally a year or two ago and I vociferously objected; today the tone of dissent can be pretty shrill (and even crude)!
And I am part of that uncivility, and I recognize it and apologize!
I am rapidly becoming a catankerous old man, short tempered and lacking patience. I shall attempt to do better and learn to suffer foo.....oops, dammit, that just slipped out! Sorry! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/04/2009 : 11:29:15 [Permalink]
|
I, on the other hand, am perfectly civil, courteous and obliging at every turn. Gaze upon me and wonder at my beatitude.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 12:14:58 [Permalink]
|
| The bible has never been proven wrong. |
Then clearly you're someone who can't be reasoned with if you believe that the hodgepodge of parables, fables, psalm lyrics, legendary folklore and absurd directives from ancient superstitious goat herders is to be taken as fact.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 14:59:09 [Permalink]
|
| Then clearly you're someone who can't be reasoned with if you believe that the hodgepodge of parables, fables, psalm lyrics, legendary folklore and absurd directives from ancient superstitious goat herders is to be taken as fact. |
Great précis of the Good Book of Bullshit, Thor! |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 17:33:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
| Then clearly you're someone who can't be reasoned with if you believe that the hodgepodge of parables, fables, psalm lyrics, legendary folklore and absurd directives from ancient superstitious goat herders is to be taken as fact. |
Great précis of the Good Book of Bullshit, Thor!
|
Thanks, bngbuck, though much credit goes to AronRa, a geoscience major in Texas. Check out his Fundamental Falsehoods of Creationism series of YouTube videos. I have them conveniently listed at http://debunkatron.com/#Creationism
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2009 : 08:20:02 [Permalink]
|
I'm with bng on this. The guy comes in here talking big, can barely manage a coherent post, makes a bunch of nonsense assertions, then runs off. Whatever......
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2009 : 23:38:26 [Permalink]
|
Sorry guys ive been busy. Ive not abandoned this post. However, i cannot comment alot as i am an owner of a business that keeps me busy in the day and the night.
So far from memory we havnt been able to produce any fossils that are undeniably proof of evolution, we have talked about micro and macro evolution which most of you dont understand which supprises me given your knowledge. Macro and micro are completly two diffent things and the two are not linked. Micro is not many steps producing a macro. However a macro is many micros producing a macro. Micro of what we talk about doesnt translate to a macro and only micro fossils exist, no macros exist. We have spoken about the second law of thermo dynamics, which i beleive you guys misunderstand but lets not argue any further on any of these points.
ill put to you this new arguement.
Ill copy and paste even tho i know u guys hate it but its a time thing for me sorry. But lets see how dating methods disprove evolution as evolution demands long periods of time. Ill start with this,
What is Radiometric Dating?
Radiometric dating is based on the premise that there are radioactive isotopes in nature that decay at a regular rate from the parent element to the daughter element. If we know three things we can use them to date items that contain those isotopes.
1. The original concentration of the parent isotope.
2. The concentration of the daughter element or isotope
3. The beta decay rate
For instance all living things contain carbon-14, or 14C, or radio carbon that decays to normal carbon 12C. 14C decays to 12C at a particular rate defined as half-life. One half-life of 14C is 5,730 years or half of the 14C is 12C in that amount of time. In 11,460 years another half will be gone leaving only a quarter of the 14C and so on. Because of the speed of 14C decay rate the range of dates that can be derived before any detectable 14C is left, is about 50,000 years. Anything over that has a bit of speculation built in.
There are other radiometric dating methods too. For example potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. All these methods are used in igneous rocks and are normally given as the time since solidification.
But these methods are not as infallible as the evolutionists would have us think. Let us look again at the three things we need to know to set a date.
1. The original concentration of the parent isotope. We must know how much of the parent was originally there and that there was no parent injected in during the time we are measuring.
2. The daughter concentration must not be compromised by an injection of daughter element or isotope during the time line.
3. The decay rate must be constant.
But evidence proves that all these assumption are fraught with error. It is well know that argon gas does intrude into igneous rock and skew dates in the most popular K-Ar dating method. In fact all the parent and daughter elements are water soluble and are known to leach into and out of igneous rocks thus potentially skewing the dates derived from their ratios.
Regards, Matt.
Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts. Life Itself (1981) p.153
Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 01:58:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Sorry guys ive been busy. Ive not abandoned this post. However, i cannot comment alot as i am an owner of a business that keeps me busy in the day and the night. |
Well, your business is keeping you in ignorance of evolutionary science, so you should probably become more humble.| So far from memory we havnt been able to produce any fossils that are undeniably proof of evolution... |
And you refuse to address the arguments against such a naive position.| ...we have talked about micro and macro evolution which most of you dont understand which supprises me given your knowledge. Macro and micro are completly two diffent things and the two are not linked. Micro is not many steps producing a macro. However a macro is many micros producing a macro. Micro of what we talk about doesnt translate to a macro and only micro fossils exist, no macros exist. |
Yet you refuse to state where the dividing line is between the two.| We have spoken about the second law of thermo dynamics, which i beleive you guys misunderstand but lets not argue any further on any of these points. |
Of course not, since that would just allow you to display more of your ignorance of the facts.ill put to you this new arguement.
Ill copy and paste even tho i know u guys hate it but its a time thing for me sorry. But lets see how dating methods disprove evolution as evolution demands long periods of time. Ill start with this... |
Yeah, your copy-and-paste source conflates two different methods of radiometric dating and thus assumes that problems for one are problems for the other, neglecting the actual workings of the two. He expects C-14 dating to provide realistic numbers for 20-million-year-old samples, K-Ar dating to provide realistic numbers for 55-year-old samples, and that "fully ionized" radio isotopes exist in cold rocks. He cites Barry Setterfield approvingly even though his nonsense has been known to be nonsense since the almost day he wrote it. Your source is full of crap. That you repeat it without comment demonstrates nothing but your own lack of understanding of the issues that your source brings up.Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts. Life Itself (1981) p.153
Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University |
That was a quote from Francis Crick, not Richard Dawkins. Your source (the same source as the garbage about radio-isotope dating) put the author of the quotes first, and then the quotes. Your sloppy copy-and-paste got the attribution all wrong, just because the section of Dawkins quotes comes right after that last Crick quote.
Do you really think you can gain any credibility with us when you demonstrate so clearly the fact that you won't even bother to get the source of a quote correct? Do you really think that what Crick (or Dawkins) says makes an iota of difference to the science of evolution? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 03:38:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
So far from memory we havnt been able to produce any fossils that are undeniably proof of evolution, |
Multiple fails here:
There is no single fossil that undeniably prove evolution. There cannot be. It's the sum of all fossils that is undeniable evidence of biological evolution. Each fossil is a piece of the puzzle and the final image is a "tree of life". Secondly, "proof" is concept used in mathematics and for high spirits like Whisky and Vodka. Proof implies an Absolute(tm) (pun intended) truth which has no place in natural science. Your use of it in this context is evidence of your ignorance on the subject. Get educated, please.
| we have talked about micro and macro evolution which most of you dont understand which supprises me given your knowledge. |
Your hubris is pretty insulting. But if you think you know better, when educate us in the specifics of your belief.
| Macro and micro are completly two diffent things and the two are not linked. |
Please explain in detail why you think it is so. If your argument is convincing enough I might change my mind and agree with you.
| Micro is not many steps producing a macro. However a macro is many micros producing a macro. Micro of what we talk about doesnt translate to a macro and only micro fossils exist, no macros exist. |
Then you're not talking of the same micro as we're talking about. What micro exactly does not produce a macro if plentiful enough?
And since you agree that there are certain kinds of micro capable of producing a macro, why not give us a specific example?
| We have spoken about the second law of thermo dynamics, which i beleive you guys misunderstand but lets not argue any further on any of these points. |
Well, we believe that you are clueless about the applications of the laws of thermodynamics. I for one would like to explore that subject a little more. Why not start a new thread about it, so we don't have to clutter up this one with it.
It's a suggestion to make any debates easier.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 08:46:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
ill tear your “proven facts” TO PIECES JUST AS I HAVE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. No proof exists for evolution. None!!!! |
I just thought I'd post this quote from matt36 again.
The guy's been doing this for 25 years and he's still harping on about the second law of thermodynamics. I'd say we've got proof of something right here... |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 11:28:19 [Permalink]
|
Hey Matt,
Has it ever occurred to you to crack open a science book rather than repeating stuff you have learned by reading only the creationist version of the science which is made to conform to a literal take of the bible? If you start with the assumption that the bible tells an accurate accounting of the creation, and then attempt to force the evidence to fit that story, you have put the cart before the horse. That isn't science. But that's exactly what the creationists war on science is about. Your take on the laws of thermodynamics is a perfect example of that. You have been shown how those laws have been misused, and yet you say that it is our failure understand them. That's your way out. How convenient for you.
You must reject all arguments if they don't fit your myopic view of science, or all of your arguments fail. So you simply close your ears and your eyes and proclaim that we are wrong. Not because we are, but because there is no place for doubt in your view of things. And you lack the humility to even consider that there can be any weakness in your arguments.
So you will go on and you will continue to be corrected, and you will ignore any correction that challenges the certainty of your position. In short, you are closed minded.
All of your arguments were debunked ages ago. But you wouldn't know that because the people you get your information from will not admit to their errors. To do so means a trip to hell? I dunno... But they are liars just the same. You would think that the church's persecution of Galileo would have taught you some kind of lesson about taking Genesis literally. But nooooo...
The good news is that history, along with the evidence is on our side. You are a part of a fringe group destined to go the way the church did, when the powers that be just couldn't dismiss the obvious any longer. The sun doesn't revolve around the earth, the earth isn't flat or the center of the universe, and evolution happens. And there is nothing that you can do, try as you might, to stop our advances in knowledge.
Sorry dude, but you have already been left behind.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 12:12:40 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
Your little essay to Matt is a classic example of suffering fools patiently. I am going to frame it on my office wall as a reminder to keep my temper under control. I have to commend you on the even tone and lack of excessive affect which you have consistently used with this damn foo.. individual!
Please don't progress to suffering these folks gladly! The idea really makes my butt itch! |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 14:37:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
We have spoken about the second law of thermo dynamics, which i beleive you guys misunderstand but lets not argue any further on any of these points.
|
Matt: Sorry, you're not getting out of this with mere hand waving. You earlier said:
| for isolated systems, entropy is constrained by the condition that it never decreases. |
and I showed you why you couldn't apply this to biological systems. I gave you the example of the Rankine Cycle clearly showing that your understanding of the 2nd law is incorrect. Until and unless you address this I will consider your hand waving as nothing more than an admission that really don't know what you are talking about, and that you wish to just run away from it.
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 14:59:42 [Permalink]
|
 |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
