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: 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: 4114
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

  
  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]