Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2

Pages: (167) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:08    Wesley R. Elsberry, whoever he is (I think he might work in biology or something) once wrote a critique of Denton's claims on cytochrome data, by the way: http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html . I wonder if he knows Glenn Morton. I bet they're both raving foaming ATHEISTS, though. Or maybe not, eh, AirHeadDave? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:18    Deadman ...   Quote Of course he does--with a little picture of Dave at the "top." I beg your pardon ... that's Deadman at the top ... look closely and you'll see! fossil record: geologic time scale with major evolutionary events. [Art]. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-1650 Hmmmm ... this is my trusty old Encyclopedia Britannica ... 2006 version.  Not sure how you get more mainstream than that.  Looks pretty "ladderish" to me. Notice the timescale doesn't go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, but if it did, how many years more would that be? Yes.  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  At least a billion years.  Probably more.  How am I wrong about this? Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time. Improv ... you are making the mistake of assuming that "most scientists" = "most Thumbsters" (you do know what a Thumbster is, right?) And I can't keep straight what I'm supposed to read to get the REAL story on Evolution.  Some say Dawkins.  Some say others.  I say EB because I subscribe and someone here said they are reliable. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:28    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:18) Deadman ...     Quote Of course he does--with a little picture of Dave at the "top." I beg your pardon ... that's Deadman at the top ... look closely and you'll see! fossil record: geologic time scale with major evolutionary events. [Art]. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-1650 Hmmmm ... this is my trusty old Encyclopedia Britannica ... 2006 version.  Not sure how you get more mainstream than that.  Looks pretty "ladderish" to me. Notice the timescale doesn't go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, but if it did, how many years more would that be? Yes.  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  At least a billion years.  Probably more.  How am I wrong about this? Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time. Improv ... you are making the mistake of assuming that "most scientists" = "most Thumbsters" (you do know what a Thumbster is, right?) And I can't keep straight what I'm supposed to read to get the REAL story on Evolution.  Some say Dawkins.  Some say others.  I say EB because I subscribe and someone here said they are reliable. Gimme a break, Dave. Where does that pretty picture show ANY patterns of descent? Does it imply mammals disappeared 1.8 million years ago (just as dinosaurs disappeared 65 mya)?  That we don't have any vascular plants (after all, they're just a 400+ my old stepping stone on the way to humans). When were your ancestors plants, Dave? Go ahead and use that diagram to draw what you predict for cytochrome data. Show us how ludicrous a strawman you are actually building here. Honestly, Dave. Really? This is the scope of your understanding and your "argument"? And you expect us to take you seriously? You expect me to believe that you will be able to understand the Nature paper I'm going to send you on Monday?

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:29    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18) Improv ... you are making the mistake of assuming that "most scientists" = "most Thumbsters" (you do know what a Thumbster is, right?) Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence. You know, if you'd agreed to that early on, it would have saved us all a lot of time and effort. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:33    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18) Hmmmm ... this is my trusty old Encyclopedia Britannica ... 2006 version.  Not sure how you get more mainstream than that.  Looks pretty "ladderish" to me. Quote The "evolutionary ladder" is a common misunderstanding about the nature of evolution. In its most common incarnation the ladder shows the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors, but the idea may go as far as a great chain of being, from bacteria at the bottom up to humans, the "peak" of evolution. The ladder is based upon the pre-Darwinian scala naturae, founded by Aristotle in a time when species were thought to be static essences created individually by God. The scala naturae organised both living and inanimate objects on a ladder, with Humans, or sometimes supernatural beings at the top. The idea of the scala naturae was difficult to dispose of, and so was a stumbling block to those trying to understand Darwin's theory, causing misunderstandings such as a belief in teleological evolution. The belief that one existing, essential God-created species, purposefully evolves into another existing species, while special creation adds new simple micro-organisms at the bottom, to start their journey up to the top - humans, of course - was common initially. There are a number of things which prop up the ladder: *A belief that intelligence is the "peak" of evolution, and therefore all species can be organised on a ladder of intelligence (the legacy of hundreds of years of the scala naturae). *Ambiguous phrases like "humans are evolved from apes". Humans are evolved from apes - or at least extinct animals that modern zoologists would classify as apes - just not contemporary apes like Chimpanzees (see Common descent). It would be just as inaccurate to say that Chimpanzees evolved from humans. *The fact that some ancestral groups of animals are often anatomically very similar to some of their modern descendents, but not others (and we therefore assign them to modern groups), for example, the common ancestor of fish and amphibians is anatomically far more similar to modern fish species than modern amphibians, so it's convenient to say that "amphibians evolved from fish". Attenborough (1979) made a ground breaking television series by using modern groups to represent human ancestors, which led some viewers to believe not just in the ladder, but in a ladder whose purpose was to produce humanity. *The use of the words "higher" and "lower" to describe different species. The evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific concept, and Darwin talked of common descent, yet even this 1998 reprint of On The Origin Of Species shows a (rather giant) leap from a modern looking monkey to a reconstruction of a relatively recent possible human ancestor. Yet, despite the fact that the evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific theory, lay people seem to think that it is. When a fossil skull, named [[Touma�]], was found in Chad in 2002 an article in Nature (Whitfield, 2002) which stated that the fossil prompted a rethink of human evolution was jumped on by creationists as the end of evolutionary theory altogether (Yahya, 2002). The reason was that when scientists were asked to comment about the fact that the find did not fit with the evolutionary ladder their response was that the evolutionary ladder is not a scientific theory and is baseless. The creationists jumped on this because to them the evolutionary ladder is evolution, or even if they don't think that, it's still convenient to pretend that the evolutionary ladder is the prevailing evolutionary theory when there are scientists attacking it. [edit]References Attenborough, D., 1978. Life On Earth, London: BBC/Collins books. Whitfield, J., 2002. Oldest member of human family found, in Nature 2002/Jul/11 [1] Yahya, H., 2002. New Fossil Doscovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories, Islam Online [2]. [edit]Further Reading Colby, C., 1996. Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Talkorigins.org, [3]. Dennett, D., 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Simon & Schuster. Discusses pre-Darwinian essentialist ideas about kinds. Mayr, M., 2001. What Evolution Is, BasicBooks. Ch 1 debunks the scala naturae and teleological evolution. Gould, S.J., 1990. Wonderful Life, Hutchinson. Begins by describing the ladder and teleological evolution, and then shows that evolution is blind and purposeless.   http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolutionary_ladder

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:35    And by the way, DaveStupid, if you're going to use Denton, i think you should know he's rejected your creationist view entirely, while accepting evolution as it is. Let me quote his last book: It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school...CONTRARY to the creationist position, THE WHOLE ARGUMENT PRESENTED HERE [in his book, Dave] is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on THE REALITY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. ". Nature's Destiny, pp. xvii-xviii Wow, huh? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:47    Improv... Quote Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence. It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ... THE SUPERNATURAL That is precisely where you and I differ ... I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ... ... you do not. So, no, we're not on the same page. Deadman, calm down.  I already said Denton believes in Evolution a page or two ago ... read my posts, will you?  He's a man in torment.  He's like "skeptic."  He can't swallow Darwinism, but he has no alternative.  Poor guy!  If only he'd believe Genesis. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:50    Quote I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ... Except you can't show it and answer questions about it, or use anything but fallacies and rhetorical games to defend it. You're not different from any other nutty little conspiracy theorist. At least Denton is honest enough to be a deist and not a literalist like yourself, forced to lie and use the tactics above ... Added: I posted a quote from Denton, in which he both accepts evolution and rejects creationism. StupidAssDave replies: Quote Deadman, calm down. I already said Denton believes in Evolution a page or two ago ... read my posts, will you? He's a man in torment. He's like "skeptic." He can't swallow Darwinism, but he has no alternative. Poor guy! If only he'd believe Genesis. Uh, wrong. What Stupid actually said was:   Quote I'm finding it quite difficult to believe that Michael Denton doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution. I actually think he still believes in some form of it, though his book obviously questions the form he believes to be in the mainstream. I will look into this. Far be it from me to intentionally misrepresent mainstream ToE views. I looked into it for you, Stupid. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,13:01    Pop quiz, Dave. "Mainstream" evolutionary theory predicts your ancestors once resembled (choose all that apply; all but bacteria are from your EB picture): (a) bacteria (b) fish © squid (d) vascular plants (e) dinosaurs (f) birds (g) predatory cats (h) all of the above What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,13:16    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:18) Yes.  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  At least a billion years.  Probably more.  How am I wrong about this? Dave, your hypothesis needs "deep time." At least hundreds of millions of years. How else to explain the solid surface of the globe, Dave? It wouldn't be solid after 6,000 years, and it certainly wouldn't be room temperature. An earth nine hundred million years old would be surprising, and would undoubtedly present some problems for evolutionary biology. But it wouldn't kill the theory. It would obliterate your "hypothesis," which predicts an age more than five orders of magnitude smaller! But is that your argument, Dave? That because evolution "needs" billions of years, therefore the earth can't be billions of years old? What kind of nonsensical argument is that? You're spending all your time impugning the motives of scientists, presumably because you can't refute any of their evidence. The craziness of your argument is that you believe concordances of dates from widely different independent lines of evidence is a weakness! You seem to think it's a strength for your argument that you don't have any "evidence" that converges on any particular date! But how are scientists any worse off than creationists, Dave? You need an earth 6,000 years old. Should we infer from that need that your "hypothesis" is wrong? A more persuasive reason why your "hypothesis" is wrong is that it's contradicted by simple, straightforward observations about the world, observations a bright elementary school child could come up with. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,13:30    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:47) Improv...   Quote Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence. It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ... THE SUPERNATURAL That is precisely where you and I differ ... I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ... ... you do not. Excellent.  So now that you've finally acknowledged the logic and science behind evolution, deep time, and whatever, we can dispense with further discussion along those lines.  At long last, we can return to the stated topic of the thread. Please, by all menas, get on with presenting your overwhelming supernatural evidence. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,13:40    Incorygible ... Quote What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"? I get it.  You think that I have this funny idea of plants and such being in the human ancestry?  No.  I just like the "ladder" because it portrays the real need for Deep Time.  I'll read the links though. Improv ... don't misunderstand me ... it is not logical to believe that RM Dating has proven Deep Time, and it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural (in your case, the Evo Fairy Tale is as good as say, the Joseph Smith fairy tale, etc, etc).  Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you die!  Who cares where we came from. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,13:53    Quote it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural Yet another example of illogical, fallacious thinking. I see...false dichotomy and begging the question (Stupid is assuming supernaturalism true while offering no means of showing it). Then there is the straw man of "evolving from pond scum" while engaging in the equally stupid "appeal from ridicule" (those crazy evilushunists think we came from pond scum, har, har! ) -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,13:55    Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12) I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text? No Dave, you have not "explained this already".  We're waiting for you to tell us how you determine which parts are literal, and which parts are figurative of ANY text. It was your thought question to the board Dave, let's hear your answer. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,14:25    Dave, I was just commenting on Denton on another thread and after reading the introduction to his book I believe that he actually accepts a form of intelligent design but refuses to admit it, maybe even to himself.  The idea that anything can be fully comprehended by human reason is just plain foolish and he goes a long way implying that all the necessary variables in the universe to support life signify order or design by their existence.   Dave, I'm going to recommend "Who was Adam" by Rana because I think it introduces you to some sound scientific concepts that you might be able to accept and get you to drop this YEC idea.  It would at least getting on the same page with some of these guys so you could have a real discussion.  You just have to ignore Rana's claim that Creationism is testable under his model.  Outside of that madness it should be a useful book for you.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,15:16    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,19:40) Improv ... don't misunderstand me ... it is not logical to believe that RM Dating has proven Deep Time, and it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural (in your case, the Evo Fairy Tale is as good as say, the Joseph Smith fairy tale, etc, etc).  Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you die!  Who cares where we came from. You are quite clearly stating here that evolution and "billionsofyearsism" is the logical conclusion based on material evidence: Quote And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,15:44    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:40) Incorygible ...     Quote What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"? I get it.  You think that I have this funny idea of plants and such being in the human ancestry?  No.  I just like the "ladder" because it portrays the real need for Deep Time.  I'll read the links though. But Dave, plants and humans have a common ancestor; there can be no doubt of that. Do you deny that plants and humans have a common ancestor? And again, can you explain how it is that a need for "deep time," all by itself, is a problem for evolutionary theory? If there were no evidence that the earth were billions of years old, there would be a problem. But, in fact, there is a mountain of evidence that the earth is billions of years old; therefore, no problem. Moreover, Dave, your "hypothesis" needs deep time as much as evolutionary theory does. You still haven't come up with a way for tens of millions of species can have arisen from the few thousand on the ark less than ten thousand years ago. More miracles?   Quote Improv ... don't misunderstand me ... it is not logical to believe that RM Dating has proven Deep Time… Really, Dave? What's illogical about it? If RM dating is accurate, and it is, then Deep Time is proven. Q.E.D. Can you show me the error in the logic? Under no circumstances (even if RM dating is completely wrong) would believing RM dating has proven Deep Time be "illogical." I'm not sure you're using the word "illogical" correctly here. Dave, we don't even need rm dating to prove "deep time." If there were no "deep time," then where's all the Pu 239? With a half-life of 20,000 years or so, there should be plenty of it. In fact, other than radioisotopes that are created continuously as a result of natural processes, such as C14, we don't see any radioisotopes with half-lives less than a few million years. What's your explanation for that, Dave? More miracles? And, why are there any daughter products to U-238? In 6,000 years, essentially none of the U-238 should have decayed.   Quote and it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... Aside from the fact that humans did not evolve from "pond scum," which is mostly plants, Dave, there's nothing illogical about such a belief. It might be (and is) wrong to have such a belief, but there's nothing illogical about it. It's becoming clear you don't have a firm grasp of logic, among all your other deficiencies.   Quote what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural (in your case, the Evo Fairy Tale is as good as say, the Joseph Smith fairy tale, etc, etc).  Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you die!  Who cares where we came from. Nope. The Joseph Smith "fairytale" is no more supported by evidence than your young-earth creationism "fairytale" is. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is supported by entire libraries full of evidence. Why you think evolutionary theory and creationist "theory" are on an equal footing from an evidentiary standpoint baffles me, Dave. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,16:47    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,07:25) EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME TO MAKE THEIR THEORY BELIEVABLE One other thing. There's one critter on this charter that's missing, Dave: the chimpanzee. Humans and chimps have exactly the same cytochrome c protein sequence. (theoretically, you should already have known this; did you?) The chances of this happening by chance, given the functional redundancy of the cytochrome c protein, are conservatively estimated at less than one out of 10^93. Any explanation for this, Dave? Another "miracle? More generally, this chart confirms the standard evolutionary prediction that all currently-living eukaryote cytochrome proteins should be approximately equally distant from bacterial cytochrome, and contradicts your "ladder of life" misapprehension of evolutionary theory. Your criticizing your own personal, wrong, version of evolutionary theory, not the actual theory. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,17:14    YEAH!!  AFDAVE WILL NO LONGER ARGUE THAT RB/SR WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS ARE MIXING LINES.  BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH MY SUMMARY.     Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18) Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time. O.K. Dave.  We can move on to what is really botherring you which is proving the actual TIME portion of the Isochron.  Now that you accept the METHOD of Isochron construction and sampling, and the resultant linearity of the data we can move on to the actual reason that anyone spends time and effort on these graphs which is to determine the AGE of the samples involved. I'll assume you need another summary for this subject so I'll think about it for a little.  Off the top of my head I can come up with the following items to show you but I'll probably refine this list over time: 1)  The description of half-lives and how they affect the Isotopes in question. 2)  Measured values of half-lives of Isotopes. 3)  Significance of Rb87 decay to Sr87 decay reflected on the Isochron graph. 4)  Original melt daughter ratio Sr87 determination from the Isochron graph. AFDave, you can help me out here.  I have one question that will reduce this list. Here it comes.... Do you agree that measured half-live values of Isotopes are acurate? This means that scientists have acurately measured the decay rate of Isotopes and that, for example, in 48.8billion years from today (or tomorrow, I'll give you that one) then half of the Rb87 found on earth will undergo decay.  I'm not saying anything (yet) about looking backward in time. Mike PSS ************************** ericmurphy, For a "real" science question regarding the past.  You stated   Quote Dave, we don't even need rm dating to prove "deep time." If there were no "deep time," then where's all the Pu 239? With a half-life of 20,000 years or so, there should be plenty of it. If most of the elemental isotopes (stable and radioactive) were formed in the quark furnace of the supernovae in this region of space, How much time passed by between the supernovae and the measured formation of the earth? I've never seen discussion of this subject.  However, if you want to trace back elemental origins of most of the elements of the earth you have to trace back to the actual supernovae event, not solar systems formation from the nebulae soup.  Earth's formation would reset the radionucleide clock of all elements occurring on the earth (just like the clock is reset slightly earlier with chondrite metorites).  But there may have been zero Pu-239 present in the nebulae when the earth formed since the supernovae happened earlier.

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,17:22    I'm no biologist, but I use these ladders to look at the evolutionary tree.  And it also has chutes to accomodate devolution.  This meets all the requirements for the evo/devo discipline.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,18:27    Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 30 2006,22:14) ericmurphy, For a "real" science question regarding the past.  You stated         Quote Dave, we don't even need rm dating to prove "deep time." If there were no "deep time," then where's all the Pu 239? With a half-life of 20,000 years or so, there should be plenty of it. If most of the elemental isotopes (stable and radioactive) were formed in the quark furnace of the supernovae in this region of space, How much time passed by between the supernovae and the measured formation of the earth? I've never seen discussion of this subject.  However, if you want to trace back elemental origins of most of the elements of the earth you have to trace back to the actual supernovae event, not solar systems formation from the nebulae soup.  Earth's formation would reset the radionucleide clock of all elements occurring on the earth (just like the clock is reset slightly earlier with chondrite metorites).  But there may have been zero Pu-239 present in the nebulae when the earth formed since the supernovae happened earlier. Good point. When it comes to parent/daughter ratios, obviously we're looking at the time since whatever system we're talking about became "closed." But when we're talking about the existence of radioisotopes, the relevant time is the time since the creation of that particular isotope. Unlike, say, C14, Pu239 is not created by any natural process on earth. Most likely, it's not formed in significant quantities anywhere except during a supernova event. Same thing with U238, U235, etc. The problem is (correct me if I'm wrong here), that without a closed system by which we can determine parent/daughter ratios, there's no way to determine exactly how much, e.g., uranium-238 remains from the quantity originally formed in the supernova (or, supernovae) event(s). Hence, I don't think there is any way to date the time of that event using radiometric dating techniques. However, we can set a lower bound on that time by looking at progressively longer- and longer-lived radioisotopes. If the shortest-lived radioisotope still found in significant quantities has a half-life of, say, 400 million years, that sets a lower bound of how old the earth can be, given that ten half-lives would be four billion years ago (I'm not sure how many half-lives would have to go by to render a particular radioisotope undetectable; anyone know?). In any event, it's extremely unlikely that supernova debris could have recollapsed into an accretion disk and formed a solar system in less than 10,000 half-lives of Pu-239. Therefore, the complete lack of natural Pu-239 is evidence that current theories of, among other things, nucleosynthesis, stellar evolution, and planetary system formation are correct. Not conclusive proof, of course, but it's certainly one observational test that all of those theories have passed. The lack of naturally-occurring Pu-239 is, of course, one of the many, many observational tests that Dave's "hypothesis" has not passed. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,18:54    Is pond scum (or something like it) thought to be a precursor to animals? (I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm not a biologist.) Ah, I see Eric already answered the question. Henry

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,22:38    Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2006,23:54) Is pond scum (or something like it) thought to be a precursor to animals? (I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm not a biologist.) If humans are descended from pond scum, why do we still have pond scum? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,23:11    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:40) Incorygible ...   Quote What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"? I get it.  You think that I have this funny idea of plants and such being in the human ancestry?  No.  I just like the "ladder" because it portrays the real need for Deep Time.  I'll read the links though. Yet you implicitly used this argument to prove that no species is "transitional to another" (whatever that means). A little bit more dishonesty, AFDave, please.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,00:00    Quote If humans are descended from pond scum, why do we still have pond scum? Excellent question, good Sir. From my own unpublished research (thwarted by the modern scientific establishment), I have determined that many creationists, evangelists, lawyers and politicians are in fact recently descended from pond scum or are in fact, ambulating pond scum themselves. You can find pond scum posting under the name "Dave Hawkins" at http://soundingtrumpet.weblogs.us/2006....-design where it claims to have read Glenn Morton back in April 2006 , but seemed baffled recently when the name was raised.  God works in mysterious ways. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,05:48    Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2006,05:00) You can find pond scum posting under the name "Dave Hawkins" at http://soundingtrumpet.weblogs.us/2006....-design where it claims to have read Glenn Morton back in April 2006, but seemed baffled recently when the name was raised.  God works in mysterious ways. Dave, you're utterly unembarrassable. Don't you realize that what you posted yesterday, or a week ago, or a year ago, is still available to be read? Makes denying you said stuff a lot harder. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Bing Posts: 144 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,07:48    deleted because I didn't read far enough down the thread.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,08:02    Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2006,05:00) You can find pond scum posting under the name "Dave Hawkins" at http://soundingtrumpet.weblogs.us/2006....-design where it claims to have read Glenn Morton back in April 2006, but seemed baffled recently when the name was raised.  God works in mysterious ways. Great catch Deadman.  So not only did Davie-doo know about Glenn Morton, Davie admits to having read and researched quite a bit of Glenn's work.   All that, yet Davie still wonders why everyone here considers him a lying dog turd. I wonder how Dave Hawkins will respond to this latest case where he was caught in another bare-faced lie? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,12:03    Oh wow.  Here we go again on a "AFDave Witch Hunt".  I guess this will be like those other ones about my career and the Wai wai Indians.  Except this one's about Glenn Morton.  I guess Aftershave and Deadman are bored again.  How many miles will they get out of this one?  We'll see!! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

TangoJuliett Posts: 12 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,12:44    Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,17:03) Oh wow.  Here we go again on a "AFDave Witch Hunt". Let's not drag the witches down to your level Dave.  The witches I know have my respect, mainly because their belief system isn't nearly as toxic as yours and they don't continually lie, obfuscate, and distort reality in an attempt to force their beliefs on others.   No Davie-poo, this is going to be the "AFDave Liar Liar Pants on Fire Hunt".  Let the laughing begin.

Pages: (167) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard