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 >  
Henry J



Posts: 4098
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: 1373
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: 1373
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: 1373
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: 4098
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

  
  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]