RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (10) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 >   
  Topic: Top Tard Quotes, Surely you save them too....< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2008,14:32   

The Desmon Morris list, so far;

Quote
Alison, Sevenoaks, UK, 27/12/2008 2:12 Rubbish, Darwin recanted on his deathbed, he believed in God and knew we didn't come from monkeys, if we did, why haven't the monkeys in zoos turned into men?


Alison, You have repeated a century old lie attributed to the evangelist Lady Hope. It was repudiated by Dawrin’s wife Emma and his daughter, who were with Charles R. at his death. They pointed out that Lady Hope was never in Darwin’s house near the time of his death. As to your confusion about common descent (why are there still monkeys?) The first error you make is that there is a particular evolutionary goal- monkeys are not teleologically directed to become humans. The second is summed up by asking, “If you came from your grandparents, why do you have cousins?” Or, “If America was founded by Europeans, why are there Europeans?”  

Quote
David, uk, 27/12/2008 08:46 The idea was that it was created perfect then man´s downfall made it bad. Take it or leave it but don´t distort it. As for evolution, it was around a long time before Darwin, he just made it fit with an atheist version.


David, Creationists are ignorant about science, and also theology and history. The notion that prior to the “Fall of Man” the creation was “perfect” is not biblical. In Genesis 1:31, God expressed (for the sake of argument) that the creation was “very good.” God was pleased. That would necessarily include the creation of “the serpent” who appeared in Gen 3:1. The notion that “very good” should exclude things we humans dislike is categorically rejected in Job 38.  Darwin’s scientific contribution was twofold, he provided a mechanism for evolution, and he combined this insight with actual observations. These had already been published in his “Voyage of the Beagle,” and in scientific proceedings. Far from being atheistic, the word “agnostic” was coined specifically to describe the proper attitude of science toward the supernatural.

Quote
Billie, York, 27/12/2008 07:50 Why hasn't Alfred Russell Wallace been given any credit in this article? If it wasn't for Wallace making the same but independant discovery as Darwin 20 years later, the truth may have never come out, because Darwin didn't have the guts to publish his theories and anger the church. Thankfully, Wallace had no such compulsions so Darwin was pushed into publishing or losing the credit. Wallace was later discredited because of his belief in mediums and the occult but that shouldn't mean that he is erased from history altogether, he was an extremely clever man.


Billie, The article is prompted by the impending celebrations of Darwin’s anniversaries. Wait for Wallace’s birthday, and throw a big party. I will note that Wallace was the first to receive the gold Darwin-Wallace Medal from the Linnean Society of London. Creationists attack Darwin because he is better known, and they like single targets.

Quote
catnap, Swansea Wales, 26/12/2008 22:10 Darwin was a great man indeed, his Origin of the Species is a masterpiece of how different life forms have physically evolved. However there is something missing, and that is a theory of the evolution of behaviour (or of the brain). All animals display behavioral traits, likes and dislikes, individual and group behaviour, preferences and prejudices etc. Where do our emotions come from? Why are they there? What purpose did they serve? Whether you consider certain behaviour as good or bad is irrelevant. That behaviour served a purpose in the past and is a consequence of evolution. For example, where does racial prejudice come from? Could it be from the requirement for group survival?


Catnap, There is a book by C. R. Darwin that you might look into, “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals” published in 1872. The argument that biological  emotional and cognitive skills equate to “racism” is a false-step. When we start dealing with humans, we must be cautious that historical accident and social reification are not taken to be absolute. Languages make an excellent counter example. Any normal human baby can be taught any “mother tongue.”  Early linguists of the Nineteenth Century believed that facility in a particular language was innately inherited. This was persuasive to Ernst Haeckel, who concluded that other traits we now know are cultural were biological.


Quote
Watchkeeper, UK, 26/12/2008 19:25 "... this blue-green slime was the original ooze from which all life on this planet evolved."

Oh, really? And the experimental evidence to support this hypothesis would be ... what? As Richard Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." There is absolutely no experimental evidence to support the hypothesis that all life on this planet evolved from blue-green slime. None. It must be accepted by faith. That is unscientific, and the hypothesis should therefore be rejected.


Watchkeeper, That we, and all other life on earth have as a common ancestor a “monera” is supported by genetics and geochemistry. (I use the term monera as intended historically, as the precursor to the bacteria, archaea and eukarya.) The theory of evolution is not dependent on the origin of life. But, for those interested I recommend;  Iris Fry, 2000 "The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview" (Rutgers University Press) is the best general reader book available on the topic. It is eight years old, and a second edition is warranted to bring her presentation up to date. A bit more technical is J. William Schopf (editor), 2002 “Life’s Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution” (University of California Press), but it is well worth the effort.

Quote
Richard Morant, Houston Texas, USA, 26/12/2008 19:14, Hy Ds,
I have never gotten over a statement you made about a decade ago on your superb series about Human Sexuality.
The crux of your statement atrributed to Evolution, the early demise of the males in the populaton. Thus leaving the family to wife and grandmother.
Although I love Science, I could never figure out, how the genes passed on at the conception of a male baby, could then be told at some later date, remotely, to self destruct when he was older.
I realise that if they were already there, they could be passed on.
What kind of influence could possibly make a persons genes change from original programming to then, go back in time, to affect him after he was born.
I believe that Scientists are using evolution in conversation, as if it were a creative, omnipotent influence.; and THAT, is proposterous.


Richard Morant, You have made several errors in less than 1000 characters. While most cells have fixed lifetimes, the notion that human males are “… told at some later date, remotely, to self destruct” is absurd, and not at all what any scientist would suggest. We human males (and some of our non-human brothers) have elevated levels of Corticosteroids. This gives us some advantages in muscle mass, shortened reaction times- even heightened anger. It also leads to hypertension, connective tissue degradation and cation imbalances. In short, we hunt and fight good, and otherwise stroke out, or have heart attacks. This has nothing to do at all with reproductive fitness- in fact well built, aggressive “macho-men” are quite popular. What is “preposterous” is that you think we attribute omnipotence to biology.

Quote
James Plaskett, Cartagena, Spain, 26/12/2008 16:27 It´s all very well to point out how well-adapted finches beaks may be, but the big snag for those who extoll Darwin´s idea of Natural Selection is that the simplest of all living things is perfectly adapted to any and all environments.

Monocellular bacteria do alright on alpine peaks, in deserts, Antartic tundra, jungles or 10,000 metres down in the ocean.

So the whole idea of things becoming better adapted through natural selection is wrong.

Sorry.


James Plaskett, You seem to have the odd idea that all bacteria are the same. It is true that species concepts are more fluid when dealing with bacteria, but never to the degree you imagine. At the same time, I note that it did take at least 3 billion years before we see complex metazoans emerge mostly single celled life. But, geochemistry provides very good guides at to what changing environmental conditions contributed, along with natural selection and genetic variation. The level of changes were on the order of entire global chemistry alteration. Search on the Archean atmosphere just to start.

Edited by Dr.GH on Dec. 29 2008,12:47

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3557
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2008,14:46   

Front Loading=3.5 billion years of lost history.

No?

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2008,10:36   

Some more for you guys:

http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum....nt57774

 
Quote
Job 38:22 (written 3,500 years ago). God says: "Have you entered into the treasures of the snow?"

It wasn't until the advent of the microscope that man discovered that each and every single snowflake is uniquely a symmetrical "treasure."


God asked Job a very strange question in 1500 B.C. He asked,


"Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35).

This appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement; that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that all electromagnetic radiation; from radio waves to x-rays; travels at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. The fact that light could be sent and then manifest itself in speech wasn't discovered by science until 1864 (3,300 years later), when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).


and:

 
Quote
The rotary motor in the E. coli bacteria has long been the poster child of intelligent design theorists. Their case became more compelling in 2008 as scientists reported in the June 20 issue of Science the discovery of a nanotechnology clutch that disengages the bacterium flagellum's tail from the engine that powers its rotation. The clutch “solution” is a neat, effective and potentially reversible mechanism. The science community is well aware that nanotechnology successes are achieved only by the application of sophisticated science and intelligent engineering design.

More: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080619/full/news.2008.903.html

Looks like the ID case may be coming together despite what the Dover court decided.


and:

 
Quote
You should read what the experts say. Evolution is a big deception


finally:

 
Quote
Deception - there is a long list - Archaeoraptor, Mononykus, Java man, Orce man, Hahnshofersand man, the peppered moths, Nebraska man, Lucy, is that enough?
Richard Dawkins said that feathers are modified reptilian scales - he should have known better!
There are plenty of experts, such as Dr Soren Lovtrup said that one day the Darwinian myth will be exposed as the greatest deceit of the history of science.
The Encyclopedie Francaise says that 'Evolution is impossible'
There is plenty more, too much to list here.


Do bear in mind that these are YEC/OECs living in the UK, not the deep south/bible belt of the US.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2008,11:06   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Dec. 31 2008,10:36)
Do bear in mind that these are YEC/OECs living in the UK, not the deep south/bible belt of the US.

Peter - Yes, they are Euro-Tards, so You, my good man, must deal with them, but I will help.

For example, lets say that   you  a friend someone   invites them up to Belfast, and somehow the IRA thinks that they are orange, and you someone tells the damn prods they are papists.  Sit back and watch as the hilarity ensues.

If the fire and the demand gets big enough, perhaps we could charter a flight direct from Seattle to Belfast?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2008,11:32   

Come on now j-Dog  ! We've moved on in the last few years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC-F8snbr2M&feature=related

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2008,11:52   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Dec. 31 2008,08:36)
http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum....nt57774
Quote
The rotary motor in the E. coli bacteria has long been the poster child of intelligent design theorists. Their case became more compelling in 2008 as scientists reported in the June 20 issue of Science the discovery of a nanotechnology clutch that disengages the bacterium flagellum's tail from the engine that powers its rotation. The clutch “solution” is a neat, effective and potentially reversible mechanism. The science community is well aware that nanotechnology successes are achieved only by the application of sophisticated science and intelligent engineering design.

More: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080619/full/news.2008.903.html

Looks like the ID case may be coming together despite what the Dover court decided.



Do bear in mind that these are YEC/OECs living in the UK, not the deep south/bible belt of the US.

The quote by "Dr." Blake tracted back to Do'L's "post-darwinist" buy my book blog!

That idiot is quoteing THE IDiot.

Edited by Dr.GH on Dec. 31 2008,10:15

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2008,13:06   

Peter, I signed up at the "premier community" site. However, I don't want to step on your toes.

Shall I chime in?

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2008,14:15   

Gary: Feel free to join us ! I'm sure you would be made very welcome.They actually seem quite a friendly bunch (as church circles go) as I've received quite a few very welcoming messages on my homepage !

However, this particular thread is a goldmine for tard quotes. Michael Roberts (Michael is a Church of England vicar and a former geologist) is having a whale of a time (he posts from time to time on the PT). He's highly qualified in the subject, written several books, and has had a number of papers peer reviewed.

At the moment Phil Stilliard is producing the best quotes:

Quote
Michael you asked: When am I going to find a good creationist or ID argument?
1. DNA and proteins cannot exist separately, each needs the other to replicate. So the difficult question for evolutionists is, which came first, DNA or protein?
2. even simple forms of life are far to complex to have been created by chance, even a simple bacterium. So how were they created?
3. Life exists at the tops of snow-covered peaks, and at the bottoms of the deepest oceans, could this be spontaneous generation?
4. Could your bike evolve into a 4-wheeler?


Quote
Michael, you are wrong, some of the most eminent scientists have changed their opinion about evolution, such as British palaeontologist Derek V Ager said that there is no evidence of gradual evolution.
Richard Dawkins said that most animals do not have any evolutionary history.
Dr Allan Sandage said that it is impossible to create order out of chaos, eg 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, first stated in The Bible 2500 years ago!
In 2004 Professor Anthony Flew renounced atheism because he said that the argument to ID is too strong.
Professor Frank Tippler renounced his atheism and wrote a book on showing that the claims of Judaeo- Christian theology are true.
others - Einstein, Wernher von Braun, Dr HS Lipton, Winston Churchill, Kenneth J Hsu, Malcolm Muggeridge, George Wald Nobel Laureate, the list is too long!


to which Michael has replied:

Quote
Somewhat inaccurate dear friend

Ager argued for punctuated equilibrium and was convinced of evolution and the vast age of the earth. He often objected to being misrepresented by the likes of you and said so in a letter to me.

Spell out what Dawkins actually said

Absurd to say 2nd Law in Bible 2500 years ago!

Difficult to grasp most of your confusion

Sorry I might then be able to answer :)


Andrew is also pure class:

Quote
Psalm 19:4-6: "In them has He set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."

Bible critics have scoffed at these verses, saying that they teach that the sun revolves around the earth. Science told them that the sun was stationary. Then they discovered that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is traveling through the heavens and has a "circuit" just as the Bible says. It is estimated that its circuit is so large, it would take 200 million years to complete one orbit.


A good tard quote deseves a good answer:

Quote
complete and utter nonsense


The more the merrier Gary. This is even better than the old Talkorigins feedback page or John Steer's (NAIG) e-mails !

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2008,15:42   

and another classic from Andrew:

 
Quote
The Bible and Entropy

Three different places in the Bible (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25,26; and Hebrews 1:11) indicate that the earth C space is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increasing Entropy) states: that in all physical processes, every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. Everything is running down and wearing out as energy is becoming less and less available for use. That means the universe will eventually "wear out" to the extent that (theoretically speaking) there will be a "heat death" and therefore no more energy available for use. This wasn't discovered by science until recently, but the Bible states it in concise terms C space only.

51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but My salvation shall be for EVER, and My Righteousness shall not be abolished.

102:25 Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of Thy hands.
102:26 They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed (re-incarnated):

1:7 And unto the angels He saith, Who maketh His angels spirits (Beings), and His ministers a flame of fire (energy).
1:8 But unto the Son [He saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy Kingdom.
1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated inequity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (spirit-beings).
1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the Beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

The Bible and the First Law of Thermodynamics of C space only!

The Scriptures say,

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (Genesis 2:1).

The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished" ... once and for all. That is exactly what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. This law (often referred to as the Law of the Conservation of Energy and/or Mass) states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed.

It was because of this Law that Sir Fred Hoyle's "Steady-State" (or "Continuous Creation") Theory was discarded. Hoyle stated that at points in the universe called "irtrons," matter (or energy) was constantly being created. But, the First Law states just the opposite. Indeed, there is no "creation" ongoing today. It is "finished" exactly as the Bible states.C space only!


I did remind him that it was the discovery of the CMBR that discredited Hoyle's steady state theory

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2008,19:24   

and another one from Phil:

 
Quote
Lucy was a skull that was more imagination than bone; no reasonable deduction could be made about whether it was more ape or human. It was held by some to be human.
The peppered moth story was based on photos of dead moths that were glued to the tree, the deception was that they were portrayed as living moths. This was published in encyclopedia Britannica.


I think the person posting these is a maths teacher. Unbelievable.  :O

  
MIchael Roberts



Posts: 13
Joined: Oct. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,09:56   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Dec. 31 2008,19:24)
and another one from Phil:

 
Quote
Lucy was a skull that was more imagination than bone; no reasonable deduction could be made about whether it was more ape or human. It was held by some to be human.
The peppered moth story was based on photos of dead moths that were glued to the tree, the deception was that they were portrayed as living moths. This was published in encyclopedia Britannica.


I think the person posting these is a maths teacher. Unbelievable.  :O

Peter

Your mickeytake of British evangelicals is quite unbecoming.

They all went ape when I put up a thread about the discovery of P Garner's name on the BNP membership list (To all Americans the BNP British National Party is ultra-right wing racist)

The wonderful Derek Burke even complained to my bishop about it.

Perhaps an American could post on Premier inquiring about Garner's membership of the BNP.

Michael

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,12:00   

Quote
The wonderful Derek Burke even complained to my bishop about it.


Again, quite unbelevible Michael.

I can't quite figure Derek out. He's well educated appears to be left of centre in his politics. Apparently he worked in the defence industry and resigned his post over the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands war (an admirable thing to do, in my opinion). And yet, he seems to have some sympathies with the BNP (or maybe it's Garner he feels sorry for).

One person posting on the thread has connections with HW Armstrong's former church, which is regarded in some circles as being a cult.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,16:18   

Quote
The peppered moth story was based on photos of dead moths that were glued to the tree, the deception was that they were portrayed as living moths.

One might even say that by making these claims about peppered moths, they've a salted science.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,18:18   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 01 2009,14:18)
Quote
The peppered moth story was based on photos of dead moths that were glued to the tree, the deception was that they were portrayed as living moths.

One might even say that by making these claims about peppered moths, they've a salted science.

I should have something pithy - but I got nothing.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
1of63



Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,19:52   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 01 2009,18:18)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 01 2009,14:18)
 
Quote
The peppered moth story was based on photos of dead moths that were glued to the tree, the deception was that they were portrayed as living moths.

One might even say that by making these claims about peppered moths, they've a salted science.

I should have something pithy - but I got nothing.

How about the peppered moth calumny is as big a pile of horseshit as Behe's nonsense about the mousetrap - sort of a Behe-moth of a lie?

[Exeunt pursued by various missiles and jibes]

--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2009,17:04   

Some help required here guys. I'm sure this is an example of quote mining:


 
Quote
Reply by Dr. Derek P. Blake 5 hours ago

I think everyone here should read this article on CDK or the speed of light slowing down. The theory and findings from one of our foremost physicists Paul Davies (not a creationist I hasten to add). Find the article on:

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_7-10.pdf

Happy reading everyone.


He's quoting from a CMI article by Carl Weiland:

 
Quote
Headlines in several newspapers
around the world have publicized a
paper in Nature by a team of scientists
(including the famous physicist
Paul Davies) who (according to these
reports) claim that ‘light has been
slowing down since the creation of
the universe’.1 In view of the potential significance of the whole ‘light slowing down’ issue to creationists, it is worth reviewing it briefly here.


i can't seem to find the original Nature article. However, there are lots of YEC claims on the research. Has Paul Davies been quotemined or has he put his foot in it and handed the cretins a gift ?

 
Quote
Reply by Dr. Derek P. Blake 25 minutes ago
I think you will find that the jury is still out on light speed variation as there is current research going on at this moment. However, where did I say I subscribed to the CDK theory; it’s one of the constants that our model of the universe has been built upon? I just thought it was interesting but I at least have an open mind to these things, which is more than can be said for some on this forum. Mock me if wish but I would be proud to be associated with anything Paul Davies is involved in. If we accept that light can be bent by massif gravitational anomalies and hence space itself then surely it may me possible for the speed of light to be varied through dark matter, or affected by dark energies. Be careful not to open your minds too much, they may get wet and soggy. It’s people like you who impede the progress of science, the evolutional luddites.
.

Or maybe this is one for Dr. Rosenhouse ?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2009,17:22   

That leaves me wondering something - if it's not constant, against what would the difference be detected?

After all, aren't all our time measurement devices themselves based on how long it takes light to span some preset distance? I.e., it looks to me as though our measurement of time is itself relative to the speed of light.

Henry

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2009,18:03   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 07 2009,17:22)
That leaves me wondering something - if it's not constant, against what would the difference be detected?

After all, aren't all our time measurement devices themselves based on how long it takes light to span some preset distance? I.e., it looks to me as though our measurement of time is itself relative to the speed of light.

Henry

One of the most precise measurements we can make today is the inverse of time, or frequency (current uncertainties approaching 1E-15).  Atomic resonant frequencies are determined primarily by the dimensionless fine structure constant, alpha, which includes c, as well as Plank's constant, elementary charge and free-space permeability.  By measuring spectra from distant objects, changes in alpha, and presumably in c, can be inferred.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2009,18:22   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Jan. 07 2009,15:04)
i can't seem to find the original Nature article. However, there are lots of YEC claims on the research. Has Paul Davies been quotemined or has he put his foot in it and handed the cretins a gift ?

I read the Nature article a year or so ago when Slimy Sal Cordova was flogging it.  The maximum change that Davies is talking about is billions of times too small to support YEC claims.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
MIchael Roberts



Posts: 13
Joined: Oct. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,03:57   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 07 2009,18:22)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Jan. 07 2009,15:04)
i can't seem to find the original Nature article. However, there are lots of YEC claims on the research. Has Paul Davies been quotemined or has he put his foot in it and handed the cretins a gift ?

I read the Nature article a year or so ago when Slimy Sal Cordova was flogging it.  The maximum change that Davies is talking about is billions of times too small to support YEC claims.

Yes, but it is good for sermons.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,10:00   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 07 2009,17:22)
The maximum change that Davies is talking about is billions of times too small to support YEC claims.

Well sure, but what's a few orders of magnitude between friends? :p

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,16:46   

Not exactly an evilushin quote, but too good not to inflict on youse lot:

 
Quote
Until original sin, mankind enjoyed a pre-pubertal sexual innocence. To judge by the one human being we know who is free from original sin, the Blessed Virgin Mary, human procreation before original sin seems to have been virginal, that is, not involving an active role on the part of either the male or female.


(From a letter in The Irish Times Monday 5 January 2009) (AD, in case you're wondering).

The subject of the letter was The Catholic Church and Celibacy.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,18:42   

Quote
It is clear from the reading of Genesis 3:16 favoured by both the Catholic Douai-Rheims Bible and the Protestant King James Bible that the consequences of original sin were, and always have been: problems with fecundity, childbirth, and carnal concupiscence; problems with the environment and earning a living; decay and death.


Hmm ! Does this mean that caesarean sections (or epidurals for that matter) contradict a literal reading of the book of Genesis ? Must put that one to the cretins on Premier.

  
khan



Posts: 1482
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,18:54   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Jan. 08 2009,19:42)
Quote
It is clear from the reading of Genesis 3:16 favoured by both the Catholic Douai-Rheims Bible and the Protestant King James Bible that the consequences of original sin were, and always have been: problems with fecundity, childbirth, and carnal concupiscence; problems with the environment and earning a living; decay and death.


Hmm ! Does this mean that caesarean sections (or epidurals for that matter) contradict a literal reading of the book of Genesis ? Must put that one to the cretins on Premier.

I recall it being argued by some who never tried to shove a watermelon through a hose.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,00:03   

Quote (khan @ Jan. 08 2009,18:54)
I recall it being argued by some who never tried to shove a watermelon through a hose.

And, of course, we have the Intelligent Designer to thank for the design. :angry:

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
stevestory



Posts: 8896
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,00:13   

Quote (khan @ Jan. 08 2009,19:54)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Jan. 08 2009,19:42)
Quote
It is clear from the reading of Genesis 3:16 favoured by both the Catholic Douai-Rheims Bible and the Protestant King James Bible that the consequences of original sin were, and always have been: problems with fecundity, childbirth, and carnal concupiscence; problems with the environment and earning a living; decay and death.


Hmm ! Does this mean that caesarean sections (or epidurals for that matter) contradict a literal reading of the book of Genesis ? Must put that one to the cretins on Premier.

I recall it being argued by some who never tried to shove a watermelon through a hose.

:D

   
stevestory



Posts: 8896
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,00:15   

If the birth canal had been Intelligently Designed, especially by men, there would be a ziplock exit to the uterus.

Yellow and blue make green!

:D

   
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,10:49   

And, French and Spanish make...

  
Ra-Úl



Posts: 93
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,11:47   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 09 2009,10:49)
And, French and Spanish make...

. . . Provençal . . .
In 1963 my mother in conversation with our new minister described the birthing techniques at the hospital she was goint o give birth in shortly. He then quoted the "in pain shalt thou bear children" bit from Genesis. After the minister left I heard mom tell dad something to the effect that she'd like to hear the young new minister tell his own wife about that . . .
:p

--------------
Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 230
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,12:20   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 09 2009,09:49)
And, French and Spanish make...

...Euskara?

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

  
  297 replies since June 28 2007,14:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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