RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: Just One Argument is Sufficient, Helium Gas to the Human Brain< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2005,10:16   

No line of argument or debate is sustainable and is by definition falsified if it cannot offer a defensible and evidentiary based foundation for its major and minor premises and conclusions.

The Neodarwinian theory based primarily on random mutation and natural selection with some arguable nuances is the universal explanation for life as we see it, life as observed in the recent past and as projected from the fossil record in all its magnificence and complexity.

It does, has and must of course be based on an underlying belief in ultimate origins of space, time and matter and on abiogenesis, life from non-life by natural processes and phenomenon. This is known as the Big Bang, pre-biotic chemical predestination and evolution.

Endless argument about various aspects of the theory dealing with mathmatical probability, fossil record gaps, thermodynamic considerations, information theory... etc. continue.

I see no need to debate these various problematical and sometimes fuzzy sub-topics when one can easily illustrate the falsification of the theory and its complete separation from logic, common sense and scientific credibility by simply observing that its proponents to be logically consistent must accept and defend the proposition that helium gas over billions of years transformed itself through trillions of chaotic and random unguided, undirected and non-purposeful changes, iteration upon iteration, resulting in the human brain, its network of neurons, synapses, nerves and its capabilities of conscious cognitive thought, memory and self awareness.

Anyone who can believe such on blind faith and no demonstrable or historically proclaimed evidence is capable of believing anything, is beyond the reach of logic and philosophically committed to a form of cultism of the most addictive sort.... a kind of intellectual black magic and superstition veiled by abstruce mathmatics.

The American public deserves to be fully cognizant of this rather dangerous intellectual cultism since it is the current propaganda of the pseudointellectual, self-absorbed, left leaning scientific and education communities having great influence over young impressionable minds.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2005,12:31   

Thank The Flying Spagetti Monster, sauce be upon him!
A fellow Pastafarian, armed with His Noodly Appendage, fearless in the face of Darwinian Pressure Groups, ready and willing to suck helium wind in the endless quest for Truth, Justice, and the Italian-American Way.
Sir, I Caesar Salad you.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2005,12:37   

Was there even a cognizant statement anywhere in there, or was it just babble?

evopeach wrote:
Quote
...superstition veiled by abstruse mathematics...


I guess you've seen ID for the fraud that it is, huh?

Oh yeah, you might want to work on this:
Paragraph Cohesion

   
Henry J



Posts: 4115
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2005,16:47   

Why helium, anyway? The human brain (or any other part for that matter) doesn't use it for anything.

Henry

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,04:00   

Saddlebred,

Gee! I've never replied to a wirehead that openly advertised having sex with horses.

Well evos are a wierd lot.

You people are so ignorant of your own position it is laughable. I hold you in derision actually.

For you and the other bubble brains that responded you might try plugging the chasm that Eric Chaisson at Tufts and that entire organization open,as they:

Insist on the total continuous logical argument of stellar evolution through right now and into the future.. without any doubts.

He happens to have about 100 peer reviewed papers and reviews of well recognized scientists work in the field...
Paul Davies , etc.

While you morons are busy retreating from prebiotic evolution after fifty years of abject failure in explaining such via the logical fallacy of "exclusion of primary contra-evidence"  you have an entire body of suburbly qualified scientists like Chaisson who insist that the entire theory rests on the predicate of big bang to mankind by evolution.

Now if you're not familiar with that theory then you might not have sufficient grey matter to comprehend that if at an early stage the majority matter was helium gas then everything came from that stage.

Now you can't shoot Chaisson, he's too important and powerful to dismiss so what are you do .. meatball.

Oh I know ,more form over substance attacks.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,06:57   

You kiss your mother with that mouth?  I have saddlebreds, I don't know where you're from, but around these parts it is not customary to engage in deviant sex acts with animals, so we will leave that to the people of your own home town.

What are your problems with any particular aspect of evolution?  If evolution (stellar, cosmological, biological) fails to answer the questions better than anything else can, what should we replace it with?  Tell me what to replace it with, and how that alternative better serves science.

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,08:48   

Easy,

Intelligent design or special creation postulates that the creation required the injection of logos, information, cognitive thought, purposeful consciousness from outside the rhealm of time and space by a God or an Intelligent source of immence capabilities.

If that is the case we would be studying the universe from a different perspective:

1) What can one learn from a roulette wheel other than the results are mindless, unpredictable and without purpose.

2) All substantial progess in understanding life at the molecular level has come since the discovery of the DNA molecule and the genetic CODE,, CODE,, CODE.

3 The application of information theory, IT, systematics, systems engineering approaches to problem solving etc. would become and to some degree have become the paradigm for success in biological and related medical research in the last decade and should be the primary paradigm.

Example:  Evolution and pure chemistry gives us chemotherapy ( poison) while information theory and logos gives us Herceptin II ( intelligent drug)for cancer treatments.

4) Don't waste taxpayers dollars on origin of life experiments by the billions trying to prove there is no God, which after 100 years are 100% failures.

5) Don't waste taxpayers dollars on ETSI or anything related to it.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:02   

evopeach wrote:
Quote
Intelligent design or special creation postulates that the creation required the injection of logos, information, cognitive thought, purposeful consciousness from outside the rhealm of time and space by a God or an Intelligent source of immence capabilities.


How will we discover how/when the designer injected information?  Is it important how/when the designer injected the information, and if not is it still science?  How do we determine if it was a purposeful conscientious intelligence and not random panspermia?  Do humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?  How does the alternative interpret the fossil record, and how would it determine the age of newly discovered fossils?

   
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:04   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 22 2005,13:48)
4) Don't waste taxpayers dollars on origin of life experiments by the billions trying to prove there is no God, which after 100 years are 100% failures.

Wow - we agree on something!!  Thank God (:D) that science is not trying to prove there is no God.

Science is mute on this matter, as it deals with the natural and leaves the supernatural to religion.  Some scientists are, however, far from mute on this subject.  Richard D comes to mind, but one should be able to separate his scientific arguments for evolution from his philosophical and logical arguments against the existence of God.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:33   

Saddlebred,

The point is why does anyone care in the context of scientific progress?

All of those issues are curiousity issues and have little or nothing to do with helping people, coping with the human condition, illness, hunger, etc.

I am hard pressed to see how knowing the age of a broken pile of bones helps resolve any real worthwhile problems yet billions have been spent on grants to do just that ... rediculous.

Most medical breakthroughs have come from observing how biology works as it is found right now and then synthesizing a drug or therapy based on such. No one says let's look at all the so called junk DNA sequences, supposedly left over evolutionary useless stuff, to find the cure to diseases... they look at the right now genes and learn from them.

The most authoratative view of the when regarding the injection of logos onto matter is at the time when creation occurred when time, space, matter, energy  and most everything else was created.

Who cares when it was .. it is of no material significance beyond curiousity... just take things as they are, study them empirically and do science that solves real problems that plague humanity.

No I don't think chimps and humans have a common ancestor but what does it matter. Not a whit of real problem solving depends on it.

We have spent 100 years off track wasting money and time and brainpower on useless non-productive efforts to show that the biblical story is false and unscientific and nothing else worthwhile.

Does evolution build better bridges, better air planes, even better food or anything else that depends on mutations being induced  ... I think not.

Radiation therapy is horribly debilitating and most often ineffective.. just a stop over to death.

All those questions may be of curiousity and even interesting but lets not pretend they solve or resolve anything except the desire of man to be the master of his fate not dependent or in recognition of his Creator.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:50   

You can have a much larger soapbox to stand on over at this yahoo discussion group  Since you are apparently banned from Panda's Thumb.  All you need is your yahoo ID, you will be able to post within hours.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4115
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,08:26   

Shouldn't that be hydrogen gas to the human?
Life doesn't use helium directly, and hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant chemical element.

Then again, why start with a chemical element? Why not go from subatomic particles (electrons and quarks) to the human?

Henry

  
VoR



Posts: 3
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,01:37   

On the idea that evolutionary theory is useless: any evolutionary biologist will tell you, over and over again, despite your uneducated protests, that evolution is central to all other biology. PT tells you so and gives a nice example here.

As for the from-hydrogen thing, I'm no astrophysicist, and have no real knowledge of the subject, but I have faith in the thousands of people who have spent years studying the subject. What you are doing is simplifying the debate: 'helium, left over time, forms into a human brain? Ridiculous'.

As for common descent, one of the most convincing arguments for, that I have seen, lies here

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,02:54   

And one of the most convincing arguments against an intelligent designer is the fact that Creationists exist.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,05:05   

VOR,

First the  flaws in all those chimp to human comparisons at the molecular level were exposed years ago by Denton's book.

Second a harmful mutation is only harmful if the environment declares it so in the natural selection process. Any mutation that is older than the current populations life time cannot be judged because:

If it were so bad as in harmful why is it still extant and not totally disgarded from the genome after all those eons.

How can you judge whether it is harmful if its not being expressed and you have no idea of the natural selection conditions of the environment at the time the mutation may have occurred... clearly impossible.

If as your theory claims mutations are random copying errors etc. and therefore by definition come from a uniform distribution where any alelle is equally likely to mutate then it is impossible that over time two species would not have similar numbers of mutations good or bad given the design has common elements of operation and construction.

Look if two casinos have a 30,000 side dice game and 28,000 of the numbers are same and they roll 1 million times at each place recording the outcomes each time the true frequencies of each possible outcome has to emerge from both genomic casinos.... it proves not one darn thing except reconfirming the strong law of large numbers .. not exactly a breakthrough.

As for Creationists they have been around a long time before evos and many of them are responsible for major scientific advancements as history records.

The helium gas to human brain is the logical imperative and the only conclusion that can can reach which intellectually honest people like Shapiro, Crick and Hoyle et al admit. Thus comes forth panspermia and Life Force as their explanations. You can run but you can't hide from this embarrassing and unsupportable logical disconnect from reality.

Gasheads like you two are examples of an incomplete process.

Evopeach

  
Henry J



Posts: 4115
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2005,17:16   

Re "the proposition that helium gas over billions of years transformed itself"

Life as we know it requires hydrogen. Hydrogen can't be made from helium. Ergo, living things can't be made out of helium gas. Btw, who exactly is it that allegedly claimed helium to life forms?

Besides, akaik no life on Earth uses helium (gas or otherwise) in its metabolism. How could it when the stuff doesn't react chemically with anything? (It's the most inert element known.)

Also, astrophysics* is NOT part of biology, so how much sense does it make to demand that a biological theory explain it?
(*The fusion of lighter elements such as H or He to form heavier elements happens in stars.)

Henry

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,03:41   

The Law of Cause and Effect is pretty well established for most of the population except for evos I guess.

If after the big bang the majority of all matter overwhelmingly was helium and through stellar processes formed the precursor molecules (carbon for instance, the basis of all biological life) for abiogenesis and all that followed then helium is the prenultimate source of the human brain.

Please just read Eric Chaissons web page on epochs and then tell me the piece that says there is no connection between epoch 1,2,3, etc. and 4,5,6,7... the common understanding fopr fifty years is his.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4115
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,05:47   

Hydrogen is way more abundant than helium.

From Hydrogen -
Quote
Hydrogen is the lightest element. It is by far the most abundant element in the universe and makes up about about 90% of the universe by weight.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,08:00   

Henry,

The context is the cause effect time history and the logical imperative that demands evos agree or disagree with the entire origins theory and not cherry pick the replicator forward period. Either they have no plausable explanation or they adopt the prevalent one as Chaisson and the community of scientists lay out.

In that case the cause is the predominent element after the big bang helium gas... period.. beyond dispute.

We are not talking about today.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,09:27   

Evo,

You are (yet again) dead wrong.  Helium is formed in stars (like our very own sun) by the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei.  Hydrogen is the main fuel of every star you can see at night.  Hydrogen is, always was, and will always be the most abundant element in our universe.  All the way from the time when the bath of quarks cooled down enough to form protons to the very second you read this to the time when our universe has expanded to the extremes of coldness.  At no point has Helium ever been more abundant than Hyrdogen in this universe.  Perhaps you can point out the source of your information.

This, however, is just a side issue to your point.  But one that illuminates your ignorance and stubbornness (at least to us).  Why should anyone listen to someone who not only can't get basic facts correct, but also refuses to admit it, and correct the error?  I'm certainly tired of your baseless rantings.

-Dan

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,03:56   

Dan,

Your ignorance is appalling of your own theory.

http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html

The Universe's light-element abundance is another important criterion by which the Big Bang hypothesis is verified. It is now known that the elements observed in the Universe were created in either of two ways. Light elements (namely deuterium, helium, and lithium) were produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang, while elements heavier than helium are thought to have their origins in the interiors of stars which formed much later in the history of the Universe. Both theory and observation lead astronomers to believe this to be the case.

In fact, it is observed that upwards of 25% the Universe's total matter consists of helium---much greater than predicted by theory! A similar enigma exists for the deuterium. According to stellar theory, deuterium cannot be produced in stellar interiors; actually, deuterium is destroyed inside of stars. Hence, the BBFH hypothesis could not by itself adequately explain the observed abundances of helium and deuterium in the Universe.

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/BB.html

The net result of the early nuclear reactions Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is to transform all of the neutrons, along with the necessary protons, into Helium nuclei plus traces of 2H (deuterium), 3He, 7Li, 6Li, 7Be.

gold--were forged in repeating cycles of starbirth and death. And, although stars continue to produce helium, scientists believe that 98% of the helium in the universe today was produced in those first few seconds
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html
    During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons—the building blocks of atoms—formed when photons collided and converted their energy into mass, and the four forces split into their separate identities. The temperature of the universe also cooled during this time, from about 1032 (100 million trillion trillion) degrees to 10 billion degrees. Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium.


So helium was first, 90% formed then prior to hydrogen according to the several incontrovertable sources.

Please tell me one subject you have a basic knowledge of ... just one.

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,11:05   

Quote
Please tell me one subject you have a basic knowledge of ... just one.


I have some knowledge in bacterial systematics. The Bacillus cereus group of spore-forming soil bacteria consists of (at least) three species, B. cereus, causing food poisoning through toxin production; B. thuringiensis, which infects and kills insect larva; and B. anthr*cis, the cause of anthr*x. The main difference between B. anthr*cis and the two less virulent species is the non-chromosomal genetic elements (plasmids) pXO1 and pXO2, which carry the anthr*x toxin genes. There is ample evidence for horizontal gene transfer (HGT) within and between these species. Furthermore, chromosome size varies by almost one order of magnitude within the group, and insertion/excision of very large plasmids in the chromosome have been reported.

This group is interesting in that it demonstrates:

i) large - but possibly differential - genetic plasticity. Case in point, B. anthr*cis isolates are, relative to natural isolates of the other two species, more genetically uniform. This (relative uniformity between worldwide isolates) also applies to the mosquitocidal israelensis subspecies of B. thuringiensis, which carries an insect toxin-production plasmid that is genetically related to pXO1 of B. anthr*cis.

ii) HGT can be accomplished in the lab, effectively transforming one species into another. This works both when "increasing information" (addition of plasmids) and "decreasing information" (curing - removal - of plasmids) within the cell.

We must note that the bacterial species concept is a bit different from that in "higher" (sexually reproducing) organisms, and is based traditionally on measurable traits (phenotype) such as cell shape, physiology/biochemistry, production of toxins and fermentation products etc., but today, any bacterial systematics is simply not done without comparative genetic data, whenever they become available (they do in virtually exponentially growing amount).

References are available on request (or search PubMed). Now one may put forward a couple of questions to a creationist (IDC, YEC or Flying Spaghetti Monsterist - Sauce be upon Him! ) -

-Why should we view the gazillion more or less different natural isolates within the Bacillus cereus group as each one separately created by YHWH/Allah/His Noodly Appendage? Or does YHWH/Allah/His Noodly Appendage not meddle with such unimportant organisms as the non-sexually reproducing ones?

-In case of Divine Creation, why was B. anthr*cis created with a point mutation in plcR, the gene encoding a virulence (disease-causing) regulation protein that in turn stimulates production of several extracellular toxins involved in infection? Note that B. anthr*cis carries functional copies of those other genes, but the corresponding proteins are not produced. Note also that we (scientists) have at least one putative hypothesis here (also available on request, but I´m interested in the Creationist answer first). If that point mutation is "allowed" within "microevolution", does it mean that YHWH/Allah/His Noodly Appendage will not meddle with such unimportant mutations - as compared to...what? Large-scale insertions/deletions (see above)?

That´ll do for now, I think it is enough to start up a fruitful discussion.

Cheers,

/The Rev. (no, not that Rev.)  ;)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4115
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,14:03   

Re "During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons?the building blocks of atoms?formed"

Proton = nucleus of hydrogen atom. Helium is made by fusing these, so there's no way it could come first.

Henry

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,14:38   

Evo,

Quote
Your ignorance is appalling of your own theory.


Why do you call this my theory?

You said in a previous post (emphasis mine):
Quote
If after the big bang the majority of all matter overwhelmingly was helium and through stellar processes formed the precursor molecules (carbon for instance, the basis of all biological life) for abiogenesis and all that followed then helium is the prenultimate source of the human brain.


Apparently reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours.  

In your latest post on this thread you point out sources that say:
Quote
Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium.

And...
Quote
In fact, it is observed that upwards of 25% the Universe's total matter consists of helium---much greater than predicted by theory!


However, maybe you don't realize that the "protons" that combined with neutrons to form Helium are Hydrogen!  And yet to this day there is less Helium than Hydrogen.  I wonder if you think that the Helium atoms broke down into Hydrogen, to form the way we see the universe now.  They portion of Helium that turned into heavier atoms is an insignificant fraction.

Here is the relevant part from one of your sources:
Quote
Era of Nuclear Reactions
# Nuclei can begin to hold together, e.g.
p + n => 2H + Photon
# At this time the baryons are divided into about 87% protons 13% neutrons.

End of Nuclear Reactions
neutrons have been "used-up" forming 4He
Universe is now 90% H nuclei( p+) & 10% He nuclei


It's one thing to be cocky.  It's another thing to be cocky and wrong.  I hope you'll be the big man and apologize for your error.  Maybe you can modify the apology that you wrote up for Midnight.  Although I'm not going to hold my breath.

-Dan

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,05:20   

Apparently none of you can read the the posts from the several major university physics profs who take the 100 percent opposite view to your own.

Helium, duterium and lithium were the first to be created and that is the concensus of these people and the entire field.

When you examine the graphs of percentage by weight at that time, Heluim dominates the other two and its real helium not an isotope like duterium and lithium was a trace element at best.

If you want to argue your stupidity with Cal Berkley, Cal Tech and Rice go ahead but to me you have zero credibility compared to the entire world community of physics Phds.

Gosh I can't believe I'm arguing a point that has been universally excepted for three decades with you egomaniac idiots.

I guess your point is that every element in the universe is essentially  hydrogen because they have protons in their nucleus. Lets just rewrite the periodic table so only elements without protons are really elements because the're really all hydrogen in various forms.


Up your's you are the idiots who need to apologize.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,06:26   

evopeach wrote
I guess your point is that every element in the universe is essentially  hydrogen because they have protons in their nucleus. Lets just rewrite the periodic table so only elements without protons are really elements because the're really all hydrogen in various forms.
[QUOTE]

A hydrogen nucleus is a proton. They are identical; the same thing. Add an electron and you have a hydrogen atom. Two protons, two neutrons combine to make a Helium nuicleus. Add two electrons and you have a heium atom. This is basic stuff.

I notice you post prolifically here. None of your posts serve any useful purpose other that to demonstrate your wilful ignorance and your poor skills in the use of insults.

Is it some form of obsession? Why not take up a more satisfying hobby?

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,08:29   

Evopeach,

Just for the record, I learned my information while taking a graduate level survey course in Galaxy formation at Caltech from a hotshot Caltech professor.  I also learned the same info in another course called Open Questions in Physics (it was concerning dark matter and dark energy as one of it's topics).

I see where you were misread the information on the websites.  You saw how Helium is much higher in that chart.  But, you failed to realize that those are percentages compared to each other.  If you'll notice Hydrogen isn't even on the chart.  Hydrogen didn't form by means of nucleosynthesis (the protons didn't have to do anything to become Hydrogen).  The other elements, however did form via nucleosynthesis and are on the chart.  Perhaps you forgot to notice this next to the chart: "The predicted abundance of elements heavier than hydrogen, as a function of the density of baryons in the universe (expressed in terms of the fraction of critical density in baryons, Omega_B and the Hubble constant, h)."  I've also pointed out from your sources where they say "90% of the universe was Hydrogen, the other 10% Helium".  It amazes me that you are keeping this up at all.

I thought I could guide you to the correct information, but apparently you can't comprehend anything that opposes your viewpoint.  Try, try again.

I hope to hear an apology soon.  By replying with more cockiness and insults you will only make things worse for yourself.

Quote
So helium was first, 90% formed then prior to hydrogen according to the several incontrovertable sources.


Just so you know, absolutely nothing in science is "incontrovertible".  Theories do change and adapt as new evidence comes to light.  Everything in science is open to criticism.  Not everything is as stubborn as you are.

-Dan

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,09:37   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 08 2005,10:20)
If you want to argue your stupidity with Cal Berkley, Cal Tech and Rice go ahead but to me you have zero credibility compared to the entire world community of physics Phds.

Would this be the same world community of physics PHDs that you deem to be elitist ivory tower atheistic/socialist/communist liberals for daring to accept biological evolution, perchance?

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,10:03   

Quote (Wonderpants @ Oct. 08 2005,14:37)
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 08 2005,10:20)
If you want to argue your stupidity with Cal Berkley, Cal Tech and Rice go ahead but to me you have zero credibility compared to the entire world community of physics Phds.

Would this be the same world community of physics PHDs that you deem to be elitist ivory tower atheistic/socialist/communist liberals for daring to accept biological evolution, perchance?

I really, really do need a ROFL smile soon.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,12:54   

Ask and you shall receive.  ;)

http://lever.suntliv.com/gastbilder/rotfl.gif

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,04:27   

Dan,

Caltech huh ! Great, ask them about Dr. Harry Lass who was my stat and info teacher in the late 60's at grad school. I think he was rather legondary having written all of the relativistic correction equations for the venus deep space probes trajectory analysis group.

And you're still wrong mixing then and now in the same sentence. Its just no good Dan you have fallen overboard and can't swim.

Everyone knows that hydrogen is the primary matter now but thats not the discussion. Rehearse please... helium gas to the human brain not protons to the human brain.. helium, lithium and the isotope of hydrogen duterium was first and of those helium was dominent  IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES IDIOT.

The dookey bird meter is peged with your posts Dan... get a life.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,08:14   

Evo,

Quote
Everyone knows that hydrogen is the primary matter now but thats not the discussion. Rehearse please... helium gas to the human brain not protons to the human brain.. helium, lithium and the isotope of hydrogen duterium was first and of those helium was dominent  IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES IDIOT.


Where in the world are you seeing this?!!  In one of the sources you cite they draw a timeline.  If you'll notice, at 15 seconds the universe only has photons and electrons/positrons.  At 3 minutes (a full minute AFTER the first two minutes you claim) "Nuclei can BEGIN to hold together."  And at 3 and a half minutes the universe is still only 10% Helium.  I really have no idea why you are incapable of reading your own sources.  But, I do get a chuckle at your stubborn ignorance.

Just to see how far you'll take your fallacious argument... what happened to all the Helium?  I'd love to hear what you make up to support your stubborn stupidity.

My only hope is that you are just the joke of an intelligent person.  Someone might be playing the satire of a creationist and I've fallen for it.  If that is the case, you got me.

-Dan

  
VoR



Posts: 3
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,11:04   

evopeach: What you're asking for is a confirmation, from people who (I would assume) are mostly biologists, of a theory firmly rooted in astrophysics. You can't just walk up to any scientist and ask them to give you the history of the universe.

A single proton is hydrogen. Hydrogen is an individual proton. Try and understand.

The Pharyngula article I directed you to was not refuted years ago, it is talking about similarites on a genetic level, using data (the publication of the chimpanzee genome) that has only recently become available. Any mutation that inhibits reproductive success in general (genetic diseases) would be considered harmful in any environment I could care to name.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:49   

Dear COG,

The same sources say that the entire current theory illustrates that since helium is not.. not.. not being produced in stars or anywhere else today all of it was made at the very beginning  as I have quoted them.

So every element is composed of hydrogen atoms and not really an element.. plus electrons and nutrons of course. What a moron.

Lets take hydrogen and helium both if you wish ... does that make it easier for you to tell me how they became a human brain... ready.. set... go!!

Oppos I forgot all of this is your circumlocution of the impossibility of explaining the abiogenesis underpinning logical imperative of your argument.

Keith

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,13:26   

Keith,

Quote
The same sources say that the entire current theory illustrates that since helium is not.. not.. not being produced in stars or anywhere else today all of it was made at the very beginning  as I have quoted them.

Maybe you should alert these guys to that fact! Or you might want to read up on some basic facts about Helium.

Quote
So every element is composed of hydrogen atoms and not really an element.. plus electrons and nutrons of course. What a moron.


Let's get this straight.  Every nucleus has some protons in it (and usually neutrons, too).  When the nucleus only has one proton we call it Hydrogen.  When it has two protons we call it Helium.  Three, Lithium etc.  Hydrogen is just as much an element as any other element.  Just becuase it is the first, simplest, smallest, most abundant, and least understood by you doesn't mean that it isn't an element.

Quote
Lets take hydrogen and helium both if you wish ... does that make it easier for you to tell me how they became a human brain... ready.. set... go!!


Unfortunately, I am unable to spend the time to describe how hydrogen (and helium) eventually became the human brain to you.  Your incredulity argument, however, does not falsify the theories that describe such a transition.

My goal was to point out that you were completely unable to admit to being wrong, even to a simple statement of fact.  You have made my point soundly for me.

You originally said:
Quote
In that case the cause is the predominent element after the big bang helium gas... period.. beyond dispute.


To which I said:
Quote
This, however, is just a side issue to your point.  But one that illuminates your ignorance and stubbornness (at least to us).  Why should anyone listen to someone who not only can't get basic facts correct, but also refuses to admit it, and correct the error?  I'm certainly tired of your baseless rantings.


I've given you ample time, information, and opportunity to correct your statement.  Are you willing to do so, now?  I'm sure you'll get a round of applause from the forum.

-Dan

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,17:04   

evopeach:

Where did you get the idea that the majority of the matter in the universe is helium? Last time I checked, maybe 25% of the normal matter in the universe was helium. If you include dark matter, it's more like  a quarter of a percent.

--------------
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: Oct. 11 2005,17:20   

Wow, I just read the rest of this thread (unfortunately after I posted). Is this evopeach dude for real? No helium created except immediately after the big bang (and before the hydrogen)? What does he thinks gets produced during nucleosynthesis?

I took an undergraduate survey course in astronomy 12 years ago and even I know how clueless this guy is...is he any better in biology than he is in astrophysics?

--------------
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

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,23:13   

Quote
I took an undergraduate survey course in astronomy 12 years ago and even I know how clueless this guy is...is he any better in biology than he is in astrophysics?


No.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,02:29   

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that 90% of the universe was Helium after 3 minutes (or however long it took.)  Now, 25% of the universe is He, correct?

1.  What happened to the 65% differential?  Consider that He is very inert.

2.  How did the heavier elements form?

3.  Is the human brain made up of helium, or H, C, O, and N?

4.  In the second link provided by you, Evopeach, it says...
Quote
3 1/2 m
108K   End of Nuclear Reactions
neutrons have been "used-up" forming 4He
Universe is now 90% H nuclei( p+) & 10% He nuclei

How does this square with your assertion?

5.  If a hydrogen nucleus is not a single proton, what is it?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,04:24   

Wikopedia

In chemistry and biochemistry, the term proton may refer to the hydrogen ion, H+. In this context, a proton donor is an acid and a proton acceptor a base (see acid-base reaction theories).

Wikopedia

The NUCLEUS of the most common isotope of the hydrogen atom is a single proton. (Got that.. just the nucleus not the entire atom.)


http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses....en.html

Hydrogen is the simplest atom (one proton and one electron), but is still an extremely rich topic for study.

According to the Big Bang model of the early development of the Universe, the vast majority of helium was formed in the first three minutes after the Big Bang. Its widespread abundance is seen as part of the evidence that supports this theory.


Conclusions:

The nucleus of the hydrogen atom is not the entire atom it has one of those things called an electron.

The proton is the entire neucleus for hydrogen and has a charge of plus one.  That's why its called an ion with a plus one charge.That is what was created first the elementary particle as in proton from quarks and such. But the proton is not the atom and not the element.

Helium on the other hand was formed as a complete atom with all its electrons and everything from elementary particles which of course includes electrons, protons and nutrons. Two protons, two nutrons (electrically neutral) and two electrons, atomic mass of four.

Now since you don't understand the difference between an atom and its constituent parts, think an ion is always the entire atom, think hydrogen nuclei/protons are complete atoms it is evident that as usual you cannot have an elementary grasp of yet another fundamental scientific topic.

On my part I agree that perhaps ).01% of the helium around was created after the big bang from radioactive decay and from stellar nuclear reactions.

Given the above crystal clear definitions I am obviously 99.9999% correct and your team is 0.0001% correct.

I never said helium was the most abundant element in the universe presently.. period.

Now once more show or refer me to the detailed theory and scientific experimental results that confirm how helium (and hydrogen if you wish) became the human brain. Because that is exactly and precisely what you believe if you believe in evolution.. it is a logical imperative.

Anyone here play rocks, scissors and paper ... I'm trying to find something you might beat me at .. by luck.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,05:10   

So, Evopeach, you answered number 5, what about my other questions.  They were not rhetorical.

Now, I will once again point you to your own source that says...
Quote
3 1/2 m
108K   End of Nuclear Reactions
neutrons have been "used-up" forming 4He
Universe is now 90% H nuclei( p+) & 10% He nuclei

Nuclei, not atoms.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,06:13   

Wow.

I'm used to the ID supporters being pretty ignorant when it comes to science, but this guy (does he really have a degree in engineering?) kind of takes the cake.

I'm starting to think that evopeach really does have helium in his brain...

--------------
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

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,09:50   

Keith,

I've never met a more stubborn person than yourself.  It's amazing that you can be presented with the facts repeatedly, yet still hold on to your ridiculously ignorant ideas.

Quote
I am obviously 99.9999% correct and your team is 0.0001% correct.


At least we are making progress.  But, unfortunately I don't have enough patience to teach someone with such a slow learning curve.

I've definitely learned alot about the nature of creationists during this discussion.  Thank you for your time.

-Dan

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,04:58   

From the Academic Credential thread, Evopeach wrote:
Quote
Pne more time for Eric and Julie who apparently can't read. I never, never implied that Helium was the abundant element in the universe except for the first moments in the BB theory and that is a matter of accepted theory unless you are one of the attendant idiots who believe that a proton is the same thing as a hydroden atom because electrons are not part of atoms and are actually illusory non-existant and unimportant particles.

If you do subscribe to the rather well established idea that electrons are necessary patrsd of atoms and not just the nucleus then you will read the several references or any reputable physics site on the BB and note that Helium was created as an ATOM not just an elementary particle and it preceeded atomic hydrogen (not just the nucleus proton). Hydrogen existed only as the isotope duterium and according to the same papers in lesser amounts than Helium. Lithium was a trace element.

Now very shortly after the "first few minutes" hydrogen atoms in toto were formed in enourmous quantity and still comprise 70% plus of all matter today.

If you can show me where I sais helium was the major constituent of the universe to day I will recant that , but you never will be able to do so.. period.

Electrons are part of the atom ... try to remember that fact.


So, a few things come to mind.  From your own source Evopeach,
Quote
The net result of the early nuclear reactions Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is to transform all of the neutrons, along with the necessary protons, into Helium nuclei plus traces of 2H (deuterium), 3He, 7Li, 6Li, 7Be.

Note the word "atom" is never used there.  In fact, they don't talk about the formation of atoms until 10^6 years after the big bang.
Quote
106yr
4000K  
Era of Recombination
nuclei & electrons "recombine to form atoms
Universe becomes transparent
[Note: the 6 in 106 above is an exponent in the original.]

Also, why does the human brain have to form from He, if He was replaced by H as the most dominant element?  H then was fused into the heavier elements, including C, N, and O, which ultimately all came together to make our brains.  Your argument is completely vacuous.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,06:17   

Quote (GCT @ Oct. 13 2005,09:58)
From the Academic Credential thread, Evopeach wrote:
Quote
One more time for Eric and Julie who apparently can't read. I never, never implied that Helium was the [most] abundant element in the universe except for the first moments in the BB theory and that is a matter of accepted theory unless you are one of the attendant idiots who believe that a proton is the same thing as a hydroden atom because electrons are not part of atoms and are actually illusory non-existant and unimportant particles.


evopeach,

I can read just fine, and you're still wrong. Helium was never the most common constituent in the universe. Not at the big bang, not immediately after the big bang, not thousands of years later, not now. There were no atoms of any kind until after the surface of last scattering, ~300,000 years after the big bang, and at that time, the most common atom was hydrogen, not helium.

Get a popular text on cosmology or astrophysics (Steven Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes" would be a good place to start), learn something about elementary astrophysics, and then maybe you can start talking intelligently about it. A few years later, you might be ready to start talking about evolutionary biology.

--------------
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

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,08:52   

When you talk about hydrogen being formed first you equate hydrogen nuclei minus the electron ie a proton with hydrogen, the actual atom.

When I talk about helium I am talking about the actual element fromed by the fusion of two protons and and two electrons... first.

The point is that Helium and Hydrogenwere certainly 99.99% of all matter very early on so that all life including us... our brain .... came from them.

Now with all that material to work from it should be a snap to lay out the steps to the brain... let me know when you're up to the inert gas to the first replicator demonstration in the lab showing that part of the evolutionary journey.

I'm waiting.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,09:14   

evo,

"...the actual element fromed [sic] by the fusion of two protons and and two electrons"? What the #### are you talking about? Protons and electrons don't "fuse" to form anything other than neutrons.

A helium nucleus is formed from two protons and two neutrons, not two protons and two electrons. Electrons could not have become captured by any nucleus until after the universe cooled sufficiently, i.e., after the surface of last scattering. After that time, electrons could be captured by nuclei to form atoms, and guess what? 90% of those nuclei were hydrogen nuclei, i.e., protons. In other words, there has never been a time in the history of the universe when helium was the predominant form of matter. And that doesn't matter whether you're talking about helium nuclei or helium atoms.

Your argument is so goofy that in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "it's not even wrong."

Helium serves absolutely no role in the evolution of life whatsoever. It's a trace element on earth. It's the most inert element in the periodic table. You've painted yourself into a corner, and being too stubborn to admit you're wrong, even when corrected over and over again, you're basically trapped.

--------------
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

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,09:22   

Argue with Chaisson. And I never said electrons fused I said it requires the fusion of two protons and also two electrons to make a heluim atom. Atom is the operative word. You read like you think.. jumbled and biased to see what you want to see... not reality.

Anyway moron I'm waiting on the step by step process from hydrogen and helium (more material to work with to help you explain the process) to the human brain. Start with just getting to the first replicator for a warmup.

Tick Tock Tick Tock

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,10:02   

evo,

Two protons and two electrons do not "fuse" to create a helium atom. That's exactly what you said, and it's exactly wrong. I didn't just read what you said; I quoted it. Are you saying the copy and paste function on my computer isn't quoting you accurately?

And if you'd read past my opening paragraph you might have noted that it doesn't matter whether you're talking about atoms or nuclei. Either way you're wrong.

You're waiting for a step-by-step process from "hydrogen and helium" to the human brain? What kind of idiot thinks the human brain evolved from helium? Helium has nothing to do with it.

It's absolutely typical of a creationist to expect science to come up with a step-by-step, play-by-play chronology of evolution from the original quark soup to the human brain. Meanwhile, what is ID creationism's step-by-step chronology of how we got from helium to the human brain?

--------------
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

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,12:10   

You have a theory that begins with an undefinable quantummechanical quiff popping event 15 billion years ago or so that resulted in a certain state of the "infinite universes possible" wave function being this one through a big bang event that resulted in at some point hydrogen becoming the predominent element in the universe and from there the other elements formed that make up life.

Thus under your assumption hydrogen became the human brain of course along with the other life molecules through a process of chemical predestination?; happenstance, directed happenstance, mutation and natural selection.

Just do the part from the earths formation to the first replicator, demonstrate it in the lab under primoidal conditions using some random process of molecular interaction and see if we get anything interesting.

Tic Tock Tic Tock Tic Tock

And you call that science... once upon a time a big boom made howdy doody

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,12:36   

Too late, evo.

Do the names Miller and Urey mean anything to you?

And while you're pondering that, would you care to enlighten us dunderheads with your theory for how life came to be? Does it have anything to do with the waving of giant, Anglo-Saxon hands over the recently-created primordial seas?

You might not like my theory. But at least I have a theory. You seem to be conspicously empty-handed in that department.

But I'm glad you've finally decided that there is no helium in the human brain...well, at least not in most human brains.

--------------
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

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,13:13   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 13 2005,17:10)
Just do the part from the earths formation to the first replicator, demonstrate it in the lab under primoidal conditions using some random process of molecular interaction and see if we get anything interesting.

Tic Tock Tic Tock Tic Tock

And you call that science... once upon a time a big boom made howdy doody

I love the smell of projection in the morning!

Meanwhile life on earth, however improbable, goes on...

  
Henry J



Posts: 4115
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,16:22   

I wonder if it's worth mentioning that the validity of the ToE doesn't depend on convincing one creationist that it works. It doesn't even depend on convincing several creationists, let along one who appears to be firmly convinced that most of ~100,000 biologists are stupid.

Henry

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,19:42   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 13 2005,21:22)
I wonder if it's worth mentioning that the validity of the ToE doesn't depend on convincing one creationist that it works. It doesn't even depend on convincing several creationists, let along one who appears to be firmly convinced that most of ~100,000 biologists are stupid.

Henry

I´m sure we all know we´re just troll hunting for a bit of fun here...not the first time one has wasted time on the Internets, alas... ;)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,04:11   

Eric

Urey and Miller are quite familiar as one of the many totally discredited origin of life experimenters like Fox whom I believe has noe gone over to the spacecraft crowd or perhaps the everpopular life force cult.

See wrong, atmosphereics, cold traps, sludge and a totaslly recemic mixture of left and right handed amino acids totally useless and unrelated to any possibility of connectedness to some pathway to life was their result though dishonest pseudo intellectuals like this crowd still try to pass it off as some meaningful result.

There are no meaningful results in the field thats why you people try to remove the problem by defining it as not important and such BS.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,09:37   

Feeling bored, I'm going to post a recap of the arguments between Evo and the rest of the board on the nature of the amount of Helium  vs. Hydrogen in the universe.  It is a small, minor point.  But, the nature of the argument really illlustrates the stubbornness of our resident troll.

First Evo makes the offending statement:
Quote
In that case the cause is the predominent element after the big bang helium gas... period.. beyond dispute.

But people point out that, in fact, Hydrogen is the current element du jour.  Me:
Quote
Hydrogen is, always was, and will always be the most abundant element in our universe.

Evo is asked to show his sources.  He names three:
Quote
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html
http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/BB.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html

And reads into the papers the following conclusion:
Quote
So helium was first, 90% formed then prior to hydrogen according to the several incontrovertable sources.

It's pointed out to Evo that indeed the websites do not agree with him:
Quote
"During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons, the building blocks of atoms, formed"

Proton = nucleus of hydrogen atom. Helium is made by fusing these, so there's no way it could come first.

Evo is resilient to change:
Quote
Helium, duterium and lithium were the first to be created and that is the concensus of these people and the entire field.
and starts forming his strawman:
Quote
I guess your point is that every element in the universe is essentially  hydrogen because they have protons in their nucleus. Lets just rewrite the periodic table so only elements without protons are really elements because the're really all hydrogen in various forms.

Up against repeated criticism he makes his point finer:
Quote
...helium, lithium and the isotope of hydrogen duterium was first and of those helium was dominent  IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES IDIOT.
 Once again it is pointed out that this is not the case.  From one of Evo's sources:
Quote
At 3 min:  Era of Nuclear Reactions
# Nuclei can begin to hold together, e.g.
p+ n => 2H + [photon]
# At this time the baryons are divided into about 87% protons 13% neutrons.
At 3.5 min End of Nuclear Reactions
neutrons have been "used-up" forming 4He
Universe is now 90% H nuclei( p+) & 10% He nuclei
But Does this stop Evo?  Nope, then he starts to make the "nucleus not atom" argument.
Quote
The NUCLEUS of the most common isotope of the hydrogen atom is a single proton. (Got that.. just the nucleus not the entire atom.)
 And then to continue the argument he establishes this:
Quote
Helium on the other hand was formed as a complete atom with all its electrons and everything from elementary particles which of course includes electrons, protons and nutrons. Two protons, two nutrons (electrically neutral) and two electrons, atomic mass of four.
GTC points out that according to one of Evo's sources Helium didn't form into an atom until much later than the 2 minutes Evo suggested:
Quote
10^6yr
4000K  
Era of Recombination
nuclei & electrons "recombine to form atoms
Universe becomes transparent

Finally, though, it seems people have made a difference in Evo's thinking:
Quote
Thus under your assumption hydrogen became the human brain of course along with the other life molecules through a process of chemical predestination?


But, the question remains.  Will Evo ever ADMIT to being wrong about his ideas?  He made a big fuss over Midnight's error in another thread.  He even went through the trouble to write a letter for Midnight to post.  I wonder if he can do the same when it is his own errors that are pointed out.  One also wonders if all of the insults he spewed at his educators were warranted.  If one looks through Evo's posts you will find many instances of "moron" and "idiot" even when the poster he is replying to was patiently pointing out an error of Evo's.  Will he apologize for those unnecessary insults too?

My guesses are No, and No.  Care to prove me wrong, Evo?

I hope this recap has brought a slight smile to your face, and has illuminated the behaviors of stubborn, uneducated people.

Have a great day.

-Dan

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,10:11   

Cogzoid,

Stupid and uneducated huh?  This from aguy who thinks a proton is the entire hydrogen atom. You are a moron.

I recant nothing because helium was an atom and you continue to confuse a proton with the hydrogen atom and its only the nucleus.

Is there a name for something stable that is just the helium nucleus ... no of course not.

And of course the demonstration of circumlocution opf the original debate is classic evo talk.

How about this an inert gas became the human brain... now can you elucidate the sequence ... tick toc tic toc

How about just a quick lab demo of the last step from non-life to life.. the first fullly functioning replicator that leads to the brain... a little later.

tic toc tic toc

What an egomaniac !!!

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,10:39   

Quote (cogzoid @ Oct. 14 2005,14:37)
But, the question remains.  Will Evo ever ADMIT to being wrong about his ideas?  He made a big fuss over Midnight's error in another thread.  He even went through the trouble to write a letter for Midnight to post.  I wonder if he can do the same when it is his own errors that are pointed out.  -Dan

And in fact it was not an error.  He only made it an error by changing his version of the meaning of what he posted, despite the fact that I pointed out that I could only respond to what he posted, not what he wished he had posted.  :D

And he still did not admit that he made an error in his original post.

I believe this is what passes for intellectual honesty in his camp.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,10:58   

Evo,

Quote
This from aguy who thinks a proton is the entire hydrogen atom. You are a moron.
 When precisely did I say this?  Don't be afraid of the quote feature of this message board.

Quote
I recant nothing because helium was an atom and you continue to confuse a proton with the hydrogen atom and its only the nucleus.
Absolutely no atoms existed until 10^6 years AFTER the big bang.  Until then, the electrons were too excited to be bound by any of the Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, etc. nuclei.  Your claim that Helium existed before Hydrogen is wrong.  Especially your "Two minutes after the Big Bang" claim.  

Quote
Is there a name for something stable that is just the helium nucleus ... no of course not.
It's called the Helium nucleus.  And the papers descibe just that.  A hydrogen nucleus is called a proton.  Now if you had stated: Helium nuclei existed well before Hydrogen atoms, then you'd be correct.  However, you would be comparing apples to oranges.  Lithium nuclei also existed well before Helium atoms!  Does that mean it should be Lithium to the the Human Brain?

Quote
How about this an inert gas became the human brain...
 Hydrogen is not inert.  Maybe you are attempting to shift your argument to Krypton, Xenon, or Argon?

Quote
now can you elucidate the sequence
I get the feeling that even if I could elucidate the sequence you wouldn't be able to understand it.  So far you've demonstrated that you don't understand simple concepts about the elements.  Why should anyone bother trying to educate you on more complex things?

I'm starting to wonder if this would better fit your world view.

-Dan

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,11:12   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 14 2005,09:11)
Eric

Urey and Miller are quite familiar as one of the many totally discredited origin of life experimenters like Fox whom I believe has noe gone over to the spacecraft crowd or perhaps the everpopular life force cult.


Evo, the more you type, the more wrong you get.

Miller and Urey have hardly been "totally discredited." Using more realistic assumptions about pre-biotic conditions, subsequent researchers found that while amino acids might not have formed in quite the abundances Miller and Urey found, they were still quite plentiful.

But I find myself asking why I bother trying to debate a guy who simply cannot admit that he's wrong when he says helium, in any form, was ever more prevalant than hydrogen, in any form. Even when you show him the error he made reading his own links, he still doesn't think he was wrong.

--------------
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

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,11:16   

Dan,

Please.... you are holding to a theory that hangs on skyhooks, anchored in nothing and its eating your guts out.

You among many suggest that origins, abiogenesis, life from non-life are irrelevent to evolution. The you and the otheres spend days illustrating the efficacy of Urey Miller, Fox, etc. and referencing that old evo standbys "A Lot of Good Work is Being Done in that Field"; theories are always evolving and changing for the better (evolution is evolving), Its right around the corner, really great science.. LOL

It must be very painful to rest your case on such nonsense and try to carry on.

And when you come up with something I can't quite grasp just send it over and go ahead... include the integral signs if necessary.... mr leafman.

"Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." Paul Ehrlich (Stanford Biology Professor) and L. Charles Birch (Sydney Biology Professor), 1967

An example of intellectual honesty  by real biologists and pretty good ones at that.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,11:47   

Evo,

Quote
And when you come up with something I can't quite grasp just send it over and go ahead... include the integral signs if necessary.... mr leafman.


No problem, bronco!

"Hydrogen has always been, is, and always will be more plentiful than Helium."

For some reason you just can't quite grasp such a concept.

Another concept you can't seem to grasp is the realization that you are wrong.

-Dan

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,11:53   

Hang in there skyhook.. you're on firm solid evo scientific ground other wise known as nothing.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,20:29   

I'm only relying on scientific grounds that you have supplied, Evo.

What scientific grounds are you standing on?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4115
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2005,10:09   

I wonder why Creationists sometimes assume that "evolutionists" want the ToE to be true. Accepting the conclusions of a theory and actually liking those conclusions are two different things.

Henry

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,03:22   

Here is what I have gleaned from this sites evos so far:

1)  The hundred year search for a believable just so story of abiogenesis involving millions of dollars and alot of scientific talent was just an intellectual curiousity which has no import for the theory of evolution. Evolution has no interest or concern in the basis of life and any theory from panspermia to the Life Force to alien visitors to whatever is equally acceptable.

2) The one hundred fifty year search for any of the billions of transitional fossils is a non-issue post Darwin (who was very concerned about the complete lack of such) because a) Every progeny of every species is transitional, every mutation generates a transitional form and the handful of contested transitional forms is sufficient for evos.

3) Common decent being always and for ever based on homologous large scale structures having some common elements is not effected by the advances in science that have shown in many species that different genes in these species are responsible for the development and unique characteristics of such structures. Further the differences in the structures across species are so profound that it is often difficult to imagine any line leading to a common ancestor or even identify them as common.

3) The genetic code is not really a code but rather just a sequence of chemical reactions that were developed by trial and error and fortuitous selection pressures.

4) Although the science of statistics is among the most proven in our experience the calculations illustrating the impossibility of abiogenesis, separation of right and left hand amino acids by chance, etc. are not to be taken seriously.

5) You can tell if a scientist is to be taken seriously in his statements and publications. If he supports any alternative explanation for life he is to be discredited and drummed out of the club. If he holds fast to the evolutionary paradigm he is eligible for grants, tenure and publication.

Conclusions:  People who are trying for instance to make cochlear implants deliver sounds other than spoken words ,such as music ,acceptably are all wrong using electrical engineers and information technology specialists as their principle investigators because thay are employing the principles of intelligent design. To get from 24 channels of data delivery to the inner ear to the 30,000 normally functional they should employ induced random mutation in the controlling genes and let natural selection work its magic to get the 30,000 required for success.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,03:33   

1.  Abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  I'm glad you are finally getting it.  Life arose, somehow, and evolution took over from there.  It's that simple.  That's not to say that abiogenesis is not a area of research that is worth studying, because it is, it is simply not part of ToE.

2.  You've already been shown links to papers and sites that talk about the transitional fossils.  Putting your fingers in your ear and shouting, "There aren't any transitional fossils" won't make it true.

3.  A)  You can't argue common design due to similarities and also argue that there are no similarities to support common descent.  B)  Examples please.

3.  (again)  Please define "code".  Until you define the terms that you are using, your complaint is wholly vacuous.

4.  Must we point out (again) the problems with your statistical ramblings?

5.  I would say that scientists that get their science from the Bible should not be taken seriously.  Since Creation Science has been shown to be based on Biblical literalism, it is not viable science.

Finally, how does one use ID to make cochlear implants?  Also, to say that random mutation should be used is to erect a blatant straw man.  But, it should be noted that through the process of studying evolution we learned about the processes that are necessary to make these implants possible in the first place.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,05:33   

All design is intelligent as it is the only process known to man that resultsin progress of any kind that is beneficial.

It is the only method that is scientific, planned, purposeful and is the only method used to perform science in the world.

On the other hand evolution depends on a purely random source for "apparent design" a term used in no other context in the history of mankind. A method whose principles are so preposterously inefficient and unlikely to produce anything functional that no one who proposed them as an approach to performing scientific investigation would be considered sane.

Every high school student in America should have Mike Denton and Behe's books as required reading whether or not they are ever used as textbooks in a formal class.

No person of intellectual honesty can accept neodarwinian though as explanatory after reading those two books.. which I suggest have not even been cracked by this audience in general.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,05:48   

First, I'll note you had no rebuttals to any of the numbered points.

Second, are you trying to say that believing in ID instead of accepting evolution is what leads people to be able to perform science?

Also, we have tons of evidence of random processes that produce results and functional things.  You are one of them, unless you think that god or the intelligent designer went into your mother during conception and made a specific sperm with a specific set of genes interact with the egg that was there.

Behe's book has been thoroughly vetted and debunked.  To teach his "science" would be unlawful.

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,12:26   

I have a question for you, evopeach.  Why, when you decided to create this thread, did you choose helium over hydrogen?  Was it arbitrary, or was it by some data you ran across?  If it was data, how recently did you come across it?

  
snaxalotl



Posts: 9
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,22:07   

I'm guessing peach has confused elemental production order in stars with order of production in the universe. It seems like his mind is a grab bag of half understood facts read at random, but down at the church youth group this accords him hero worship as scientific genius master of all scientific knowledge ("oh please, genius master, delight us again with an explanation of what foolishness evolution is"). The result you see is an irritating combination of ignorance and inability to back down from a pronouncement. His inability to come to terms with a single simple fact shows how pointless it is to tackle something more complex with him. How can you guys argue with someone so boring? You're wasting your time unless you draw him into some investment in his statements, because just competently refuting him is something he is emotionally immune to. For example, instead of responding "wrong about helium, blah blah blah", I think it needs to be more like this: "really magnificent peach, is that a true fact about helium"? "ok, because I didn't know that in my insignificance. are you sure of that? can I take that fact to the bank?" "so, if helium WASN'T the first element, you'd be WRONG then"? "well, of course you're not wrong, but IF you were wrong over a basic fact like this that would make you some kind of moron"? "sure, but if, say, hydrogen came first, that would mean you're a moron"? "yes, but you'd have to be a TOTAL MORON to get a point like this wrong, right"? "then what about blah blah blah..."?

unless you can draw out some sort of emotional investment which might make him actually consider the negative ramifications of being TOTALLY EFFING WRONG as usual, then you are dealing with an unstoppable random BS generator, and you might as well argue with the Eliza computer program.

--------------
Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,03:19   

Snaxalot,

Nice diatribe, very intellectual, added a lot to the discussion.. sure sign of a critical thinker.

Let's suppose that in the span of 10**-8 seconds that hydrogen nuclei were created before helium atoms or nuclei. How exactly does that change the argument that a universe composed 99% of helium, hydrogen and lithium waas the precise starting point for the natural, self-driven, random, chaotic processes that 14 billion years later resulted in the human brain and all the rest of life.

You see the bickering about 10**-8 seconds for a week is just a red herring to circumlocute the original issue.

If thats too tough just explain the steps up to the supposed first replicator in detail or maybe the last steps from non-life to the first replicator.

After that you can explain the origin of the avian lung unique in the animal kingdom and unrelated to any other species in its design.

Every time I read through Mike Denton's book and research one of the topics back through his references I break out laughing that educated people can actually believe in anything about evolution beyond the most modest sort of micro-evolution.

I forget at times how anal wireheads can be on trivialities and how militant evos are in defending the impossible.

When someone can explain the metamorphesus of the Monarch butterfly at the gene level,from random mutations, since thats where everything starts and ends, I will really appreciate that.

But we do agree on one thing I don't understand why you whiney babies and empty suits keep coming back for for butt kicking by yours truly.

Keep your kool-aid handy.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,03:29   

Quote
You see the bickering about 10**-8 seconds for a week is just a red herring to circumlocute the original issue.

That's something you are definitely an expert in.  You are guilty of transference though.  It was you who made the original argument that Helium somehow became the human brain.  When it was argued that you were wrong, you persisted that you were right.  Now, you shift the goal posts and accuse us of evasion?  Typical fundie stuff, I shouldn't be surprised.

Quote
If thats too tough just explain the steps up to the supposed first replicator in detail or maybe the last steps from non-life to the first replicator.

That is outside the scope of evolution.  I suggest you look up cosmology and abiogenetic theories.  For a quick summary, however, I will offer that the heavier elements were formed through fusion (in stars) and the specific elements C, H, O, and N formed into self-replicating life amid the chaotic pre-biotic soup that was the Earth's surface.  From there evolution took over.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,03:40   

Quote (GCT @ Oct. 18 2005,08:29)
When it was argued that you were wrong, you persisted that you were right.  Now, you shift the goal posts and accuse us of evasion?  

Evopeach, have you ever thought about going into politics?

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,04:33   

Evos,

I am not shifting the goal posts. I have asked for several months now for someone to be intellectually honest enough to admit as have Shapiro and others that
evolution has zero answers for how life started and thus has no scientific basis for being anything more than a just so story without foundation. The story has to begin with origins and proceed with a logical, rational and believable detailed explanation of these necessary events.

Defining away a problem is just another example of the intellectual dishonesty that is pervasive throughout your cult.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,04:51   

Evopeach,
Your original argument was that Helium could not have become the human brain, which was agreed because Helium is inert.  Of course, we pointed out that it was not necessary for Helium to become the human brain because Hydrogen was, is, and forever has been more present than Helium.  Now, you are trying to say that all along you have been asking how Hydrogen could have become the human brain.  That is a textbook case of moving the goal posts and lying.  Plus, now you are mistaken that you haven't moved the goal posts and it has been pointed out.  If you persist in telling us that you haven't, then you will be lying about that as well.

Also, origins are separate from evolution and no, that is not intellectual dishonesty.  As I've pointed out to you quite a few times now, they are separate questions.  You still have not been able to answer my example of my trip from NY to LA.  If you have incontrovertable proof that I was in NY (just as we have incontrovertable proof that life arose somehow) and I show up in LA telling you how I got there, you can dispute how I got to LA, but the story of how I got to LA is NOT tossed out because you don't know how I got to NY.  Period.  Get over it.

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,04:53   

evopeach, you ignored my question.  Again, why did you choose helium over hydrogen for this thread?  Was it arbitrary, our did you choose it because of some data?  If you chose because of data, how recently did you come across this data?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,06:18   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 18 2005,08:19)
Snaxalot,

Let's suppose that in the span of 10**-8 seconds that hydrogen nuclei were created before helium atoms or nuclei. How exactly does that change the argument that a universe composed 99% of helium, hydrogen and lithium waas the precise starting point for the natural, self-driven, random, chaotic processes that 14 billion years later resulted in the human brain and all the rest of life.

You see the bickering about 10**-8 seconds for a week is just a red herring to circumlocute the original issue.


Evopeach,

Are you familiar with the phenomenon of the supernova?

Get back to me after you've done some research.

--------------
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

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,06:30   

GCT,

Your level of intellectual dishonesty is unsurpassed in my experience. I did not change the argument concerning hydrogen and helium but rather pointed out the nitpicking stupidity you people display so openly and clearly and continuously to avoid having to face real issues head on. That is intellectual dishonesty defined.

The point is that making a completely arbitrary assertion that origins are unreleted to the theory of evolution in the face of literally hundreds of pages of books, texts, papers all dedicated to the very topic and using the words evolution in context belay your dishonest attempt to avoid an unsoluable problem for evos.

I truly hold you in derision... you are in need of serious couch time.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,07:00   

Evopeach,
Look at this site.

Also, you have been completely unable to counter my argument about my trip from NY to LA.  Until you can do that, quit crying about how unfair it is that evolution is separate from abiogenesis.


Now, to have to show you your own quotes is just plain silly, but here goes:
Quote
I see no need to debate these various problematical and sometimes fuzzy sub-topics when one can easily illustrate the falsification of the theory and its complete separation from logic, common sense and scientific credibility by simply observing that its proponents to be logically consistent must accept and defend the proposition that helium gas over billions of years transformed itself through trillions of chaotic and random unguided, undirected and non-purposeful changes, iteration upon iteration, resulting in the human brain, its network of neurons, synapses, nerves and its capabilities of conscious cognitive thought, memory and self awareness.

That was from your original post that started this thread.  You clearly state that we had to defend how helium gas transformed itself over billions of years into the human brain.

Now, on to your goal-posted moved challenge:
Quote
How exactly does that change the argument that a universe composed 99% of helium, hydrogen and lithium waas the precise starting point for the natural, self-driven, random, chaotic processes that 14 billion years later resulted in the human brain and all the rest of life.

Note that now you are talking about Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium.  Now you are expressly allowing the inclusion of elements other than Helium.  That is moving the goal posts.  You are guilty.  The fact that you say you have not done it once again makes you a liar.  The fact that you are accussing me of intellectual dishonesty for pointing out your lies is just pathetic.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,07:32   

Evopeach wrote
Quote
I have asked for several months now for someone to be intellectually honest enough to admit as have Shapiro and others that


Just a reminder that Professor Shapiro recently specifically confirmed that he does not support creationism or intelligent design in any form.

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,08:16   

evopeach, once again you ignored my question.  Again, why did you choose helium over hydrogen for this thread?  Was it arbitrary, our did you choose it because of some data?  If you chose because of data, how recently did you come across this data?

If you choose not to respond again, I will assume that you arbitrarily choose helium and proceed from there.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,08:24   

My guess is that he wanted to start calling everyone here Helium heads.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,08:55   

Does Ved stand for venerial disease I hear it often goes to the brain in short order.

Helium was an arbitrary choice because I knew it was one of the three first elements existing according to your theory if not the first considering the difference between nuclei and atoms.

My point was and remains that regardless of which one or all of the three chosen no one can or will even attempt to answer the central and original question.. how did the human brain develop from any combination of the three... take you pick.. make it easy on yourself.

Instead the same old denial of history in evidence that the search for for a plausible, demonstrable origin of life explanation has never been demonstrated.

If someone can show me where I claimed Shapiro had renounced evolution etc. I would like to see that. I did say he had embraced Life Force arguments in his further publications after giving up on the possibility of life  from non-life based on a through documented analysis of the data.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,09:01   

Evopeach, doesn't your conscience bother you after lying so much?

Quote
Helium was an arbitrary choice because I knew it was one of the three first elements existing according to your theory if not the first considering the difference between nuclei and atoms.

You specifically, repeatedly said Helium was the most abundant element in the universe and therefore the human brain must have come from it.  Now you are trying to weasel out of that and say that it was one of the three first elements, and you still haven't figured out how to read your own sources that specifically say that no atoms formed until 10^6 years after the big bang.

Quote
My point was and remains that regardless of which one or all of the three chosen no one can or will even attempt to answer the central and original question.. how did the human brain develop from any combination of the three... take you pick.. make it easy on yourself.

Lying again.  I gave you a cliff noted version of it.  Of course, I've also repeatedly said that evolution does not rest on whether life formed on its own or god zapped life onto the planet.  You continue to ignore my NY to LA argument.  What's the matter?  Can't you admit that you are wrong?

  
HPLC_Sean



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,09:28   

evopeach:
You seem to have concocted all of the reasons you need for rejecting ToE, but you've proposed nothing to fill the void.
What's your theory?
If everything ToE has come up with is bunk, what do you say the mechanism for our existence is?
Surely you have an explanation for how we got here.

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:00   

Quote
Helium was an arbitrary choice because I knew it was one of the three first elements existing according to your theory if not the first considering the difference between nuclei and atoms.


I suspected that was the case.  So why did you spend half a month insisting that it had to be helium, not hydrogen, that we had to trace the brain from, when everyone else was saying that helium did not make sense, whereas hydrogen did?  Especially in light of the fact that in late August and early September you were demanding that we had to trace the hydrogen to brain link.  It would have been so much simpler just to say that you had made a minor error in the title, point out you had previously said hydrogen, and we could have all gone on our merry way.

Instead, you decided you had to defend a choice you have now admitted was arbitrary.  You misrepresented several sources, and insisted you were accurate even after the errors were pointed out in direct quotes from your own sources.  In doing so, you have demonstrated that you are unable to admit to mistakes and will do anything, including misrepresenting and even outright lying in order to hold onto a statement you have made - even if that statement conflicts with something you said a month earlier!  If you are unable to admit to even this minor of an error, why should we believe that you would accept any explanation we give to your questions?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:09   

GCT,

All space, time and energy began with the Big Bang. As the universe cooled, energy turned into matter. Quarks and electrons, then protons and neutrons appeared in the first minute. But at temperatures of 1 billion degrees, it was too hot for complete atoms to form. Scientists have found that it took another 300,000 years for the temperature to cool off enough for whole atoms of hydrogen to appear. Notice the word complete.

http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/atom.html

About 300 thousand years after the Big Bang, the Universe had cooled enough for electrons to be captured by protons and alpha particles to form atoms.

In one post you say helium atoms or nuclei... no matter.. now you attempt to differentiate dramatically, yet apparently you can't tell the difference between 10**6 and 300,000 years, the generally accepted figure. I will take this as a measure of your scientific knowledge and integrity.. off about a factor of three.. at least.

"According to the Big Bang model of the early development of the Universe, the vast majority of helium was formed in the first three minutes after the Big Bang. Its widespread abundance is seen as part of the evidence that supports this theory." Wikopedia


I would just call you a liar but in your case your too dumb to even be able to lie.. you simply cannot differentiate between two numbers.

Now remember you're the evo expert(s) and faithful so its up to you to present the evidence for your theory not me.

As foryour analogy its so lacking in meaning, so poorly described and so inappropriate to the argument that it defies understanding.

But here's a test for you.

Which of these numbers is the larger 7 or 18?

Stumped huh?

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:48   

evopeach, both the 10**6 and the 300,000 year figures came from sources you provided for our reference.  On the first post of page 3 of this thread, you provided three sources.  The second provides the 10**6 figure.  GCT is as justified to use the 10**6 figure as the 300,000 figure.  The third provides the 300,000 figure.  In essence, you are ridiculing yourself for providing two sources that were so wildly off in their estimates!

In reality, a timeline of this nature is only expected to be accurate to within an order of magnitude, which it is (eg, when mapped on a logarithmic scale, 300,000 is approximately halfway between 10**5 and 10**6, and 10**6 is preferred due to our numbering system)

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,11:00   

But what's really so funny about all of this is that Evo still can't get himself to admit he was wrong when he claimed that helium was formed before hydrogen. He makes an utterly meaningless point about 3X10^5 being smaller than 1X10^6, which has absolutely nothing to do with his claims that

* there's no explanation for how the human brain evolved from helium (a claim that's not even wrong);

* helium formed before hydrogen;

* there was a time when there was more helium than hydrogen in the universe.

Anyone want to take bets how long it will take evo to admit there was never more helium than hydrogen in the universe? That will really give us an opportunity to use scientific notation!

I still say there's more helium in Evo's brain than hydrogen...

--------------
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

  
snaxalotl



Posts: 9
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,20:22   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 18 2005,08:19)
Snaxalot,

Nice diatribe, very intellectual, added a lot to the discussion.. sure sign of a critical thinker.

missing the point, evopeac. SOP in psychotherapy (just to remind those others who are not expert) is that when some crazy can't be reasoned with because he refuses to follow the usual rules of discourse is that you stop discussing /content/ in favor of /process/. For example, you don't try to patiently explain why it's unlikely that NASA planted a recording device in his teeth, and you try instead to find out why he won't stick to a more important topic of conversation. your (repeated) inability to back down from a simple matter of fact and logic means that people are wasting their time grappling with the content of what you are saying, and should be either discussing the way you say it or ignoring you altogether.

--------------
Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,01:19   

Evopeach,
Quote
About 300 thousand years after the Big Bang, the Universe had cooled enough for electrons to be captured by protons and alpha particles to form atoms.

Still want to try and say that Helium atoms formed in the first three minutes?

Quote
In one post you say helium atoms or nuclei... no matter.. now you attempt to differentiate dramatically, yet apparently you can't tell the difference between 10**6 and 300,000 years, the generally accepted figure. I will take this as a measure of your scientific knowledge and integrity.. off about a factor of three.. at least.

Except I got the 10^6 figure from your source.

So, are you admitting that you can't answer my NY to LA example?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,03:27   

Snaxalot,

And when people have a decided inability to express their views in terms of critical thinking skills I simply assume that sophistry tending to self-elevation, egomania and a general lack of intellectual capacity to discuss an issue in meaningful terms is the best they have to offer.

Now I am sure that these little attemps to insult me are standard fare for those who hold tendentiously to the mast of a sinking ship but I assure you that the only people impressed are your pathetic peers. You have zero impact on me as I am sure you do with most people you associate with or more likely report to.

You see rising from a oil field camp rent house ($25.00 a month) to the 32nd floor of a major energy company as an Exec. V.P. with two earned degrees in engineering and a very healthy six figure income did not happen by accident.

The only difference between the 420 people that reported to me during my active career and the wireheads on this forum is that they had the common sense to listen closely, agree and say yes sir.

Now go wash out some test tubes, write a ridalin perscription, polish some apes teeth or whatever trivialities you engage in to fill the meaningless time you call a life.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,04:57   

Quote
And when people have a decided inability to express their views in terms of critical thinking skills I simply assume that sophistry tending to self-elevation, egomania and a general lack of intellectual capacity to discuss an issue in meaningful terms is the best they have to offer.

Pot calling the kettle black?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:17   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 19 2005,08:27)
The only difference between the 420 people that reported to me during my active career and the wireheads on this forum is that they had the common sense to listen closely, agree and say yes sir.

Ah ha!! All is explained.  You surrounded yourself during your career with people of no intellectual ability and insufficient guts to tell the truth (AKA "Yes Men").  No wonder you are unable to make cogent arguments in these fora.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:23   

Yes that's logical considering that my org was in 1988 named as one of the best managed and performing in the MIS/IT area among the Fortune 500 by Computer World based on a vote by consultants and peer company managers. The award ceremony was in NYC, a black tie affair and held at the Morgan Library.

Now tell me about your three direct reports and the cat doesn't count.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:44   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 19 2005,15:23)
Yes that's logical

Glad we agree on your intellectual skills.  Nice to see you admit your fear of intelligent and capable employees.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,11:06   

Midnight your dishonesty is more in evidence with every post... keep it up its laughable.

By the way have you people put Lenny under suicide watch because if you  think Dover is not going our way in spades you are blinder than bats.

After that any appeal will go forward to the Supreme Court which by then will be firmly in our camp no doubt.

The comes the ruling on the pit bull protection case where all of my team will be permitted to turn a pit bull loose on one liberal atheist evo without suffering any criminal or civil penalties.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,15:40   

evopeach: How sure are you that the court is in your camp? Let's go down the list (and I'm making the assumption that Miers will be on the court if this gets there):

John Paul Stevens - Voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard. A vote against Dover.
Antonin Scalia - Along with Rehnquist, dissented in Edwards v. Aguillard. You can probably consider his vote a vote for Dover, but I'm not 100% sure. Just... something. He'll probably vote for Dover.

That takes care of the justices who voted on Edwards v. Aguillard. Now lets take a look at the post-1987 justices.

John Roberts - Can't go either way on him yet.
Harriet Miers - I'm guessing she's on your side. If she isn't confirmed and O'Connor is in her place, you will not get this vote. She voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Anthony Kennedy - Slightly difficult to read, but he's tended toward the left. He'll vote against Dover.
David Souter - Not a chance in ####. He's voting against Dover.
Clarence Thomas - Arguable. I'm guessing he'd vote against Dover, but you can have his vote.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - A sure bet to vote against Dover.
Stephen Breyer - Also a sure bet against Dover.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt evopeach, you lose 5-4.

For more info on the Supreme Court justices, see the Wikipedia page.

    
TheMissingLink



Posts: 19
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,20:17   

Quote (FishyFred @ Oct. 19 2005,20:40)
evopeach: How sure are you that the court is in your camp? Let's go down the list (and I'm making the assumption that Miers will be on the court if this gets there):

John Paul Stevens - Voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard. A vote against Dover.
Antonin Scalia - Along with Rehnquist, dissented in Edwards v. Aguillard. You can probably consider his vote a vote for Dover, but I'm not 100% sure. Just... something. He'll probably vote for Dover.

That takes care of the justices who voted on Edwards v. Aguillard. Now lets take a look at the post-1987 justices.

John Roberts - Can't go either way on him yet.
Harriet Miers - I'm guessing she's on your side. If she isn't confirmed and O'Connor is in her place, you will not get this vote. She voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Anthony Kennedy - Slightly difficult to read, but he's tended toward the left. He'll vote against Dover.
David Souter - Not a chance in ####. He's voting against Dover.
Clarence Thomas - Arguable. I'm guessing he'd vote against Dover, but you can have his vote.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - A sure bet to vote against Dover.
Stephen Breyer - Also a sure bet against Dover.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt evopeach, you lose 5-4.

For more info on the Supreme Court justices, see the Wikipedia page.

Personally, I doubt Dover would do that well. But I don't think it will end up in the surpreme court anyway.

Of course, Dover is going to lose here - it's only a matter of how bad. The case is so weak that even the Discovery Institute pulled their witnesses when they heard about all the bible thumping that went on during board meetings. Behe has essentially made an idiot of himself - the gallery was openly laughing at him. And Astrology? Ha ha. And he's their STAR witness. So there's no way the ID guys are going to want to bring this stinking barge to Washington because nothing good can happen. More likely, we'll have to wait for a while until the ID guys find a better case. And the mathematical probably of that happening is like a protien chain... uh, nevermind...

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,03:21   

Link,

I doubt that a person who can't add has much credibility in predicting outcomes. See if you can't go with Roberts either way then the vote can't be put in the against column.

I think I can help you with his vote ....99% for Dover... he's a person of faith and a strict constructionist.

5-4 I win.

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,03:51   

Reading Evopeaches burbling posts is like when you have an aching tooth that you keep probing with your tongue.  It hurts, but you can't help yourself.  Someone, please, make it stop!

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,04:02   

Swoosh,

Please change your name.. that's the NIKE emblem and the title of a book about Phil Knight. I think its disrespectful for a moron to use a name that's normally associated with a very smart business person like Knight.

Obviously you didn't read the subject posts or you you can't add either.

What a clown!

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,04:14   

Not to change the subject, but since you brought it up I believe that corporations and to a large extent private property are evil.  Phil Knight might be an interesting guy in the context of multinational industry, but mostly he is just another schmuck caught up in the game.  My "name" has nothing to do with Nike.  

Now back to Evopeaches regularly scheduled alcoholic, neomedieval soapbox.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,04:53   

Oh I see another socialist red diaper baby maquerading as a person of value and intellect.

Got it!!  Your credibility just went into negative imaginary numbers.

How are things in Cuba these days?

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,05:06   

Socialist?  I'm not so sure.  Hunter/gatherer wannabe is more like it.  I don't get the red diaper thing.  No sweat, though, your intent is pretty clear. Unfortunately for your ego I don't feel insulted, although I'm sure if you keep trying you might actually make me cry.  Maybe if you call me enough names I will sincerely question my world view, value systems and ultimate value as a human being.


WRT to Cuba, I don't really know how they are doing.  By what criteria do we determine?  Depends on how you look at it, I guess.  They seem to be doing alright for themselves even considering the American remnants of cold-war hostility.  But they could be doing better, like any country.  Oh, and I hear You-Know-Who sent a MAJOR hurricane that way.  But it looks like his aim was off.  Or maybe he was really aiming for the American south, and just used Cuba as a  deflection point?  Kinda like a meteorological bumper-bowling. :D

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,07:23   

evopeach: I gave you Roberts, Miers, Scalia, and Thomas. You still lose. Maybe you should reread your posts before you make them. You'd probably save yourself a lot of spelling errors and mathematical errors.

    
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,07:59   

Fishy,


"So Roberts can't go either way on him yet" .... in evo logic means he in your corner with Dover.

got it unusually clear LOL

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,08:17   

Evo: Clearly, your "superior critical mind" can't grasp simple addition. Maybe I should have been clearer in my original post, but I conceded Roberts to Dover.

By my estimation (and if you think differently, please supply your own breakdown):

For Dover (the defendant) - Roberts, Miers, Scalia, Thomas.

For Kitzmiller (the plaintiff) - Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter.

Did I miss something? Perhaps John Roberts cloned himself and replaced Breyer with a John Roberts #2?

    
TheMissingLink



Posts: 19
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,08:26   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,08:21)
Link,

I doubt that a person who can't add has much credibility in predicting outcomes. See if you can't go with Roberts either way then the vote can't be put in the against column.

I think I can help you with his vote ....99% for Dover... he's a person of faith and a strict constructionist.

5-4 I win.

Evo, if you'd like to read in great detail how and why Intelligent Design in it's current form will fail in virtually any court you can read this:

http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ....ges.pdf

Warning, though. It might tax your ability to generate delusional fantasies at the rate you're used to. But then, I might be under estimating you :)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,09:10   

Link,

You want me to read a propaganda piece written in part by Barbara Forrester , the lead witness, against Dover as an objective convincing analysis.

Most people would agree that the way you know when a trial is decided is when its over and the verdict is rendered.

I see it as a separation of church and state issue and since the supreme court has agreed that the teaching of altenative scientific theories is acceptable the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that ID is not scientific.

The detection of design like Mt. Rushmore or the monoliths on Easter Island are pretty comprehensible by average people.

The question seems to be is there any impact on science by the detection of design or is it ... so what.

In ETSI the entire idea was to detect the difference between random white or colored noise and a correlated signal, a code, a message. If such a message was detected and decoded would it have an impact on science in  the USA?

1) We would act on the message because it would likely be some universally important scientific information.

2) We would approach additional messages with a scientifically schooled filtering scheme to enhance further understanding, tightly focused.

So the detection of design would be a scientific endeaver
which would very likely have impact on science itself.

If the messages were repeated over and over and when decoded was universally agreed to say......."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.." would that make all of the work performed to get to that point a waste of time and unscientific?

  
TheMissingLink



Posts: 19
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,09:56   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,14:10)
Link,

You want me to read a propaganda piece written in part by Barbara Forrester , the lead witness, against Dover as an objective convincing analysis.

Most people would agree that the way you know when a trial is decided is when its over and the verdict is rendered.

I see it as a separation of church and state issue and since the supreme court has agreed that the teaching of altenative scientific theories is acceptable the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that ID is not scientific.

The detection of design like Mt. Rushmore or the monoliths on Easter Island are pretty comprehensible by average people.

The question seems to be is there any impact on science by the detection of design or is it ... so what.

In ETSI the entire idea was to detect the difference between random white or colored noise and a correlated signal, a code, a message. If such a message was detected and decoded would it have an impact on science in  the USA?

1) We would act on the message because it would likely be some universally important scientific information.

2) We would approach additional messages with a scientifically schooled filtering scheme to enhance further understanding, tightly focused.

So the detection of design would be a scientific endeaver
which would very likely have impact on science itself.

If the messages were repeated over and over and when decoded was universally agreed to say......."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.." would that make all of the work performed to get to that point a waste of time and unscientific?

Yeah, I know, that article is does poke some fun at ID, but it also has some very careful analysis about the Lemon and Edwards cases.

As for your assertion that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs isn't not EXACTLY correct. One thing we learned from Edwards is that ideas like creationism, even beyond their religion implications, aren't worthy of special protection in a science class. The court ruled that the science community is very robust and anything worthy of being taught would have risen on it's own out of the free marketplace of ideas.

With ONE scientist for ID, and thousands against, the court is unlikely to find that the defense passes the first prong of the Lemon test: that ID has a secular benefit. Clearly it does not, or it would have succeeded in the peer-reviewed science community.

And I agree with you 100% when you say that you know the trial is decided when it's over. I know I won't change your mind, and I'm really not trying to. I'm just writing this so that when Dover is shot full of holes, you'll think to yourself: "####, maybe those evolutionists aren't as dumb as I think they are!". And for just ONE second, your delusions will vanish, a beam of light will shine down from the heavens, and God's voice will say with a booming reverberating echo: "He Told You So!"

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,06:42   

Thats teh funny part about evos they think that Dover is an anomoly and that 68% public opinion and the court's rapidly coming swing in our favor will not result in a win for ID.

AS to Behe's appearance he did quite well actually but the larger point is the comment herein cheering the demise of his fortunes, the end of his career and the disgrace he is and will suffer at the habds of the evos.

That should be published for everyone in America to see so they know the vicious and vindictive nature nature of the evo community.

You see I never worry about ultimate outcomes when the other side is dead wrong on teh facts, condused on their own position and wish the worst to happen personally top anyone who opposes, even people in their own community.

I recognize them as mentally sick and an abberation of true humanity.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,09:36   

Quote
You see I never worry about ultimate outcomes when the other side is dead wrong on teh facts, condused on their own position and wish the worst to happen personally top anyone who opposes, even people in their own community.

I recognize them as mentally sick and an abberation of true humanity.
Ahem. Nudge nudge wink wink say no more.
Quote
the court's rapidly coming swing in our favor will not result in a win for ID.
I already gave you a breakdown of the Supreme Court and showed how, at best, you will lose in the Supreme Court 5-4. I am reiterating my request for you to provide your own breakdown of how the SCOTUS would vote on this issue.

    
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,10:28   

Fishy,

I suggest that Roberts, Miers (OR ANYONE bUSH PICKS),
Scalia,Thomas are all 0.99 for Dover

I agree Bryer , Ginsberg, Souter are 0.99 against Dover

Your own data support Kennedy as 0.7 against Dover and Stephens O.7 against Dover

Essentially you have to add two people to your sure three and I have to get one to add to my sure four.

So I win is about 0.51 and you win is about 0.49 a toss up unless you lose another person before the trial comes up and before Bush leaves... thats in my favor for sure because whomever it is will be in my camp and you're dead meat. My four aren't leaving how about  yours... he he

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,17:25   

Stevens voted in the majority of Edwards v. Aguillard. He will definitely vote against Dover.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia entry on Anthony Kennedy (emphasis mine):

"Born in Sacramento, California, Kennedy, a devout Roman Catholic, married Mary Davis, with whom he has three children. He has no relation to the famous Kennedy family of American politics."

Catholics are traditionally a reasonable and tolerant bunch and have long been okay with evolution.

And by the way, wouldn't the probability of two events occurring with a probability of 70% each only be 35%? In your scenario, the mathematical chance of you winning would be 65%.

    
Henry J



Posts: 4115
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,19:16   

Re "wouldn't the probability of two events occurring with a probability of 70% each only be 35%?"

I'd think it'd be 70% * 70% = 49%.

--

Re "Two protons, two neutrons combine to make a Helium nuicleus."

Or sometimes two protons and one neutron, but that's only a little over one part per million.
I sometimes wonder why neutrons are necessary in a multi-particle nucleus - they don't neutralize the electrical repulsion, the strong force (aka quark color force) counteracts it. I wonder if there has to be some balance between the number of up quarks and down quarks as a whole.
(Oh, and sorry to be taking this, um, "discussion" off topic. :) )

Henry

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,20:05   

Ah, thanks Henry. I must be freakin' tired to have made that mistake.

    
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,20:52   

"Catholics are traditionally a reasonable and tolerant bunch "

lol.  well, at least when compared to folks of the 'peach's bent.

then they look like the most reasonable folks imaginable.

I guess 'peach's constant spouting of public opinion polls means his parents never gave him the "..and if your friend's all jumped off a bridge.." speech.

I'm sure all the Catholics out there are thanking you for your constant irrationality, peach, I'm sure you have swelled their ranks all by yourself.

btw, i got lost in all your drivel; several folks accepted your "wager" regarding the outcome of the court case and even upped the ante.  are you willing to accept the new wager?  

just so we're clear, a "loss" for you simply means that the judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs on the primary complaint, while a "loss" for us would be that the judge dismisses the plaintiffs action in its entirety, and rules  in favor of the defense.  Is this correct?  any other stipulations you wish to place on it?

do so now or forever hold your peace.

oh, and do remember that the <i>overwhelming</i> majority of the american public was against legalizing abortion when roe v wade came down the pike.

  
  118 replies since Sep. 21 2005,10:16 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]