RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Academic Credials Argument, Informal Survey of Posteres< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2005,09:20   

Engrs          Biologists


Math                   35 hrs          Biologist/Evolutionist
Chemistry              7
Physics                25
Materials                3
Dynamics               3
Statics                   4
Strength Of Mat's    4
Electrical Science     3
Electronics              3
Classical Mechanics  3
Arcs and Plasmas     3
Thermo Physics        3
Physical Phemistry    4
Biology                    0
Zoology                   0    
Geology                   0    
Palenotology            0
Modern Physics         3
Electrical Circuits      3
Electronics               3

Could the evos fill the blanks as representative to their HARD sciences. Please impress me but remember the cirricula are all on line at various colleges.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2005,10:24   

Biochemistry – 8 years

Biophysics – 3 years

Microbiology – 5 years

Analytical Chemistry – 6 years

Molecular Biology – 5 years

: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

  
jxs



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,00:13   

We all know you are proud of your engineering degrees -- and justifiably so -- but certainly you do realize that this is a remarkably juvenile "argument" you're making, right?

You are not, in general, chatting with a few mediocre biology BA grads here. You are trying to argue against millions of physicists, chemists, engineers, and biologists.

I assume your engineering degrees at least touched on system control theory, yes? Perhaps you should read a bit John Doyle's work (he's at Caltech, for googling help). The origin of "advanced technology" -- similarities between designed and natural complex systems.

In a nutshell: intelligent processes make complex things through predicition; non-intelligent processes just throw things at the wall and see what sticks. The end result is the same, regarding the apparent complexity of the systems. A lack of intelligence in "design" just means more fatalities.

An actual engineer, with a doctorate and everything, arguing against your mindless dogmatism. Whatever will you do?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,05:14   

Midnight,

I am convinced you have a firm grasp of biology and such chemistry as relates thereto. My purpose is that in the current arena the more robust and wide spectrum studies of the advanced degreed engineer is more likely to have a realistic grasp of all the science, math, physical laws etc, regarding evolution than the most outspoken, most committed evolutionists. Yet the credentials of engineers are insultingly belittled regarding math, physics, chemistry , thermo, materials in addition to the life science where they ARE the least trained as though thats all that matters.

Thanks for your Intellectual Honesty.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,10:58   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 04 2005,10:14)
Midnight,

I am convinced you have a firm grasp of biology and such chemistry as relates thereto. My purpose is that in the current arena the more robust and wide spectrum studies of the advanced degreed engineer is more likely to have a realistic grasp of all the science, math, physical laws etc, regarding evolution than the most outspoken, most committed evolutionists. Yet the credentials of engineers are insultingly belittled regarding math, physics, chemistry , thermo, materials in addition to the life science where they ARE the least trained as though thats all that matters.

Thanks for your Intellectual Honesty.

I am not belittling engineers.  But their grasp of biology is no better, and frequently worse, than my grasp of engineering

--------------
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 2005,11:12   

I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own disclipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,08:44   

Quote
Midnight,

I am convinced you have a firm grasp of biology and such chemistry as relates thereto.

'You're just wrong is all.'

:p

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,09:16   

Quote (GCT @ Oct. 06 2005,13:44)
Quote
Midnight,

I am convinced you have a firm grasp of biology and such chemistry as relates thereto.

'You're just wrong is all.'

:p

He forgot physics I had to learn to do biophysics, and I forgot to mention all the years in the bioprocessing industries, working on the engineering of food and beverage production.  And I forgot to mention the years I spent on the Advisory Committee for a State University Engineering School.  :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. 07 2005,07:37   

Had a hard time holding a job huh?

Actually, my experience is just a might broader and my education sweeping by comparison.

Bur then that's obvious to anyone reading your sophmoric posts and watching me cram them up your nose continually... and please stop whining its so unbecoming to a grownup.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,08:16   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 07 2005,12:37)
Had a hard time holding a job huh?

Actually, my experience is just a might broader and my education sweeping by comparison.

Bur then that's obvious to anyone reading your sophmoric posts and watching me cram them up your nose continually... and please stop whining its so unbecoming to a grownup.

:D

What a peach!  :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

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2005,07:28   

Well, let's see.  Against my better judgment, I'll join this thread.  ;)

Undergrad:  B.S. (1979) in Materials Science and Engineering (MIT), including courses in thermodynamics, solid mechanics,  metallurgical and ceramic science, and the usual math and physics courses.  Being an engineering major made me realize that I really should have been a biologist, something I didn't pursue until some years later.  Incidentally, I didn't study evolution at all as an engineering major, for the same reason that most biologists don't take a course in metallurgy.  I believe that MIT has since instituted a life-sciences requirement for all students, but this requirement was not in place in the 1970s.  However, I do understand and remember enough about thermodynamics to recognize the old claim that "evolution violates the second law" as complete nonsense.  That's the single specific contribution that my engineering education made to my later study of evolutionary biology.

Graduate:  M.S. (1994) and Ph.D. (2002) in Biological Sciences (Western Michigan University).  I took courses in entomology (my main interest), systematic botany, invertebrate zoology, ornithology, physical anthropology, biochemistry, genetics, animal and plant physiology, population ecology, evolution, prokaryotic and eukaryotic cell biology, animal behavior, and statistics.  I also took some specialized entomology and cognate courses at Michigan State, as well as a seminar in philosophy of science.  My M.S. research project was in chemical ecology; my Ph.D. dissertation described an unusual adaptation to inbreeding in a solitary wasp species, as shown by a field study, multiple breeding experiments, and genetic testing.  The latter yielded three publications plus a couple of technical notes.

I'm currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Rochester, where I study insect-<i>Wolbachia</i> interactions.  (<i>Wolbachia</i> are bacteria that infect insects and are usually transmitted vertically -- from mother to offspring -- and use a variety of mechanisms to skew the sex ratio of an infected mother's offspring for the bacteria's own benefit.)

So far, to paraphrase the late Prof. Dobzhansky, it all makes sense in the light of evolution.  

And I also know how to spell "credentials".   :D

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,03:42   

Wow Julie,

You have taken every course in evowork known all biased 100% toyour world view and your brain is surely as washed as they get.

Thermodynamics does in deed war againt certain aspects of evolution if some honesty could prevail in your camp.

1) No on claims that flowthrough systems cannot be kept far from equiblrium by continually supplying energy which has been transduced from say the sun's light energy... so long as all the conversion, rectification etc. mechanisms are in place. It turns out such systems/processes are extremely involved and complex as in photosynthesis which was sure as #### not around when life and evolution were started or anything remotely like it.

2)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,04:18   

Julie continued,

2) Evos have finally figured out the proper definitions of open, closed, isolated and flowthrough systems after three decades so its almost possible to talk to them about thermo.

3) See its still stupidity to make the ever continuing argument from evos that as long as the entropy of the universe gets larger because of star formation or some totally disconnected activity in a galaxy far far away.

4) You might as well tell me that the probability of a beach ball flying up because all the air molecules moved up simultaneously. But its ok because simultaneously a supernove exploded somewhere it all balanced out.

4) Try this pick a rose from your garden, lay in the sun. Now with all that sun energy will it grow and bud and live,or just get hot, wither and be dead as a door nail.


Laughable

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,07:51   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 10 2005,09:18)
4) Try this pick a rose from your garden, lay in the sun. Now with all that sun energy will it grow and bud and live,or just get hot, wither and be dead as a door nail.


I think you answered that yourself in your previous post, item 1). Your point being..?

  
VoR



Posts: 3
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,11:18   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 10 2005,08:42)
You have taken every course in evowork known all biased 100% toyour world view and your brain is surely as washed as they get.


So...you start a post about academic credentials to show everyone how smart you are, then when others show that they have extensive knowledge of the subject matter discussed in these fora, you dismiss their education as brainwashing.


I was at the beach once, it was a very windy day, and we had a beachball. I was holding it, when all of a sudden, it was blown out of my hands, and moved upwards a good three-quarter metre before falling down. #### those supernovae!

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,10:44   

Yes your belief in the mystereous kinetica of beachballs is roughly equivalent to the evos belief that abiogenesis and early evolution occurred without photosynthesis or such by the star formation entropy balance... or was it a very "simple" form of photosynthesis.. like protocells and clay proteins and well you get it.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,13:53   

Evopeach

And your alternative theory is...

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,16:37   

If the act of studying a subject in a classroom setting could effect "brainwashing" in the student, I'd be an engineer today.  ;-)

As for understanding some of the -- er, subtleties of why and how a dead plant and a live one behave differently:  You might start with the transpiration-cohesion-tension model of water transport.  Up-front warning:  This will require you to read a botany text, and if it's on the exam, it'll probably be an essay question.  

"...Helmholtz brought out his collection of lacquered butterflies, which caused him to become petulant when he realized they would not fly."  (Conversations with Helmholtz, Woody Allen)

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,20:08   

I'm still shocked that even an engineer would think the universe is mostly helium. Even after posting a link to an article that quite clearly states that the primordial H/He ratio was approximately 9/1 (with a few trace elements thrown in for variety). Did he read his own link?

This guy's a joke, right? A pro-evolution guy just having some laughs at our expense?

(And not that there's anything wrong with being an engineer.)

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

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,16:54   

BTW:  No complaints about engineers intended or implied, Eric.  I certainly wasn't cut out to be one, but I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time socializing with engineers!  (Then again, my husband, who has always had astounding aptitude for the kinds of things that engineers do, went to med school instead.  Go figure!;)

-- Julie

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,04:28   

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.

As to brainwashing the engineers are brainwashed on real practical implementable knowledge and how the real world actually works. We spend very little time disproving the existence the God, polishing three teeth to prove an ape could walk upright or that life came from clay gumbies.

The most closeminded people in the universe are evos because they refuse to permit the public to clearly see their flaws or even hear alternative explanations of life.

You surely are the most vicious and intellectually dishonest clan in the rhealm of science.

Of course youy missed the point entirely on the plant. It is not the understanding of how a plant thrives it is rather the understanding how such could evolve from non-life without all the complexities in place to harness the suns energy, etc.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,07:41   

Quote
Actually, my experience is just a might broader and my education sweeping by comparison.

Mr. Peach, mite your sweeping academic credentials and broad real world experience be more advanced than ours in say, the English language, spelling, grammar, and typing skills?

Quote
...it is rather the understanding how such could evolve from non-life without all the complexities in place to harness the suns energy, etc.

Do bacteria harness the energy of the sun? Do mammals?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,08:19   

Ved,

I have graciously consented to let the otherewise depressed and intellectually lightfooted evos excel in typing, spellchecker, grammar lexicon and carying pi out to 13 places rather than my usual 4. This is in keeping with their nitpicking, wireheaded mental apparatus. Thus they will have something to preen their scales ,I mean feathers, about.

Actually animals use biomass through the intricate digestive sequences to obtain the energetic calories they require for life. Of course most of that biomass is in turn dependent on plants or other animals that in turn depend on plantlife. So it turns out photosynthesis is quite important to life in general. Is this a new concept to your team?

Am I becoming the pedagog for the biologists as well here... I must talk to my CPA about in kind contributions for tax purposes considering the hours of education I have given to evos this year.

I must remind them someday of the fallacy of form over substance... but them what would they have left to say.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,12:25   

Ahh, how could I forget, language skills are just so beneath you. But hey, if you don't care about the words you type, why should anyone else?

Thanks for the edjoocation. Right, so it seems that many animals as well as plants rely on photosynthesis to sustain life. Photosynthesis makes available a very valuable energy source, and has been around for a long time. Long enough for many forms of life, especially the ones we see everyday, to become dependant upon it. But is it necessary for any forms of life at all to exist?

Just for a lark I went to the Wikipedia page for biological life, and there's no mention at all of the word photosynthesis. What gives? Maybe that's because it's not a requirement for "life in general" (meaning ALL life), but merely a requirement many forms of life that we see here and now.

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,12:41   

Tube worms don't use photosynthesis...thermal vents provide
the nutrients they need. The depths they live at prevent any
light from reaching them.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,04:26   

Photosynthesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Leaf." The primary site of photosynthesis in plants.Photosynthesis is an important biochemical process in which plants, algae, and some bacteria harness the energy of sunlight to produce food. Ultimately, nearly all living things depend on energy produced from photosynthesis for their nourishment, making it vital to life on Earth. It is also responsible for producing the oxygen that makes up a large portion of the Earth's atmosphere. Organisms that produce energy through photosynthesis are called phototrophs."

Is there another group of evos somewhere wou are technically literate because the level of ignorance diplayed herein is so appalling I am getting depressed about the opportunity for continued scientific progress.

Than goodness for the tube worms. LOL

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,05:36   

Evopeach

If you have Adobe reader, have a look at this PDF file. It covers a lot of the points about early evolution, symbiogenesis etc.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4061
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,06:03   

Alan,
That link didn't work for me.

Henry

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,06:10   

Quote
Than goodness for the tube worms. LOL

Thank you for acknowledging the existence of a life form not dependent on photosynthesis, making the rest of your post irrelevant. See how Wiki agrees with me where it uses the word nearly? Notice also how they use the present tense. They are not talking about the life on earth that existed before photosynthesis evolved here. Certainly, at that time, 100.00% of life here was not dependent on photosynthesis, because it didn’t exist.

Understanding the Origin of Photosynthesis

Interestingly, it seems that photosynthesis first appeared in a purple bacteria.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,06:10   

Sorry Henry

The full url is http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/research/bib/KooyHeng2005.pdf

Is that OK? Tried it myself a few times and the file download is offered.

Anyway, what are you doing slumming with the likes of Paley and Evo?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4061
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,06:40   

Yeah, that worked. The first one had a %00 after the .nl for some reason. (Though a lot of it is over my head, but that aside.)

Re "Anyway, what are you doing slumming with the likes of Paley and Evo?"
I'm not really sure. Partly wondering if Evopeach is really serious in what he says, given that he's basically accusing tens of thousands of biologists of sharing a common delusion. That would strike me as extremely unlikely even if I didn't follow the gist of the argument.

Henry

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,06:54   

Ved,

You are the most irrelevent entity on this post if you think tube worms diminish the importance of photosynthesis since it is also responsible for the oxygen we breathe.

Of course there have been and continue to be entities that don't need photosynthesis, some recently found in Oregon I believe in a river.

However a world free of oxygen and without photosynthesis .. a world of bacteria and tube worms etc. is about 0.00000001% of the species that have ever existed.

Please describe the origin of these first life forms that you know existed and how they came to be in detail so we can all benefit from your Nobel prize winning repeatable life from non-life experiental results... or is this just another just so fairy tale for consumption by the evo true believers without a scintilla of scientific data or experimental results to back it up .. not even a paper theory that stands up to analysis..

Let me guess, LOL

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,07:04   

Quote
Partly wondering if Evopeach is really serious in what he says, given that he's basically accusing tens of thousands of biologists of sharing a common delusion. That would strike me as extremely unlikely even if I didn't follow the gist of the argument.


Argument from authority? Works for me, too! I think Evo is driven by insecurity; the fear that the fundie myths he regurgitates are just that.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:38   

I see my posts go unanswered as usual except for the usual drivel and vacumn generated personal attacks.

If Behe and Denton have been so discredited by the super intellects of evoland whay is Denton credited with the most significant science based anti-darwininan book published to date and Behe is hand picked to be the lead witness at Dover.

Yeah I guess those hack lawyers for the defense really screwed up pitting his testimony against the cult kook Barbara what's her name...LOL.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:47   

Evopeach

I, for one, am looking forward to reading Professor Behe's testimony. Since he has produced nothing new since "Darwin's Black Box" nearly ten years ago, it is hard to speculate on what he can contribute.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,08:58   

Foxy,

Its childs-play to debate with you people as you are never informed.

Nothing in ten years huh?

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html

Now it is true that the evos have attacked him in their usual cannibalistic fashion for being intellectually honest, banned him from all major journals, etc. but with tenure they are limited in what they can do to get him fired. I wonder how he got tenure since he's clearly a hack scientist, dumb as a post and a completely unpublished researcher. Lehigh must have been asleep for all those years he was teaching, researching and publishing, mentoring grad students, etc.

If you people weren't so totally transparent there might be a challenge here.

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,10:30   

Quote
a world of bacteria and tube worms etc. is about 0.00000001%


hyperbole?

Every foray into the depths of the worlds oceans yields new
species. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the ocean depths
hid more species than are near the surface and on land combined.
I am not saying this is the case, but consider the volume of
water involved.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,11:25   

Evopeach

Your reading comprehension could be improved.

I wrote
Quote
he has produced nothing new since "Darwin's Black Box" nearly ten years ago


His later stuff has nothing new to offer. Unless you can cite something earth shattering from his later material.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,11:37   

Does all research have to be earth shattering to be classified as new. There is a certain sense that all funded research is new otherwise it wouldn't be funded I suppose.

But nevermind you have spouted off your mouth once again without thinking just to belittle a person of certain credentials you have never met strictly because he disagrees with you... a typical evo.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,12:15   

Ha Ha Ha!

Evo says:
Quote
But nevermind you have spouted off your mouth once again without thinking just to belittle a person of certain credentials you have never met strictly because he disagrees with you... a typical evo.


But Evo also says, only 7 MINUTES later:
Quote
I take it that all the evos have great confidence that Barbara Kook is a superior expert witness than Mike Behe.  


Following Plato's teaching that philosophers should be full participants in civic life, Dr. Forrest actively participates in efforts to promote church-state separation, the integrity of public science education, and civil liberties.  She serves on the National Advisory Council of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. She is also a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, having served on the board of directors of the Louisiana affiliate.  Her other supporting memberships include People for the American Way, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and the National Center for Science Education

How did she miss the CPUSA and Red Diaper Babies of America Assn.?


There is no way that Evopeach is for real.  No possible way.  Surely, even he can see the irony of his own stupidity.

-Dan

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,16:28   

I tend to concur.  Perhaps a member of the choir at Landover Baptist?

-- J.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,03:28   

Dan,

PLease type a post that includes 1+2=3.

That way I will be able to continue to post knowing that you are at least somewhat more gifted than the horse that can count.

Really, can you tell me one thing about evolution that is demonstrably proveable in a lab, repeatable, universally supported among qualified scientists, documented evidentiary based data that comports with known scientific laws, methods and experience that is beyond modest microevolutionary change within kinds.

I await your answer complete with the required references to support the usually empty assertions.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,07:44   

Evo,

I've long given up trying to teach you anything.  You seem to be lacking some thinking skills.  (You STILL are arguing that Helium is more abundant than Hydrogen.)  Instead I thought it would be fun to point out the hypocrisy of your posts.  My intention is to simply have fun at your expense, not to educate you or even listen to your demands.  I'm trying to do so cleverly, without resorting to name-calling or other childish means of derision.

-Dan

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,08:00   

Evo,

Does it sometimes bother you that we're all secretly laughing at you?

Just curious.

--------------
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 2005,10:31   

Eric and Cog,

In the spirit of peace and harmony I would like for you guys to put your heads together and teach me something.

I thought about it and concluded that,

1) I know how to tie my shoes.

2) I can say the alphabet.

3) I know which between 300,000 and 10**6 which is the larger number

Darn that last one is out of your reach so I guess you really can't teach me anything.

Which one of you is Ann Landers and which is Dear Abby?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:33   

We tried, Evo, really we did.

But we concluded that you're unteachable.

I used to have a cat like that...

--------------
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 2005,10:41   

I really don't want to know the sort of things you might have tried to teach your cat.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,12:38   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 18 2005,15:41)
I really don't want to know the sort of things you might have tried to teach your cat.

I tried to teach him two things:

1) Do not deny you've said something when you've said it in print, where anyone can go look it up and wave it under your nose; and

2) stay out of the trash under the sink.

For the record, I never caught him violating stricture no. 1. I don't know what your record is in dragging the trash out of the kitchen wastebasket, but he's got you beat on the first one.

--------------
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. 18 2005,14:45   

Evo,

Quote
3) I know which between 300,000 and 10**6 which is the larger number

And why do you think I wouldn't?

Can you tell 10^-8 from 10^2?

What you say:
Quote
Let's suppose that in the span of 10**-8 seconds that hydrogen nuclei were created before helium atoms or nuclei.
 

Now, once again, what do the sources (the ones you supplied even) say:

3 minutes into the big bang, nuclei (like He) can BEGIN to hold together.  

Three minutes is alot longer than 10^-8 seconds, wouldn't you agree.  Now you're off by 10 orders of magnitude (a factor of 10^10).  And those protons (Hydrogen nuclei) had been around since ~10^-6 seconds after the big bang.  When exactly were you claiming that Helium was more abundant than Hydrogen again?

At 10^6 years nuclei and electrons combine to form atoms.  

Now, I realize that 10^6 isn't a dead certain number.  The sources you cite don't show error bars on the calculations, because they are for the laymen or armchair scientists.  I would never assume that 10^6 was an exact number.  I bet the error bars are a factor of 10 or so in either direction.  Are you claiming I don't understand something because two of your sources are within a factor of three  from each other?  I definitely know that 3 < 10^10.

I'm on the edge of my seat to see what you'll reply with.

-Dan

  
Henry J



Posts: 4061
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,17:07   

Julie,

Re "Against my better judgment, I'll join this thread."

Answer #1: And aren't you glad you did? ;)

Answer #2: Why, was it falling apart? :)

Henry

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,06:09   

Danny Boy,

Wikopedia:

379,000 years after the Big Bang

The temperature of the Universe is approximately 3000 kelvins. At this temperature hydrogen nuclei capture electrons to form stable atoms. This event known as recombination is particularly significant because free electrons are effective at scattering light, which is why fire is not transparent, while hydrogen atoms will allow light to pass through.

guess that time number Chaisson gave was +-  about 79,000 +- 21% and not +-300 % as you implied.

HHow did the universe really begin? Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion, called the Big Bang. The big-bang theory got its start with the observations by Edwin Hubble that showed the universe to be expanding. If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.

      The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.

      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.

Have you heard of Dr. Hawking? He is usually respected and a person careful with his words.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html

He does not refer to free protons as an element nor as hydrogen. He does refer to the combination of a proton and a neutron as the element helium. There is no other designation for that combination as it is not a single elemental particle but rather the comination of two elemental particles.

Your decision to refer to protons as hydrogen is not in agreement with Hawking.

Guess who I agree with on the basis of their credentials.

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,06:39   

Questions, evopeach:

Can you calculate log[379,000] (this is in base ten, by the way)

When constructing a simple timeline using a logrithmic scale, where would the above calculation be placed?

From Wikipedia:
Quote
Throughout the Universe, hydrogen is mostly found in the plasma state whose properties are quite different to molecular hydrogen. As a plasma, hydrogen's electron and proton are not bound together, resulting in very high electrical conductivity, even when the gas is only partially ionised. The charged particles are highly influenced by magnetic and electric fields, for example, in the Solar Wind they interact with the Earth's magnetosphere giving rising to Birkeland currents and the aurora.


Hmm, protons and electrons that are unbound are referred to as hydrogen plasma.

You might want to check on what an alpha particle is, btw.

evopeach, you make a great Enron executive, but a lousy engineer.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,06:40   

Quote
He does refer to the combination of a proton and a neutron as the element helium.

No, he absolutely does not. This is what he said in your quote:
Quote
...protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements...

Hawking is talking about only the nuclei of heavier elements. No whole elements could exist until 300,000 years later when the the universe was cool enough for those nuclei to combine with electrons. He says this very thing in the very next paragraph of your link.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,06:53   

Quote
There is no other designation for that combination as it is not a single elemental particle but rather the comination of two elemental particles.

You're wrong. That combination of particles is called a nucleus.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,07:46   

God, evopeach,

A proton plus a neutron equals a helium nucleus?

Obviously you're not a nuclear engineer...

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

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,08:09   

It was such an obvious mental mistake, I was just going to let it pass.  Obviously, he meant two protons and two neutrons.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,08:15   

My apologies I mean two protons.. thanks.

VED you are a dishonest liar.. plain and simple., as to Hawkings your selective quote is neat but dishonest. Which anyone can dttermine by reading the Hawking site.

"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."

See that part that says most notably HELIUM, right after the phrase .. form the nulcei of a few heavier ELEMENTS.

The next paragraph refers to electron capture.

The two protons are the nucleus of helium but that nucleus is not a fundamental particle like the hydrogen nucleus is. It has no other name in the sense of a fundamental particle.

Kevin couldn't you take that log by yourself. No problem, I am used to assisting evos with math and science.. their weak suits.

5.578639209968072    (plenty of decimal places for the wireheads)

Anything else you guys need help with today ?

I never worked for Enron either.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,08:28   

Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ Oct. 19 2005,13<!--emo&:0)
It was such an obvious mental mistake, I was just going to let it pass.  Obviously, he meant two protons and two neutrons.


Normally I'd agree, but this is evopeach we're talking about here. I don't think it's obvious at all he meant two of each. Given the previous claims he's made, I don't think we can assume anything he says is just a slip o' the fingers. My assumption was that he really did think a helium had a nucleus made of two baryons. After all, previously he described a hydrogen atom as the "fusion" of a proton and an electron.

And given that he's lambasting everyone for equating 3E5 and 1E6, it's the least he deserves.

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

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,08:43   

Quote
See that part that says most notably HELIUM, right after the phrase .. form the nulcei of a few heavier ELEMENTS.

See that part that says NUCLEI right before the phrase ... of a few heavier elements.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,08:49   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 19 2005,13:15)
My apologies I mean two protons.. thanks.

Still wrong, evo.

Which reinforces my belief that you didn't "accidentally" state that a helium nucleus was one proton and one neutron. Espcially when you state not once, but twice, that two protons are a helium nucleus. After someone gives you the correct number of nucleons, for which correction you thanked him, and then got it wrong again. Truly astonishing.

A helium nucleus is two protons and two neutrons. Deuterium is one proton and one neutron, otherwise known as "heavy hydrogen." There is no stable nucleus that is just two protons.

And in answer to a previous question posed to you which you have chosen to ignore, a helium nucleus is also known as an alpha particle, thereby demolishing yet another wrong claim you've made.

Of course, these are just the most basic errors you've made. You might be able to give engineering lessons to an evolutionary biologist, but you can't give particle physics lessons to anyone.

--------------
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. 19 2005,08:53   

GCT,

You are a glutton for punishment you incompetent baboon.

"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."

See that part that says most notably HELIUM, right after the phrase .. form the nulcei of a few heavier ELEMENTS.

a few heavier ELEMENTS MOST NOTABLY HELIUM

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,08:58   

Quote
My apologies I mean two protons.. thanks.


An actual admission of error.  Wow.

Quote
VED you are a dishonest liar.. plain and simple., as to Hawkings your selective quote is neat but dishonest. Which anyone can dttermine by reading the Hawking site.


Gee, when I read the site you linked, I see that VED is correct and you are the one mischaracterizing the great Hawkings.

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."

See that part that says most notably HELIUM, right after the phrase .. form the nulcei of a few heavier ELEMENTS.


See the part that says "heavier", right before elements?  Heavier than what?  Hydrogen, of course.

Quote
The next paragraph refers to electron capture.


And when a hydrogen nucleus (also known as a free proton or a hydrogen ion) captures an electron, you get a hydrogen atom.  See?  It's so simple.

Quote
The two protons are the nucleus of helium but that nucleus is not a fundamental particle like the hydrogen nucleus is. It has no other name in the sense of a fundamental particle.


Two protons and two neutrons can also be considered an alpha particle.  Just because something has multiple names doesn't mean it must be excluded from consideration.

Quote
Kevin couldn't you take that log by yourself. No problem, I am used to assisting evos with math and science.. their weak suits.

5.578639209968072    (plenty of decimal places for the wireheads)

Anything else you guys need help with today ?
I never worked for Enron either.


Actually, I did before I asked.  So you've now proven that you can perform basic math when requested - something I previously doubted.  But I can give you only partial credit, as you only answered the trivial part of the question.  20% is still failing in my book.  See, unlike you, I am a competent engineer, and I read the whole question or statement, rather than picking just the part that I want.  I also have the reading comprehension necassary to respond intelligently, unlike you.  You are a disgrace to the profession, and another example of the Dilbert Principle in action.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:08   

Kevin,

I have no doubt that you are a competent engineer but you are way too emontionally invested in supporting every aspect of the evolutionary paradigm to be objective on anything said here.

Clearly, the sentence structure in Hawkings writing refers to helium nuclei being formed and he does refer to it as an element, in fact a heavier element and of course helium is heavier than hydrogen.

That was the argument for the post it had nothing to do with the hydrogen first or helium first debate.

The previous GCT post where he denys Hawking used the term element and helium in the same context is just rediculous on the face of it so if you agree with that interpretation I just chalk it up to immaturity and emotionalism.

A competent engineer can read, is objective, self aware and honest... and you're not getting a passing grade.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:11   

If you could read (your own writing no less) then you would see why I harped on the word nuclei, Mr. 'Helium formed complete atoms after three minutes and was therefore more plentiful than Hydrogen'.

Are you now admitting that no atoms formed before about 10^6 years (or 300000, it really makes no difference on a cosmological time scale)?

Also, let's examine my post.  Did I deny the use of the words helium and element?  No, they are in my post.  If I were denying them, I would not have typed them in.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:19   

Unlike you people, I am at work and doing something creative namely putting together a class on top down nanotechnology for professional engineers and I may get in a hurry responding to three attack dogs with nothing to do but post on here but if you would like I can send proof of my grade of "A" in nuclear physics.

I really could care less about your opinions as I am quite secure in my own shoes.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:24   

Quote
I really could care less about your opinions as I am quite secure in my own shoes.

Um, then why are you here?

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:44   

And why are you wasting your team on a forum when you should be working?

As the French say, "STFU and GBTW."

    
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:49   

Quote
Unlike you people, I am at work and doing something creative
Wrong again. I'm at work doing some civil engineering right now.

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,09:51   

Quote
I have no doubt that you are a competent engineer but you are way too emontionally invested in supporting every aspect of the evolutionary paradigm to be objective on anything said here.


And I have every reason to doubt that you are a competent engineer.  And you are demonstrably way too invested in disproving every aspect of what you erroneously include in the evolutionary paradigm to be objective on anything said here -including anything you yourself have previously said.  Furthermore, I support the scientific paradigm, of which evolution is but a small part.

Quote
Clearly, the sentence structure in Hawkings writing refers to helium nuclei being formed and he does refer to it as an element, in fact a heavier element and of course helium is heavier than hydrogen.

That was the argument for the post it had nothing to do with the hydrogen first or helium first debate.

The previous GCT post where he denys Hawking used the term element and helium in the same context is just rediculous on the face of it so if you agree with that interpretation I just chalk it up to immaturity and emotionalism.


If you were a competent engineer, you would have realized that nowhere did GCT dispute that Hawkings used the term element and helium in the same context.  Rather, having painted yourself in a corner, you trying to change the arguments YOU were making in a pathetic attempt to preserve face.  Everyone here sees right through you .

Quote
A competent engineer can read, is objective, self aware and honest... and you're not getting a passing grade.


You're projecting again.  I have researched every data I have put on this board prior to posting, even to the point of cross-referencing so that I don't rely on a single source.  You are such a poor scholar that you denied that a free proton can also be considered a hydrogen nucleus, even though one of your own sources states that they are equivalent.  You have been caught in several lies, and innumerous misrepresentations.  You can't admit to being wrong except on the most trivial points, and that only after much hounding.  You, sir, fail the above tests, not me.

You see, when competent engineers find they have made a mistake, they immediately correct it.  You refuse to do so.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:15   

Because your particular opinions are not important to me but some others are.

I wanted to see if the evos were still as egomanical, ill informed, cultish, unsophisticated and ill mannered as a couple ofyears ago.

I keep hoping that in the face of mounting evidence that disparages the very core of their ideas a light might turn on and a more open minded approach to public debate and education might prevail.

I also enjoy batting their brains out as is much in evidence here.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,16:23   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 19 2005,14:19)
...but if you would like I can send proof of my grade of "A" in nuclear physics..


How on god's green earth did you pass nuclear physics, let alone get an "A" in it, while laboring under the misapprehension that a helium nucleus is comprised of two protons? I've never been inside a nuclear physics classroom in my life and I know better than that.

Was your university in the Bahamas, by any chance?

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 19 2005,14:19)
I also enjoy batting their brains out as is much in evidence here.


If you think you're actually winning any arguments around here, you're even more delusional than you think we think you are.

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

  
Weevil



Posts: 6
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,17:58   

Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ Oct. 19 2005,14:51)
Rather, having painted yourself in a corner, you trying to change the arguments YOU were making in a pathetic attempt to preserve face.  Everyone here sees right through you.

A competent engineer can read, is objective, self aware and honest... and you're not getting a passing grade.

You are such a poor scholar that you denied that a free proton can also be considered a hydrogen nucleus, even though one of your own sources states that they are equivalent.  You have been caught in several lies, and innumerous misrepresentations.  You can't admit to being wrong except on the most trivial points, and that only after much hounding.  You, sir, fail the above tests, not me.

You see, when competent engineers find they have made a mistake, they immediately correct it.  You refuse to do so.


Too right!  I can only assume he's a troll, as no one could be that pigheaded when caught in such obvious lies by people who can point them out clearly for everyone to see, saved on the net for all who visit to see. He's so blatantly stupid he's gotta be a phony!

He's already said enough in the past couple of weeks that I no longer have to look up any information to deal with his rants, I can just point to any of the several threads where his own words catch him in the lie and he refuses to face it.  

It was even fun for a bit watching him twisting to try to escape the lancets of truth, but he's run out of record and we aren't getting anything but repeats anymore.  Watching him floundering pigheadedly about with his head in a box is only fun while he's thrashing about, but once he gets his head stuck in a corner and just keeps scrabbling in the same direction, sinking in the mire all the while..  Well, it's just pitiful to watch.

Although.. Behe, Hovind, and the rest act amazingly like him, even to the point of being caught in obvious lies by their own words and still failing to admit it, or having one or another of their arguments shown clearly to be incorrect, and failing completely to address the discrepancy.  

The only group I've ever seen with less of a handle on the truth were the Scientologists - they'd be suing to keep pro-evolutionists from ever printing quotes from 'Pandas', Fair Use or not! Or they'd try to spam any pro-evolution pages off the net,  or they might just send out a CD to all their members with a 'Free Website' offer - and
filtering software hidden on the disk to install on the sly and just delete any objectionable words or websites. ( My handle ended up on their list, that story is no rumor! )

For the sheer gall of claiming they're telling the truth when the evidence of their lies is right there in black and white..  I don't know how they live with themselves, personally.

If Evo is a troll, he's probably doing a great job at getting lurkers to follow the links and read the arguments themselves - But really, we don't need it!  Evolution stands up just fine under its own preponderance of evidence, there's no need to create a caricature of the fundies to further drive people away from them.  They're doing a fine job of that on their own.

If he's -not- a troll, well...  *points and laughs*  Bwahaha-ahahaha-heeheehee-haha!  *snerk!*
Laughable is a good word to start with, but it goes downhill from there.

The lesser of two Weevils

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,17:59   

oh come on. it should be patently obvious to anyone that has lived more that 20 years that someone who feels such a desperate need to constantly spout credentials (phony or not) does this because they simply can't rely on the strength of their arguments alone.

let me just add that evopeach is the nuttiest poster i have seen on PT, in well over a year.  and that includes folks like JAD, Charlie Wagner, and Blast.

he should congratulate himself!

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,03:32   

Eric,

I see all of you are still in denial anout the central point of debate so you can avoid having to explain how life came from non-life, whether hydrogen or helium, nuclei or atoms.

I see through you pseudo-intellectuals like a plate glass window.

I earned my "A" in nuclear physics through hard work and I really don't care about your opinions.

You people dwell on a simple typo and use it to avoid the issue that was raised initially and never answered because no one in the world has or can answer it because it never happened and ahundred years of effort have confirmed it.

Ridicule and trivial pursuits is not a sign of intelligence, but its all you people have to offer.

Lets hear the details of your demonstrable explanation to the abiogenesis question, big bang to the human brain if you like.

tick tock tick tock

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,03:43   

Weevil,

Please reread my post ... idiot.

.."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"

So sir like your other cultic evos you are the misrepresenter and liar. I never said a hydrogen nucleus was not a single proton. I said it was not a hydrogen ATOM unless there was an electron captured with it which your crowd has demonstrated did not occur until much later.

See just more intellectual dishonesty .. as usual.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,03:56   

Toejam,

Usually I don't respond to sex wierdos especially foot-sex addicts but just this once:

When your team can't understand the difference between equality and proportionality in Newton's 2nd law as he stated it and as documented by several authoritative sources ... that's ok with you I suppose.

When your team thinks SLOT has no relationship with evolutionary processes including biological life... that's ok with you.

When no one can even remotely address abiogenesis in the smallest respect other than the fallacy of defining away a problem in the face of a hundred years of effort by evos to prove its reality... thats ok with you.

Yes I call non-response, lying, misrepresentation and a complete lack of intellectual honesty a LOSING proposition for your team.

Do you suppose Tom Cruise and John Travolta are liberal democrat evolutionists or lean toward an ID perspective.

Their the most ardent Scientologists I hear about... you know Gore men.

I hold you in derision... laughable clown.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,07:27   

Quote
Usually I don't respond to sex wierdos especially foot-sex addicts
AhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAhahaha... uhhhhha...




AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!ahahaha. ahhhhhhh...

Thanks for the laugh evo. BURN!

    
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,10:32   

Quote
I really don't care about your opinions


now THAT'S laughable.

you clearly DO care about our opinions, so much so in fact, that you are willing to spend most of your supposedly valuable time posting here just to receive our endless derision for your false logic and moronic constructions.

I feel very sorry for you.  I can't believe you ever lived a life, because anybody who had wouldn't waste so much time here.

the only conclusion i can make is that you are either very young, or very old; if the later, you must be in a mental institute somewhere.

either way, you ARE mentally disturbed.

good luck with that.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,13:16   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,08:32)
Eric,

I earned my "A" in nuclear physics through hard work and I really don't care about your opinions.

You people dwell on a simple typo and use it to avoid the issue that was raised initially and never answered because no one in the world has or can answer it because it never happened and ahundred years of effort have confirmed it.


Evo Dahlink:

I might have thought it was a typo, except that you kept making the same mistake over and over again even after it was pointed out to you and you tried to correct it.

I'm not going to address your central point, that there's no step-by-step explanation for how life arose from the primordial quark soup to geniuses such as yourself, because frankly watching you flail around in the comparatively much simpler morass of elementary particle physics is much more entertaining.

No one can explain how someone as goofy as you clearly are managed to become an engineer, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why would one expect that the only-slightly-more-difficult-to-explain matter of the origin and evolution of life would be any more amenable to detailed explanation?

I do love the image of you with your head caught in a box, struggling furiously, only to get jammed in the corner, flailing helplessly. Thanks for the great image, Weevil; it's a classic.

--------------
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. 21 2005,04:47   

Eric and Toejam,


Actually I love listening to your temper tantrums because it reminds me of little boys caught in a lie and yelling and wimpering so the athority (that s me) might not whip them too hard.

Your circumlocutions, excuses and alibis for never explaining anything by means other than lies, unfounded assertions, stupidity incarnate and then thinking someone in the universe other than your fellow buttkissers are impressed is worth the time it takes to kick you to the ground ... 45 microseconds/post.

Now who go tell more people that equality is the same as proportional, SLOT and evolution are independent and unrelated principles, abiogenesis is a non-issue and no one thinks its important.... DNA is just a randomly developed molecule and the genetic code is just a sequence of chemicals and code is a misnomer.

Gas to Brain........ tick toc tic toc tic toc

My Pit Bull is named Fang and he is straining at the leash.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,05:24   

You're seriously in denial evopeach, seriously. I mean, so often I feel that anything you say about us is not true in any way, but accurately describes you. It's hard to come up with anything better than your own unwitting description of yourself. It brings to mind that old playground tactic, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you - except I wouldn't wish your threats back on you.

I'm impressed with the lengths you've taken this evopeach parody character. By all means, continue to act like an a hole, I'm fascinated, but please, really, threats just aren't cool,

man.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,06:10   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,09:47)
Actually I love listening to your temper tantrums because it reminds me of little boys caught in a lie and yelling and wimpering so the athority (that s me) might not whip them too hard.


evo! Whip us harder, Daddy! Yeah, the way you know we like it! Ooh, yeah, whip us harder!

You know, thinly-veiled homoerotic pederasty aside, you remind me a lot of Professor Erwin Corey. Remember him? The schizophrenic "World's Foremost Authority"?

You might actually be even more entertaining. Although you do have a tendency to drive the S/N here to 0 dB...

--------------
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. 21 2005,07:34   

Eric,

I had to look up that term not being a member of the homo club of evos on parade.

Tell me Frisco Fairy is evolution a required belief system to justify certain .. shall we say different life styles.

Its so telling to see all the boys herein holding each other up in the most glaring unsupportable claims.. but now that you spark the idea that would never normally come to mind its becoming clear why all boys are so totally chummy.

I just skimmed through the current Biology text used here on campus called , "LIFE" 5th edition. And what do you know an entire sub-chapter on how the SLOT governs every chemical reaction in biology from metabolism to ATP energy transfers... all of it.  You know that SLOT that has nothing to do with evolution.

Oh and then the so called definition of evolution: The change in genetic makeup in an "individual" or a "group" that is passed on to its progeny and either preserved or lost based on environental selection."

Now the operative part is "Individual" which is of course 180 degrees in opposition to the guys at talk origins.

I submit that between all of you there is not the remote possibility that you can show me or prepare a definition of Evolution in one paragraph that I cannot find a dozen totally contradictory definitions in your own literature within 72 hours of receipt.

Why? Because evolution has no definition, being a plastic ,meaningless tautology which can be and is defined on the fly to meet any investigative observation possible.

It therefore cannot be falsified, has no supporting data that is unchallenged by its own proponents as unreasonable and is incapable of being defined.

Show me wrong... give me the definition.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,08:06   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,12:34)
Eric,



I submit that between all of you there is not the remote possibility that you can show me or prepare a definition of Evolution in one paragraph that I cannot find a dozen totally contradictory definitions in your own literature within 72 hours of receipt.

Why? Because evolution has no definition, being a plastic ,meaningless tautology which can be and is defined on the fly to meet any investigative observation possible.

It therefore cannot be falsified, has no supporting data that is unchallenged by its own proponents as unreasonable and is incapable of being defined.

Show me wrong... give me the definition.

evo,

Normally I wouldn't bother engaging you in an actual discussion of the Theory of Evolution, because it's clear you have absolutely no understanding of it, and worse, no desire to understand it.

But let me pose a homework assignment for you: give me a definition for quantum theory that's less than two pages long, and that contains within it a precise synopsis of the theory. And before you start scurrying around, let me quote Richard Feynmann for you: "I think it can safely be said that no one understands quantum theory."

Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand (to the extent there even is a topic at hand on this thread), but it's been my observation, living here as I do in San Francisco, that the more homophobic someone is, the more worried he is that he might be, well, you know, a little swish himself.

Just a thought.

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

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,08:22   

In The Behe / Astrology thread, I raised EvoP's bet on the outcome of the Dover trial from 1 month absence from this forum to permanent exile.  Of course, he didn't take me up on it.  But now that I think about it, I'm relieved he won't.  Every forum needs a troll to argue with, just like every king needs a fool.  Of course, by now a real king would probably have EvoP's head in a basket--there is a point after which even a compassionate king recognizes when legitimate satire has turned into senseless hatred and abuse.

But he sure is fun to have around in a morbidly anachronistic way.  I'd only caution that we don't let him distract us from real discussion amongst ourselves.  The kingdom needs tending after all. :)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,11:04   

Swoosh are you accepting the original bet bacause I don't think anyone has gutted it up yet to accept period.

Oh and the reason I keep posting is that I do from time to time like to engage my ego by mentally stomping a few evos, democrats, atheists, socialists, losers and here I can hit them all with one swat.

As usual equivocation, hiding, assertion, insult and just about anything but the ability to debate rationally what appears from the evo team.

  
TheMissingLink



Posts: 19
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,11:19   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,16:04)
Oh and the reason I keep posting is that I do from time to time like to engage my ego by mentally stomping a few evos, democrats, atheists, socialists, losers and here I can hit them all with one swat.

Ha ha.. you must be very insecure.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,11:29   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,16<!--emo&:0)
Oh and the reason I keep posting is that I do from time to time like to engage my ego by mentally stomping a few evos, democrats, atheists, socialists, losers and here I can hit them all with one swat.

As usual equivocation, hiding, assertion, insult and just about anything but the ability to debate rationally what appears from the evo team.

Evo,

In your attempt to frame a rational debate on the subject of the evolution from "helium" to the human brain, you weren't even able to get out of the starting gate without tripping over your own shoes-tied-together feet.

Surely you don't expect anyone to waste their time explaining abiogenesis to you when the simpest concepts about the simplest subatomic particles seem to elude you.

Is your hair naturally orange, or do you dye it that way?

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

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

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

Quote
Is your hair naturally orange, or do you dye it that way?
Ooooh! Ooooh! Do we have a picture of evopeach? That would be awesome. I would love to see who I'm arguing with!

    
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,17:30   

Quote (FishyFred @ Oct. 21 2005,22:17)
Ooooh! Ooooh! Do we have a picture of evopeach? That would be awesome. I would love to see who I'm arguing with!


Not that I'm aware of. But given his clown-like attempts to disprove evolution, I assumed his hair was pretty orange.

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

  
  89 replies since Oct. 03 2005,09:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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