Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ? started by Peter Henderson


Posted by: Peter Henderson on Sep. 08 2009,09:59

I came across this post on Premier Radio's discussion forum. A reply from a question, asking if the poster had any geology qualifications:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i have studied geology and my daughter has a masters degree in geology and currently doing a PhD in it we have both talked and i have read some of the books and modules.
matthew i wasnt interested in ages of rocks at all! i think the structures are very interesting and fascinating.and when you look at metamorphic rocks its fascinating when you think of them being remelted and flowing like toffee.
i never thought about faith and geology i suppose i just junk the bits that are opposed to Bible content.i felt sickened though when it came to the evolution parts and could not continue it seemed completely wrong and bad. i could not even do the coursework assignments. how strange now i think about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and further:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i also rejected the idea of evolution while a child and abandonded doing a degree because i was so unhappy with the evolution module.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not sure if her daughter junked the "evolution parts" and still ended up with a masters. Is this possible ? I would have thought not since the evolution parts play quite an important part in the subject.

< http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum....t234117 >
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 08 2009,11:03

There are people quite able to maintain logic walls between conflicting ideas. They tend to be conflict avoident in their social lives as well.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 08 2009,12:56

that's why it's fun to nail them to a position and flog them with it!

unless they are your cousins in which case the fun diminishes exponentially as a function of the number of times a year you see them at yer granmaws house.

had an interesting conversation, afloat, with a young earther recently.  riding over and through and between mississippian and pennsylvanian limestone bluffs, this person simply could not grasp the full import of her acknowledging the rocks as "sedimentary', i.e. that it made nonsense of her bible.  she was not a geologist but is smart enough to know better.  as gary alludes, the capacity to compartmentalize may well be the most powerful ability of the human species.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 08 2009,18:27

I don't know one could be a structural geologist or geophysicist without really needing evolutionary theory. Of course there is that whole age of the earth thing, but that is a separate issue.
Posted by: ppb on Sep. 08 2009,18:45

I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 08 2009,20:47

I think that you could for almost any subject without compartmentalizing. You just need to remember by rote all of the stuff. I think that knowing how oil formed and why it is found is such and such a strata can certainly help, but a person could just as learn that oil is found in these conditions.

When I did mechanical engineering we had people who just remember the equations but wouldn't have the faintest idea on how to derive the equations which I think is a similar mindset.


What these people will never do is advance knowledge.
Posted by: OWKtree on Sep. 09 2009,10:03

I suspect that a lot would have to do with what the major disconnects were between your religious beliefs and your education on the subject.

If you were a literalist about the earth's creation then I expect geology in general would be an issue.  "Deep time" is simply too important in the study of rocks, and especially sedimentary deposits.  And more so if you're in the oil industry where you are not only concerned in finding the deposits, but also how long it was buried and at what sort of tempetures.

If you're issue is more of the "I ain't descended from no monkey" mode then I expect you can be much more in synch with the age of the Earth and geology in general while keeping evolution and biology in a separate compartment so to speak.  

Or possibly accepting general evolutionary principles and simply holding homo sapiens as a special creation.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Sep. 28 2009,21:12

Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I have an acquaintance who worked for an oil company for many years as a geologist.  He now holds a government position as he also had a degree in law--but his work still requires geological background.  He's YEC and has no problem.

He says it's really no big deal among his peers, because he could do the work.  It's mostly knowing the geology and not the debate about the origin or age when it comes to oil.

I guess origins has to do with the past and money has to do with the present! :D
Posted by: Scienthuse on Sep. 28 2009,21:24

Quote (OWKtree @ Sep. 09 2009,10:03)
I suspect that a lot would have to do with what the major disconnects were between your religious beliefs and your education on the subject.

If you were a literalist about the earth's creation then I expect geology in general would be an issue.  "Deep time" is simply too important in the study of rocks, and especially sedimentary deposits.  And more so if you're in the oil industry where you are not only concerned in finding the deposits, but also how long it was buried and at what sort of tempetures.

If you're issue is more of the "I ain't descended from no monkey" mode then I expect you can be much more in synch with the age of the Earth and geology in general while keeping evolution and biology in a separate compartment so to speak.  

Or possibly accepting general evolutionary principles and simply holding homo sapiens as a special creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems like the major emphasis with my friend/ acquaintance (former) geologist was finding oil, not your personal interpretations.  He talks alot about the complexity of underground formations and the forminefera.  He had to know the equipment he used of course.  Seems like more of a technical job than all the debate.  Debate forums tend to have varying degrees of philosophical banter along with the operational science.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Sep. 29 2009,21:39

Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Sep. 30 2009,19:09

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 29 2009,21:39)
Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a prejudice statement.  That's like saying all evolutionists are liberal tree hugging socialists.

I thought this was a science forum!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 30 2009,19:16

Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,20:09)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 29 2009,21:39)
 
Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a prejudice statement.  That's like saying all evolutionists are liberal tree hugging socialists.

I thought this was a science forum!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, you could offer some science to discuss instead of Creationism.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Sep. 30 2009,22:36

Or perhaps we might talk a bit about your  presumptive philosophy which thinks it lays claim to all operational science, by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain.  This is entirely presumptive on your part.  And you ignore at the same time the helium inside, which most of it should have long dissipated if the earth is 4.6 billion.  So far I have heard alot of sarcasm and insults, making me wonder if this place is worth the headache.  

Where are the searchers for truth.  All I see is  a bunch of closed minded vultures swooning in the thought of a potential kill. You'll not find me so green and tender.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Sep. 30 2009,22:52

I came on here and offered personal experience of knowing a geologist, in response to someone stating that there b-in-law was YEC for an oil company, so that's why I said what I said.  But if you think for one minute that I'll waste my time being insulted or that I'll overlook your inferences--then your wrong.  There are other debate sites.

I read one post where the person was whining how no YEC had come along who knew anything.  Well I do know a bit--not just the Bible--but why should I debate people who want to express their disdain towards YECs on me?  i don't have time for that!!!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,23:00

hey scienthuse you seem to be a friendly chap.  i hope ya stick around

i don't know anything about lead isotopes etc etc etc.  there are entire libraries full of things that i don't know.  

but i do know enough about the distribution of plants and animals to know that the bible story about the flood never happened.

but i sure hope you get this thing about lead off of your chest (i hear it's heavy, for one thing).  i know there are folks around here that know much more about that sort of thing than the rest of us.  i wanna hear what you have to say.

if you have paid any attention to the antics of Floyd Lee perhaps you will understand why "innocent until proven guilty" is a difficult standard to live up to?  we've had some doozies drop by over the years, and some have stuck around (see that fellow Chatfield over there in the corner, wearing the latex penguin suit, shhh he's looking, anyway, just don't ask him why he's wearing a postit note mustachioe)

don't run off now, heeah?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2009,23:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So far I have heard alot of sarcasm and insults, making me wonder if this place is worth the headache.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain.  This is entirely presumptive on your part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, how is "This is entirely presumptive on your part" not sarcasm and insult?

Henry
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,04:26

I was being rather blunt and reactionary as a result of other posts and the comment made earlier that YECs are just about money.  I'm not here to make trouble--but I would ask that we be civil. Just because you don't agree with someone is no reason to get sarcastic.

What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 01 2009,04:34

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are *any* radiometric dating methods, in your opinion, reliable then?
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,05:07

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 01 2009,04:34)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are *any* radiometric dating methods, in your opinion, reliable then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given the questions I posed I don't see how they could be.  If there were no doubts raised and there was a method that was as good as empirical, I would be forced to be an old earth creationist.

This is the entire problem with being dogmatic on many points in origins--it is historical science, and not completely empirical.
Posted by: faded_Glory on Oct. 01 2009,06:20

First of all, hello, I'm a long time lurker here. I've contributed to other boards in the past, such as ARN, IIDB and even have a couple of posts on UncommonDescent, but I have never posted here before.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I have an Msc in geology and have worked for nearly 30 years in the oil industry. Here are some of my thoughts on the OP.

As narrow and specialised it may appear to outsiders, geology is actually quite a broad discipline that covers a wide field of natural phenomena and meshes with numerous other sciences, such as physics, chemistry, astronomy and of course biology. There are actually specialisms in geology that don't relate much to the age of the earth and the geological time scale, and I think it would be possible to be for instance a geochemist or geophysicist and strictly stick to the chemical and physical aspects of rocks and their development without worrying about evolution etc. at all. There are many questions worth investigating in those fields that are time-independent to a large degree.

However, the lingo and thinking of geology as a whole is permeated by the concept of deep time, and it would be very hard indeed to converse with peers without at least silently going along with the default position of an old earth and processes playing out over millions of years. The science of geology has over its lifetime of several hundreds of years managed to construct an amazing narrative of the planet's history, on scales ranging from the epic billion-year time line, to highly detailed fine-grained models of microscale processes. This narrative is the paradigm in which we work, the canvas on which we paint, the reality that makes sense of our observations and theories. For a professional like myself working with sedimentary rocks and models of their evolution over time, it is virtually unthinkable to have to cram all observations and thinking into a mere 6000 year window - almost nothing would make sense anymore. We would have lost the paradigm that allows us to place individual observations in a wider context, apply our familiar and well understood processes and ultimately make useful predictions.

I have had conversations with someone who claimed to be a YEC and take decisions on where to drill oil wells. It turned out that all he did was following existing trends without worrying too much about why the trend was there in the first place. This may work, sometimes and within limits, in established production areas but he would be incapable of proposing an exploration campaign in a new area justified by a sound, holistic model of the petroleum potential. I have never come across an oil or gas company that would accept investment proposals without the technical staff being able to present such a comprehensive view based on the accepted tenets of modern geological science.

Bottom line - in certain highly specialist and technical specialisms of geology one might get away with it, but nowhere else without completely losing one's professional foothold.

fG
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 01 2009,08:25

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,05:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not a geologist, but I do know that with radiometric dating they try to use multiple methods whenever possible to verify their data.  If they get consistent results from two different methods it is hard to see how the contamination would also be consistent.  You shouldn't presume that the experts in the field don't consider such questions.  They do.

As far as my YEC brother-in-law, he was married to the sister of my ex-wife, and I haven't kept close touch with him.  I do know he is no longer working for the oil company, but I'm not sure if he is still using his geology degree.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2009,09:37

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,02:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I am always surprised when a YEC assumes that we have not already grappled with, and resolved the problems regarding radiometric dates they find so difficult.  Their false satisfaction relies on two assumptions; we scientists are dumb, and that their misinterpretation of the Bible is itself infallible.

But don't take my word for anything. I am tired of explaining this to creationists.

Here is an article on radiometric dating written by a Christian for other Christians hosted on a Christian website: < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective > by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.


Posted by: OWKtree on Oct. 01 2009,10:31

I also believe from my limited layman reading on the subject, plus the osmosis of concepts and data I pick up from my brother (A geosciences professor in the New York SUNY system) that radiometric measurments are simply one arrow in the quiver used by the geology establishment in their determination that the Earth is old.  So even if a flaw was found in one, or more, of the radiometric methods there are other avenues of evidence pointing to concept of deep time being correct.

The ediface does not hang by a single strand, but is connected to a web of supporting evidence that often reinforces each other.  Plate tectonics, stratifigraphy, indicator fossils, etc.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2009,10:40

Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 01 2009,08:31)
I also believe from my limited layman reading on the subject, plus the osmosis of concepts and data I pick up from my brother (A geosciences professor in the New York SUNY system) that radiometric measurments are simply one arrow in the quiver used by the geology establishment in their determination that the Earth is old.  So even if a flaw was found in one, or more, of the radiometric methods there are other avenues of evidence pointing to concept of deep time being correct.

The ediface does not hang by a single strand, but is connected to a web of supporting evidence that often reinforces each other.  Plate tectonics, stratifigraphy, indicator fossils, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly. The popularity of young earth arguments is always proportional to the obscurity of the argument. Most people know little to nothing about isotope measurement, or geochemistry. But, if they read some YEC website they can pick-up some terminology which they can toss around as if they understand it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,11:01

so it might help if scienthuse is going to address a specific claim, rather than "radiometric dating" in general.

perhaps he is not green and tender.    who knows, who cares.

if there are particulars to address then it's easy to focus on the topic.  otherwise, we have a vast repository of experience and observation from which to make hasty generalizations.  

i hold that it may, indeed, be possible to be intellectually honest and remain a YEC.  but i have not observed such a beast, yet.

but i'd rather not focus on my opinion, but on what it is exactly that Scienthuse is claiming that refutes radiometric dating estimates of the age of the earth.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 01 2009,11:50

When I worked as an exploration geologist in the 70s and 80s, we never had these discussions.  I just assumed all my peers believed in deep time and evolution just as I do, but now I'm curious.

Of course where we were working makes it hard to be a YEC.  I can't see 50000 feet of Stanley shale being deposited, lithified and then overthrust more than 100 miles in less than 5000 years without someone noticing.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 01 2009,12:25

Deep time is also an integral part of astronomy.  Because light has a fixed, measurable speed, we know that the further out in the universe we look, the further back in time we are seeing.  Just to see across our own galaxy is looking back 100,000 years.  The universe itself is billions of lightyears in size.  We can look back and see the history of the entire universe, almost to the Big Bang itself.
 
Astronomy is another science that corroborates deep time and shows a literal reading of Genesis to be indefensible.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2009,12:52

There's also SN1987a, which allows measurement of interstellar distance by trigonometry, independent of the speed of light.

< http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm >
Posted by: khan on Oct. 01 2009,13:05

And all these many methods agree: conspiracy!
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 01 2009,13:14

Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,23:36)
Or perhaps we might talk a bit about your  presumptive philosophy which thinks it lays claim to all operational science, by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain.  This is entirely presumptive on your part.  And you ignore at the same time the helium inside, which most of it should have long dissipated if the earth is 4.6 billion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks as if you don't know much about radiometric dating.

No real geologist presumes that all the 206Pb that we see is the result of the decay of 238U, at least after the solar system formed. Lead in troilite in the Canyon Diablo meteorite is thought to contain the primordial proportion of lead isotopes (and is thought to be so for good reason). The isotope relevant isotope ratios for this material are:

206Pb/204Pb 207Pb/204Pb 208Pb/204Pb 238U/204Pb
9.46 10.34 29.44 0.025

(Patterson, C., H. Brown, G. Tilton, and M. Inghram, 1953, Phys. Rev., v. 92, p. 1234; and Patterson, C., 1955, Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 7, p. 151.)

I'm sure you can see the significance of these ratios, being such an expert and all that.

There are actually quite a few studies of dating using helium daughter product, starting with the first radiometric date by Rutherford in 1905. For example, < http://www.geotrack.com.au/uthhe/u-th-he-flier.htm, > < http://bgc.org/facilities/u_th_he_lab.html, > and < http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;196/4287/291. >

I suppose that by "you ignore at the same time the helium inside" you are referring to the RATE group's study of zircons. That's been extensively discussed. My conclusion is that they may possibly have found an interesting anomaly, but they are far from having enough data to establish the validity of their methods and claims. They need to study a much wider variety of zircons, especially some with a simpler thermal history and no possible exposure to helium compared to the few zircon studies they published. They also need to justify their large extrapolations of diffusion data.

Since they have not published anything on this subject since 2004, and there's not even a hint of any further work going on, it looks to me as if they gathered enough data to provide a sciency-sounding reference for the sheeple and don't intend to go any further.

If you have any actual, you know, evidence that you know what you're talking about and you're not so "green and tender", especially any evidence that scientists assume that "all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain" or any evidence that the RATE group's claims are worth further investigation, trot it out.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 01 2009,13:30

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all.

FYI, there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis. There are also lots of methods based on the physical impossibility of there being any significant amount of daughter product present when the sample formed, such as U-Th disequilibrium dating and U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. U-Pb concordia-discordia dating is by far the most widely used dating technique, and those few creationists (the RATE group) who have some idea of how it works acknowledge the fact that essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth — at today’s rates — of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. < http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf. > Emphasis in original.)

There are also many methods that indicate when the system has not been closed. Not all of them indicate how much relevant material has been lost or gained; but many of them, including the Ar-Ar method and the aforementioned and widely used U-Pb concordia-discordia method, often produce a valid age even when the system has been opened.

< Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective > is a good resource for learning the basics and some of the subtleties. I heartily recommend it to you if yuo hope to discuss the subject.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2009,13:35

I suppose it's been mentioned that the only way the RATE project found to rescue a young earth interpretation was to assume variable rates of decay (without any of the annoying side effects caused by the energy released).

In other words, Last Thursdayism.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 01 2009,14:09

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2009,14:35)
I suppose it's been mentioned that the only way the RATE project found to rescue a young earth interpretation was to assume variable rates of decay (without any of the annoying side effects caused by the energy released).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hasn't been mentioned here, but it sure has been mentioned. They did off-handedly acknowledge that accelerated decay rates had a few minor problems such as releasing enough heat to melt the Earth, releasing enough radiation to sterilize the Earth, and being incompatible with astronomical observations of stars obstinately shining.

Personally, since they seem to be presuming multiple miracles to implement their accelerated decay, they didn't just tell God to majick away the heat and radiation, and fake the starlight. What's a few more miracles among friends?
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,19:51

First, I don't think any scientist is stupid or dumb, just because I don't accept an old earth or believe evolution.  They are more highly educated than myself.  However there are credentialed scientists--not just Austin--who would and could disagree with you much better than I.

I am aware of potassium/argon, strontium/rhubidium, the Uranium 238/lead 206 decay process, and I believe there are a couple of newer radioisotope methods that they use to date rocks.  

My statement about lead 206 presumption is simply an attention getter.  I don't actually believe scientists think that all lead 206 is from decay--but why then do they treat all dated rocks as such??  

If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?

AND I'm fully aware that argon is supposed to dissipate when rock is molten. This is questioned by RATE in the dating of the lava dome at ST HELENS.

The assumption that argon should not be in molten lava is put in doubt by this data. < Argon in lava dome >

I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age.  My question is why did they then??  Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it.  Sounds a bit political to me.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,20:08

You think Austin is a reliable source?

Then explain why he deliberately sent the wrong sorts of rocks to the laboratories specifically in order to get inaccurate readings.  If Austin is correct about his claims, then why did he have to resort to using underhanded methods to support himself?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2009,20:53

I feel a bit slighted that you've taken the time to respond to Jon without addressing the questions I posed < here > twice already, Scienthuse. I'm sure you're a busy person and all, but responses of "yes," "no" or "I don't know" would have sufficed.

As for "other experts" that agree with the likes of Austin , you may want to read John Baumgardner attempting to respond to criticisms of his claims during a < Theology Web discussion >. Eventually, Baumgardner is reduced to inane "threats" like :


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
" they face a judgment before a terrible Judge who will not look upon their mockings and blasphemies lightly [on p.10 of the "discussion"]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Merely because people disagreed wth Baumgardner and spelled out his errors, Baumgardner chose to issue statements like that and then cut and run. Rather than address the scientific questions.

P.S. Have fun, Jon! Bwahaha.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 01 2009,20:59

Ya know, your unthinkingly repetition of creofraud lies is really boring. Don't you guys ever think?

 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,20:51)

My statement about lead 206 presumption is simply an attention getter.  I don't actually believe scientists think that all lead 206 is from decay--but why then do they treat all dated rocks as such??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They don't. Of course, in zircons essentially all the 206Pb is from decay after solidification, as the RATE group acknowledged in the quote I posted above. That's the way the world works, because lead is too big to fit in the crystal lattice and has a totally unsuitable valence. But you've never heard of common lead correction, of course.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon  then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Using Ar-Ar.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doesn't matter.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See my previous reply. Ar-Ar dating can (and does) often produce a valid date even if the system has not been closed.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AND I'm fully aware that argon is supposed to dissipate when rock is molten. This is questioned by RATE in the dating of the lava dome at ST HELENS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was long before RATE.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The assumption that argon should not be in molten lava is put in doubt by this data. < Argon in lava dome >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the fact that argon is seldom found in molten lava was confirmed by Dalrymple's study of 26 recent lava flows. See < Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon? >. Bet it never occurred to you that creationists always cite "studies" of single samples whereas real scientists work with studies of as many samples as possible, which is the only valid way to assess the validity and limitations of a technique.

Like the RATE group tested so many different zircons form different sits . Oh, wait ...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age.  My question is why did they then??  Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it.  Sounds a bit political to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dating labs get paid to run stuff through the equipment. You send 'em stuff, they run it through the equipment, they send you the results, they get paid. They don't care whether or not the results mean anything. They're not in business to second-guess the customers. That's about as far from being "political" as you can get.

Austin deliberately chose samples that would give the results he wanted because they were a mixture of old and new material. That's not contamination, that's fraud.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,21:24

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 01 2009,13:30)
Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't worry it'll get better--but be patient.
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JonF...there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Can you elaborate? I would hesitate to seriously believe this.  Just like isochron dating, which attempts to remove assumption by making a distinction between the parent, the daughter (radiogenic) and the daughter (non-radiogenic) which in plain English means they (admittedly--they have to) assume that at crystallization there was originally the parent, the daughter element which was not a product of decay, and some daughter that was a product of decay. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?  

Now you've not only got two original unknowns but three.  Perhaps there was no radiogenic daughter in the first place.  Just because you can do equations does not give you a true answer if you don't have the correct original variables.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JonF...There are also lots of methods based on the physical impossibility of there being any significant amount of daughter product present when the sample formed, such as U-Th disequilibrium dating and U-Pb concordia-discordia dating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And there is argon in the lava dome at St Helens.  That's not supposed to be there.  What are the so-called physical impossibilities and how are they proved?  
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JonF...and those few creationists (the RATE group) who have some idea of how it works acknowledge the fact that essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes and they also acknowledge the huge amount of helium that is retained within--this simply should not be in an ancient rock.  So it is a stand-off--you have no more weight of argument than I do.  Thanks for leaving us the quote so I did not have to do a search.

"sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead."(Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.)

Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260.  Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,21:40

Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,22:16

JonF,
Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you.  I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant.  Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts.  Read this:

"Relative dating only

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]"  Wikipedia

Do you see what this is saying?  They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard.  Well how do they know the age?  They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much.  But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!

"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar.  Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."

Is anyone getting dizzy?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 01 2009,22:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, the < isochron method was developed to address that problem >
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 01 2009,22:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,22:29

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,23:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh henry, gods can do anything
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 01 2009,22:32

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,21:40)
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.

This is from talkorigins:"Helium is a very light atom...When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements"< talk >  
"radioactive elements" would be radioactive decay--particularly uranium decay.  It produces helium.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common debate technique on this forum in particular--slander.  Its easy to accuse someone you don't know.  It's called hearsay.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,22:45

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,21:40)
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.

This is from talkorigins:"Helium is a very light atom...When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements"< talk >  
"radioactive elements" would be radioactive decay--particularly uranium decay.  It produces helium.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You fail refuse to realize that helium can not traverse substances like rubber, ceramic, metal, or the rocks that they are trapped in.  If helium escapes from the radioactive rocks that form them as soon as they are formed, then how would anyone expect to know that they are formed from radioactive decay in the first place?

If helium atoms are so small that they can pass through any substance, how come we have helium-filled balloons (not to mention the tanks of helium that are used to fill them in the first place)?  I mean, are you that stupid to assume that I'm that stupid to not know what helium-filled balloons are filled with?

That, and if all the helium that's produced on Earth automatically escapes into the atmosphere upon creation, then how come we have a relatively burgeoning helium gas industry?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common debate technique on this forum in particular--slander.  Its easy to accuse someone you don't know.  It's called hearsay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm slandering: I'm stating the obvious.  So, explain to me why I should not point out that Austin isn't a liar if he had to resort to blatant manipulation to support his claims, and explain to me why I should not call you a liar because you not only insist on claiming that Austin is a reliable source, but resort to distortion, and repeating Creationist lies?

I mean, if anything, according to your moronic attempt at snarky smarminess with your comments about helium, I would suspect that you're not only extraordinarily dishonest, but rather dim and an incompetent judge of intelligence, too.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 01 2009,22:47

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,22:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention that biogeography would point to all terrestrial life originating from Mount Ararat.  Of course, creationists routinely [fail to bother to explain why biogeography actually does not suggest that all terrestrial life originated from Mount Ararat.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 02 2009,03:51

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,22:47)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,22:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention that biogeography would point to all terrestrial life originating from Mount Ararat.  Of course, creationists routinely [fail to bother to explain why biogeography actually does not suggest that all terrestrial life originated from Mount Ararat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I have more time--I heard bottlenecks.  Been a while since I debated that one, but I got something for you.  Remember it's like 5 against one here.  You'll have to be patient--sorry.  Gotta busy life too.  Off to work.
Posted by: snorkild on Oct. 02 2009,06:09

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From Wikipedia's entry on Helium:

"[H]elium is trapped in a similar way by non-permeable layer of rock like natural gas the greatest concentrations on the planet are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is derived."

Just because some helium escapes to the atmosphere doesn't mean nothing is retained in minerals.
Posted by: 1of63 on Oct. 02 2009,06:38

Quote (snorkild @ Oct. 02 2009,06:09)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From Wikipedia's entry on Helium:

"[H]elium is trapped in a similar way by non-permeable layer of rock like natural gas the greatest concentrations on the planet are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is derived."

Just because some helium escapes to the atmosphere doesn't mean nothing is retained in minerals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To put it even more simply, in terms even IDiots can understand.

We are made up of atoms like everything else.  Atoms are mostly empty space

So how come my hand doesn't just slide through this keyboard?

D'uh?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,07:50

yah but have you ever really LOOKED at your hand?
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 02 2009,08:13

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:24)
 
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 01 2009,13:30)
Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't worry it'll get better--but be patient.
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JonF...there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Can you elaborate? I would hesitate to seriously believe this.  Just like isochron dating, which attempts to remove assumption by making a distinction between the parent, the daughter (radiogenic) and the daughter (non-radiogenic) which in plain English means they (admittedly--they have to) assume that at crystallization there was originally the parent, the daughter element which was not a product of decay, and some daughter that was a product of decay. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?  

Now you've not only got two original unknowns but three.  Perhaps there was no radiogenic daughter in the first place.  Just because you can do equations does not give you a true answer if you don't have the correct original variables.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JonF...There are also lots of methods based on the physical impossibility of there being any significant amount of daughter product present when the sample formed, such as U-Th disequilibrium dating and U-Pb concordia-discordia dating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And there is argon in the lava dome at St Helens.  That's not supposed to be there.  What are the so-called physical impossibilities and how are they proved?  
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JonF...and those few creationists (the RATE group) who have some idea of how it works acknowledge the fact that essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes and they also acknowledge the huge amount of helium that is retained within--this simply should not be in an ancient rock.  So it is a stand-off--you have no more weight of argument than I do.  Thanks for leaving us the quote so I did not have to do a search.

"sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead."(Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.)

Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260.  Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can explain all that. (I've already briefly explained the Mt. St Helens results and the impossibility of significant initial lead in zircons, and listed some of the problems with the RATE helium-in-zircons results). I won't. I tire of explaining simple physics to ignoramuses in fora that are not designed for writing a textbook, when there are exquisitely written, researched, and illustrated essays free on the Internet for the price of one click. You claim you're not "green and tender". Well, you obviously are. Read the links I already provided, study them until you understand them, and then maybe you'll be qualified to offer an opinion on radiometric dating and discuss it. Unless and until you do that, you're just another green, tender, and ignorant creationist who's unquestionably swallowed the crap on creo websites and hasn't had a thought of your own.

A question on your last line. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?  
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 02 2009,08:17

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,23:16)
JonF,
Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you.  I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant.  Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts.  Read this:

"Relative dating only

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]"  Wikipedia

Do you see what this is saying?  They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard.  Well how do they know the age?  They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much.  But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!

"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar.  Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."

Is anyone getting dizzy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. I'm arrogant. I've been following and studying and participating in discussions like this fort many a moon, and I've proved that my arrogance is justified.

Read the links, especially "Excess argon and excess lies".

Ponder the phrase "most commonly" in your Wikipedia article.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 02 2009,08:31

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,22:40)
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Helium is a small molecule, and diffuses relatively easily through "solid" rock. We definitely do expect helium loss over geologic time.

But calculating how much should diffuse requires detailed knowledge of the thermal history of the rock and the difference in concentration between helium in the interior and the exterior of the rock over the time between formation and measurement, plus detailed knowledge of how helium diffuses in the relevant material at the temperatures and pressures the rock experienced. The few zircons that the RATE group measured come from a borehole in Fenton Hill, an area with a long and complex thermal history, and an area near which high concentrations of helium have been found (raising the possibility that helium may have actually diffused into the zircons). The model they used to calculate the expected diffusion requires extrapolating measurements made in vacuum to real-world conditions.

There are other problems with the "study", but in my mind those are the major ones. The only way to address them is to study far more zircons, from several places, with simpler thermal histories, and with no reasonable possibility of being in an area of high helium concentration, and couple this with further (perhaps long-term) diffusion studies.

Humphreys has "responded" to criticisms, and I'll bet Scienthuse has the link close by. I've got links too. But the only way to establish the validity of their claims and method is lots more and better data.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Oct. 02 2009,09:15

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,23:16)
JonF,
Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you.  I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant.  Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts.  Read this:

"Relative dating only

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]"  Wikipedia

Do you see what this is saying?  They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard.  Well how do they know the age?  They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much.  But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!

"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar.  Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."

Is anyone getting dizzy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)?  Rhetorical question.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 02 2009,09:21

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 02 2009,09:15)
Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)?  Rhetorical question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because the ultimate purpose of Intelligent Design is a convoluted plot to illegitimately obtain a veneer of scientific legitimacy for the Bible, so it can become and remain the science textbook, as well as the law and history textbook of the land, forever and ever, until Judgment Day.

You'd know that if you read the Wedge Document.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 02 2009,09:57

This new friend is a GoP style "creationist"*, not an AFDave style creationist.

Claims like "it's going to get more interesting", whines about slander (and it's libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written. It's also libel/slander ONLY if it's untrue), and making claims "just to get attention" (notice they are just to get attention after they've been exposed as simplistic crap) are dead giveaways.



When the best this new friend has is "responding to tone", with maybe a touch of "contradiction", then he/she can be written off as being not worth the effort of serious response.**

Louis

* I.e. He/she is here to troll.

** Mind you I currently feel this way about the vast majority of internet "arguments", so bear that bias in mind. The bulk of internet argument, in my experience, has been reduced to wiki-link trading gainsaying ego-fests as protagonists desperately struggle not to be wrong. I see no great utility/pleasure in engaging in such time wasting with obviously deluded/dishonest individuals. Infantile dick jokes and pointless banter are, amazingly, an intellectual step up.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,11:41

Ah, Fenton Hill. Valles Caldera, with lots of helium moving through fractures with a complex hydro-therm history. None of which the RATE group was capable of handling very well at all.

See, AFDave was good for some things. There's still a lot of the Fenton Hill posts here that could be used
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,11:58

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2009,20:53)
I feel a bit slighted that you've taken the time to respond to Jon without addressing the questions I posed < here > twice already, Scienthuse. I'm sure you're a busy person and all, but responses of "yes," "no" or "I don't know" would have sufficed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, just to remind you, Scienthuse.

Of course, you can also try to arrive at some conclusions regarding the Fenton Hill zircons (or apatite or titanite crystals, which show the same kind of permeability to helium moving in and out ). But RATE never followed up with their "studies" that were intended merely to have a talking point casting doubt on radiometrics.

What you'll find today is that geologists continued to do the work that the RATE group should have done and DID claim to want to do, but never does -- despite having lots of money available for other things.

I'd suggest you look at helium isotope ratios and what it means for the RATE claims, scienthuse...and how the RATE group never even bothered (to this day) to do a proper analysis of that in the Fenton Hill materials.

Hell, in the years since the RATE group, Ken Farley at Caltech has published more papers by himself on the subject(s) than the entire RATE group combined, and he has a tiny budget by comparison:  http://www.gps.caltech.edu/people/farley/publications
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 02 2009,15:43

Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere?  I thought yo might be interested in < http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977. >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,15:54

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 02 2009,15:43)
Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere?  I thought yo might be interested in < http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There WAS a discussion that Scienthuse seems to have abandoned, leaving me feeling all lonely and sad, so I came here to say hi!! Thanx for teh linkys!!!
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 02 2009,20:22

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2009,09:57)
This new friend is a GoP style "creationist"*, not an AFDave style creationist.

Claims like "it's going to get more interesting", whines about slander (and it's libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written. It's also libel/slander ONLY if it's untrue), and making claims "just to get attention" (notice they are just to get attention after they've been exposed as simplistic crap) are dead giveaways.


When the best this new friend has is "responding to tone", with maybe a touch of "contradiction", then he/she can be written off as being not worth the effort of serious response.**

Louis

* I.e. He/she is here to troll.

** Mind you I currently feel this way about the vast majority of internet "arguments", so bear that bias in mind. The bulk of internet argument, in my experience, has been reduced to wiki-link trading gainsaying ego-fests as protagonists desperately struggle not to be wrong. I see no great utility/pleasure in engaging in such time wasting with obviously deluded/dishonest individuals. Infantile dick jokes and pointless banter are, amazingly, an intellectual step up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm deluded?  And what do you do Louis besides believe heme can last 68 million years?  Think there was some rocks by that T-Rex bone? Because the C-14 was supposed to be gone with a half life of 5730 years. So they had to use rocks.  Bet they could have found some C-14 if they tried, since there was organic material still inside.

Yes Mr. Louis the C-14 question that you will undoubtedly gloss over as you relentlessly search for dishonesty, delusion, contradiction, and lack of knowledge.   Or maybe they didn't even date the leg since the geologic timescale could never be wrong.

< Ms. Schweitzer--Get in line! >

Louis, that article is the real "dead giveaway."  

Oh and by the way, you've ignored the facts 1) about the Santa Cruz valley--which WAS a water catastrophe--Darwin was wrong--who, whether or not he was a geologist--read Lyell--and needed Lyell's time to make his presumptive theory work.  2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.

If you really knew me--and you don't have a clue--you would know that I learn from debating.  The things I know you have NOT refuted, but only in YOUR mind.

If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room.  But I WAS invited to stay.  Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,20:37

If you wanted to discuss Darwin, Austin and the Santa Cruz...you had the ability to do so in a thread involving that, Scienthuse.

The problem is that even if I keep reminding you of the existence of that thread and the questions waiting there for you, you keep ignoring it.

Keep this thread for your claims on radiometrics and the other  for the Santa Cruz/Austin claims.

No need to try to keep introducing other irrelevant creationist claims about T-Rex heme at this point -- when you haven't actually responded to comments on radiometrics and Austin yet. Surely, you wouldn't want people to think you're merely running a  < Gish Gallop >, would you?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2009,20:42

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,20:22)
Oh and by the way, you've ignored the facts 1) about the Santa Cruz valley--which WAS a water catastrophe--Darwin was wrong--who, whether or not he was a geologist--read Lyell--and needed Lyell's time to make his presumptive theory work.  2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.

If you really knew me--and you don't have a clue--you would know that I learn from debating.  The things I know you have NOT refuted, but only in YOUR mind.

If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room.  But I WAS invited to stay.  Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. So what if Darwin was wrong about the origins of a "boulder bank" on the Santa Cruz...are you arguing that you think the entire valley was created by a single catastrophic flood? If not, then you're wrong about Darwin being entirely wrong. Go back to the Austin thread and address my questions there -- as I have patiently asked you many (four or five) times. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....4;st=30 >

2. "Relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar" ??? Uh, those aren't relative dating methods, nor is it appropriate to use that term in that manner. They are both absolute dating methods.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 02 2009,21:33

I did the Schweitzer v creatocrap articles years ago.

< Dino Blood and the Young Earth >, and

< Dino Blood Redux >

I suppose a new article is due.

Shit, creationists are stupid.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 02 2009,21:42

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 02 2009,15:43)
Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere?  I thought yo might be interested in < http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes you are right.  

1)The valley is  6 miles wide by 200 miles long.  Austin states that the "valley is much smaller than the present river system requires." It is 1/10 as wide.

2) It is full of "depositional features" --"large boulder ridges and bars" throughout.

3)The present river is moving sand and pebbles.  Yet there are cobbles and boulders sometimes to the top of the valley.

4) Austin states that some of the rocks are from the "core of the Andes Mountains 150 miles away. This would be a significant discovery if this could be confirmed by peer review.

4) Again Darwin recorded a 15 foot boulder somewhere in the valley.

Austin claims a "glacial outburst flood" in the "upper drainage of the Santa Cruz River" as a source of the flood in the SC valley, which was responsible for depositing the cobbles and boulders.

Austin claims that the water was moving at freeway speed at 400 feet deep in order to drag the boulders up the slope.  I do not know where he got these exact figures  He worked with Dr. Henry Morris before the latter's decease--Dr. Morris was a PhD in hydraulic  engineering.

"Hydraulic engineering is a sub-discipline of civil engineering concerned with the flow and conveyance of fluids, principally water." Wikipedia

The fact that the cobbles extend to the top of the valley suggests that moving water once filled or overflowed the valley--and probably re-formed the valley.  The boulders suggest that the water was moving at a significant rate.

What are your thoughts?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,00:10

My thoughts are that I find it funny that you seem to have a real aversion towards dealing with any of my posts at all, Scienthuse. Even when (and perhaps especially because) I was relatively civil and courteous.

I politely asked you a goodly number of times to address the points I'd made and you then deliberately avoid doing so. I find that revealing and amusing. If I were a cynical man (and I am towards yecreationists), why, I might think that you're looking for a martyr's exit, so you can pretend to have "won" something.  

Gallop on, though, right past this for the fifth or sixth time:

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,20:42)

1. So what if Darwin was wrong about the origins of a "boulder bank" on the Santa Cruz...are you arguing that you think the entire valley was created by a single catastrophic flood? If not, then you're wrong about Darwin being entirely wrong. Go back to the Austin thread and address my questions there -- as I have patiently asked you many (four or five) times. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....4;st=30 >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,00:29

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,21:42)
Austin claims a "glacial outburst flood" in the "upper drainage of the Santa Cruz River" as a source of the flood in the SC valley, which was responsible for depositing the cobbles and boulders.

Austin claims that the water was moving at freeway speed at 400 feet deep in order to drag the boulders up the slope.  I do not know where he got these exact figures  He worked with Dr. Henry Morris before the latter's decease--Dr. Morris was a PhD in hydraulic  engineering.

"Hydraulic engineering is a sub-discipline of civil engineering concerned with the flow and conveyance of fluids, principally water." Wikipedia

The fact that the cobbles extend to the top of the valley suggests that moving water once filled or overflowed the valley--and probably re-formed the valley.  The boulders suggest that the water was moving at a significant rate.

What are your thoughts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My thoughts are also that Austin could have -- in the many years since he's been pushing his "Santa Cruz catastrophe" claims -- published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. But he hasn't. Yet he has a video to sway the sheep!!  But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims! But he'll cherry-pick stuff to "respond" to at various creationist sites! But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims in the peer-reviewed journals!

My thoughts are that Austin's (and your above) "take" on the Santa Cruz...is wrong. Your use of the singular "flood,"  and Austin's use of the same, implies you believe, or wish to deceptively imply, that it was a single flood that created the Santa Cruz valley features.

My thoughts are that this notion of a singular flood creating the Santa Cruz is ...how shall I say it... ah,  yes -- bullshit. Demonstrable bullshit.

My thoughts are also that Henry Morris was a crank and a failure at hydraulic engineering and just about every science he set his fanatic eyes on (yes, I have read his nonsense).

A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).  Having  a PhD means damn little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to all physical data and reality.

That's what I think, Scienthuse...what do you think about that?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2009,05:39

Scienthuse,

1) It's Dr Louis, thanks.

2) I'm well beyond being reeled in by trolls/fools. I'll let others waste their time with you. Your schtick is old, I've seen it before.

Whether or not other people think you are a troll is up to them. AtBC is not homogeneous, there are a variety of disagreements about a number of things. As far as I'm concerned you have all the hallmarks so far of a specific type of creationist/troll. Either that or despite your claim to not being "green" you've learned nothing in discussions with others.  Neither option inspires me to waste my time with you.

Now I'll admit, I could be very wrong about that. You could be some spectacularly lovely creationist, sincere in all his/her beliefs and genuinely interested in discussion. But leaping into any conversation/discussion/site and whining about tone, playing asinine games with "attention getters", making claims about "it'll get better later" like you've got some ace up your sleeve are dead giveaways. You are pulling the same creationist nonsense of old: attempt to knock down current science as if that will some how lend support to your creationist crapola, all the while flailing your hands and chucking as much irrelevant smoke around as possible to disguise the fact that you've got nothing.

Even if you do manage to knock some aspect of current science down, and let's be blunt you haven't a chance especially using standard creationist talking points that have been long refuted, what positive evidence have you presented in favour of your own claims? That's right, none.

Like I said, trying to play "gotcha", infantile attempts to gainsay others, rehashing the same drivel time after time, playing the martyr (undoubtedly next in your play book, you've already shown the beginnings), claims of "warring equal worldviews", and other such classic hallmarks of the creationist clown or troll, really fail to inspire dialogue.

If you, unlike most creationists in my experience, can get past your offence at the fact that reality doesn't agree with the bullshit chanted by the bunnies in your head you might be worth some effort.

3) Did I say anything about the geologic column, C-14 dating, T-Rex or anything else? No. Gish Gallop much? Do I want to waste my time in "discussion" with someone like you? No. I'll let you know if I change my mind. Touchy little troll ain'tcha?

4) Stay around as long as you like, I have neither the power to change your presence here, nor any interest in changing it. I seem to remember it was you who came stampeding in, swinging comments about tone around. If someone invited you, more fool you for accepting, chew toys are fun for a while but they rarely grab the attention for long. I doubt you have the capacity to break the endless cycle of dumb that surrounds discussions on this issue.

5) Creationism is not even wrong. In all its various strains and species (unless of course it gets watered down to the vague creative deism it usually does when confronted) it is at best a parody of science. It's an attempt to gull the gullible into believing a specific set of religious claims has some veneer of scientific credibility. It has always failed to date and will always continue to. You can misrepresent that as some scientific/atheist dogma if you wish, you'd be wrong, and wrong in ways I'd guess you can't even begin to understand.

I know you don't understand that but try to let the possibility percolate into your cranium, it will make for more interesting discussion. By the way, before you bother, science is provisional. The idea that a specific set of scientific ideas is potentially wrong is enshrined in the process from the get go. You are not dealing with an opposed dogma. Perhaps that is something you might attempt to understand.

6) Show me something new. I have little need or interest in rehashing GCSE chemistry every day of my life as if it were cutting edge, the same applies to creationist claims. Show me something new and interesting. Stop wasting my time with long refuted nonsense and bog standard misunderstandings of science.

7) And no, I'm not very nice. Denialists, antiscience woo peddlers, wind up merchants and the wilfully ignorant  and actively stupid bring out the intolerant prick in me. {Shrug} We all have our crosses to bear.

That's about all the time I'm willing to waste being nice. LOL

Louis
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 03 2009,07:37

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2009,00:29)

My thoughts are also that Austin could have -- in the many years since he's been pushing his "Santa Cruz catastrophe" claims -- published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. But he hasn't. Yet he has a video to sway the sheep!!  But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims! But he'll cherry-pick stuff to "respond" to at various creationist sites! But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims in the peer-reviewed journals!

My thoughts are that Austin's (and your above) "take" on the Santa Cruz...is wrong. Your use of the singular "flood,"  and Austin's use of the same, implies you believe, or wish to deceptively imply, that it was a single flood that created the Santa Cruz valley features.

My thoughts are that this notion of a singular flood creating the Santa Cruz is ...how shall I say it... ah,  yes -- bullshit. Demonstrable bullshit.

My thoughts are also that Henry Morris was a crank and a failure at hydraulic engineering and just about every science he set his fanatic eyes on (yes, I have read his nonsense).

 Having  a PhD means damn little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to all physical data and reality.A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).

That's what I think, Scienthuse...what do you think about that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've decided I'll ignore DOCTOR Louis--I like your quote deadman. This applies to Louis in regards to the article I gave him and that's all I'll say to him from now on.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Having  a PhD means...little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to...physical data....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman--

Ausin and DarwinI'm not understanding something here.  Darwin was wrong about the Santa Cruz valley but Morris and Austin are cranks.  Now I understand anyone can pose a hypothesis that can be later falsified--so I would never call Darwin a crank. Even ifI disagree with him scientifically, or philosophically, OR BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG ABOUT THE SCV.

I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.

Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation?  That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.  

As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Vertical canyon wall "shaping"You are completely right deadman.  But you forget we're not talking about a brick wall here--were talking about the ground.  It would be physically impossible for the walls to lean toward the river--but not impossible for them to be vertical or lean away from the river--WERE TALKING ABOUT HIGHLY SILICATE BASED SEDIMENT, NOT TOPSOIL MUD. 

I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,07:45

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,07:37)
 
I've decided I'll ignore DOCTOR Louis--I like your quote deadman. This applies to Louis in regards to the article I gave him and that's all I'll say to him from now on.
                     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Having  a PhD means...little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to...physical data....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman--

Ausin and DarwinI'm not understanding something here.  Darwin was wrong about the Santa Cruz valley but Morris and Austin are cranks.  Now I understand anyone can pose a hypothesis that can be later falsified--so I would never call Darwin a crank. Even ifI disagree with him scientifically, or philosophically, OR BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG ABOUT THE SCV.

I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.

Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation?  That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.  

As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.

                   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Vertical canyon wall "shaping"You are completely right deadman.  But you forget we're not talking about a brick wall here--were talking about the ground.  It would be physically impossible for the walls to lean toward the river--but not impossible for them to be vertical or lean away from the river--WERE TALKING ABOUT HIGHLY SILICATE BASED SEDIMENT, NOT TOPSOIL MUD. 

I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(1) I said Morris was a crank and Austin was wrong, Scienthuse. Try reading for accuracy.  Also, YOU haven't shown that Darwin was wrong at all. Nor has Austin, in ANY valid scientific way -- hint: propaganda videos are not acceptable substitutes for peer-reviewed papers, which Austin COULD have published, IF he had any valid evidence.

(2) Creationists don't peer-review their own papers, they check them for adherence to their Biblical presuppositions. Don't believe me? Try actually learning about the various topics written about in "creationist" papers and then we can discuss the myriad errors in each one. Oh, and if they DO peer-review them, why can't anyone find out about their peer-review processes and reviewers for the many, many papers that are shown to be wrong?  

(3) Uh, the Grand Canyon is not "composed of silicated clays." It has hundreds of meters of limestones, sandstones and conglomerates, none of which is termed clay. "Clay" has a meaning, scienthuse. You should be able to look it up in a dictionary of geological terms. You simply don't know what you're talking about.  You're also ignoring the gneiss and schist I mentioned in another post. Among MANY other things.

(4) Henry Morris claimed the Canyon was cut in one fell swoop in his "genesis flood" and HE said it was in SOFT, unconsolidated  materials...which not only would make  the hundreds of meters of verticals (wth billions of tons of overlying materials) impossible, IF it were laid in the manner and timespans  that Morris yaps stupidly about -- it also goes directly against basic physics of deposition -- like LIMESTONE (which precipitates agonizingly slowly) overlain by heavier materials like sandstones and conglomerates. In that brief span of Morris' "Genesis Flood", this is physically impossible.

You don't know what you are talking about in the least, scienthuse:

 
See anything there that says "clay strata?" No? How about you try to learn about the topics BEFORE arguing creationist talking points that are obviously false?

ETA: This is Redwall Limestone. Do you know how limestone is formed? How fast it's measured to precipitate on average? How it is dolomitized?




Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.

So, what do you think of all that, "Scienthuse?"
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 03 2009,09:22

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,21:22)
2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see you haven't figured out what "most commonly" means. Nor do you understand what is being calibrated by the known-age sample in Ar-Ar dating.

Just for grins, let's see what of mine you haven't addressed:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you have any actual, you know, evidence that you know what you're talking about and you're not so "green and tender", especially any evidence that scientists assume that "all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain" or any evidence that the RATE group's claims are worth further investigation, trot it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hasn't been mentioned here, but it sure has been mentioned. They did off-handedly acknowledge that accelerated decay rates had a few minor problems such as releasing enough heat to melt the Earth, releasing enough radiation to sterilize the Earth, and being incompatible with astronomical observations of stars obstinately shining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, in zircons essentially all the 206Pb is from decay after solidification, as the RATE group acknowledged in the quote I posted above. That's the way the world works, because lead is too big to fit in the crystal lattice and has a totally unsuitable valence. But you've never heard of common lead correction, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See my previous reply. Ar-Ar dating can (and does) often produce a valid date even if the system has not been closed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the fact that argon is seldom found in molten lava was confirmed by Dalrymple's study of 26 recent lava flows. See < Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon? >. Bet it never occurred to you that creationists always cite "studies" of single samples whereas real scientists work with studies of as many samples as possible, which is the only valid way to assess the validity and limitations of a technique.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age.  My question is why did they then??  Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it.  Sounds a bit political to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dating labs get paid to run stuff through the equipment. You send 'em stuff, they run it through the equipment, they send you the results, they get paid. They don't care whether or not the results mean anything. They're not in business to second-guess the customers. That's about as far from being "political" as you can get.

Austin deliberately chose samples that would give the results he wanted because they were a mixture of old and new material. That's not contamination, that's fraud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260.  Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A question on your last line. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You got a lot to address before we get into 14C dating and we rip you a new one there too.  The Gish Gallop may go over big at the church socials, but nobody here is impressed.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room.  But I WAS invited to stay.  Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, they'd just love you at one of those creo forums that doesn't allow dissent.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 03 2009,09:28

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,21:42)
2. "Relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar" ??? Uh, those aren't relative dating methods, nor is it appropriate to use that term in that manner. They are both absolute dating methods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not surprising that he can't get the terminology correct, all he's got he picked up from creo websites. He's talking about the fact that in Ar-Ar dating the irradiation equipment is calibrated using a sample of known age, and this sample's age is often (but not always) known because it's been dated with K-Ar. This has him all a-twitter and somewhere in the cavernous and empty recesses of what we might call (for lack of a better term) his mind he seems to think that this has some impact on the validity of Ar-Ar dating. What trail of "logic" he followed to get this conclusion I don't know; I presume it's the ol' AfDDave "some = all" fallacy applied multiple times.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 03 2009,10:13

I think Scienthuse belongs in the Tonto Group.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2009,10:19

LOL Whatever Scienthuse Clownshoes. Naught but piss and wind as usual.

Enjoy this one fellas, it's melting down early. I predict a flounce out will be soon forthcoming.

Louis
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 03 2009,12:00

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,07:37)
I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.

Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation?  That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.  

As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.

       I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


guys, I think we've got one dumber than FL or ray-ray.

"attacking the messenger is a cheap shell game ploy"  Attacking the messenger('s idiotic posts) is what this forum is about.  Go home if you don't want to play.

"That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas"  I suspect that if you paid his fee, Dawkins would be on the next plane. He would probably love to thump those thumpers.

Peer Review:  Poor IDiots.  they want to be accepted as true scientists, but only if we change the rules.WHIIIINNNNNNNE.

" I hike through a canyon . . ."

This is so funny in so many ways its just sad. I know most of you understand geology 101, but obviously someone needs a lesson. CLAY is a mineral found in many sedimentary rocks.  It is not a rock.  Is your rock shale, siltstone, sandstone? Enquiring minds want to know! If only gravity was it work, wouldn't all the material that has fallen off the walls still be there somewhere?  What force carried it away? You say canyon walls cannot overhang:  ever been in a slot canyon in Arizona or Utah?  Ever seen pictures of a slot canyon? Again geology 101:  limestone is not silicate based.

If you are the IDiots next great white intellect, the movement is definitely doomed.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 03 2009,13:20

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 03 2009,12:00)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clay is not a mineral: it is a kind of sediment formed from fine grains of various different minerals, very water-absorbent, and showing a huge range of plasticity (malleableness) depending on the moisture content.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,15:19

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2009,10:19)
LOL Whatever Scienthuse Clownshoes. Naught but piss and wind as usual.

Enjoy this one fellas, it's melting down early. I predict a flounce out will be soon forthcoming.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Should "Scienthuse" continue along the same vein and keep avoiding answering the points directed at him, MY nickname for him is going to be much more earthy: it begins with a familiar Anglo-Saxonism and ends with "house"

Then I'll do a parody of an old 70's Commodores disco tune ...
 
"Well, he's a ___ house
He's mighty flighty,
Just lettin' that methane out."

Note how totally groovy I'll be. Sputter in your envious frustration.


P.S. Scienthuse -- feel free to pretend my mild humor incredibly insulting and proceed to step three: Operation Flounce.

But keep in mind that I've been asking you NICELY, politely to respond directly to my two questions on Steve Austin - Santa Cruz River many, many times now, and you've instead opted to be snarky and disrespectful first.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 03 2009,19:47

Deadman,

I have a life.  I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do.  You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.  

You have said many things, and so has everybody else.  Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions?  I said what I said.

I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC.  If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 03 2009,20:27

The fact of the matter stands, Scienthuse, is that you made fallacious statements, and what little efforts you made to support these fallacious statements were to appeal to the authority of known liars, or accuse us of slander when we pointed out that you and your authorities were lying.

Claiming that the duties of real life preclude and or prevent you from answering our questions and rebuttals to your fallacious claims will not win any sympathy from us, especially since you obviously appear to have more than enough time to whine about our tone, as well as accuse us of slander when we dissect your claims for bullshit content.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,20:59

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,19:47)
Deadman,

I have a life.  I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do.  You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.  

You have said many things, and so has everybody else.  Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions?  I said what I said.

I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC.  If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Project much, Scienthuse?

So...because you "have a life" that's the ONLY reason you have failed to answer my questions. Yet, you've managed to make 21 posts during your stay here.

Here's the first time I asked you to answer my two simple questions, Scienthuse:
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,20:40)
 I have two questions for you.

(1) You (and Austin, repeatedly, in that video) use the term "flood," singular...giving the impression that he and you believe that it was a singular flood event that created those formations and features. Do you believe that to be the case?

(2) In the video Austin mentions "his view" of the valley and "his view" of the boulder bar deposition. This left me with the impression that Austin was presenting an hypothesis original to Austin. Do you believe that to be the case -- that the catastrophic flooding hypothesis for the Santa Cruz valley and relevant features is original to Austin ?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

<
You ignored them, so I asked again, the second time >
<
I asked you to answer my original questions again (3rd time) ><
I ask you to answer my original questions for the fourth time here: ><
I ask you to answer my questions for the fifth time here: ><
I ask you to answer my questions for the sixth time here: >
----------------

Let me remind you of a few things, Scienthuse

first, your claims to desire civil scientific-based discussions  
First, my willingness to be civil:
       
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,04:31)


I'll continue this friendly-style discussion as long as you wish to remain civil and address MY points as well. You can start with my question above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your response, Scienthuse:
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,19:38)

I would like to be civil and I will also ignore uncalled-for sarcastic slams (not from you deadman).  We are all human beings who breathe the same air, even if we don't agree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently, your "interpretation" of civil discussions means ignoring a series of civil requests 6 times -- while you first avoid, THEN post well over a dozen times, then insult me by claiming I'd said things I had not.

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

The real reason you chose to behave that way was because you'd been corrected on your false, bullshit-laden  "Answers in Genesis" and "ICR" talking points  MANY times:  


< Your false claim on Darwin's "Son" and Darwin's "atheism" >

< False claim about Harlan Bretz being "ignored by science" >
(A standard AIG/ICR talking point)

< False claims on Mt. Saint Helens, corrected >
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

< Jon corrects you on radiometric dating >
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

< Jon corrects you again, on parent/daughter ratios >

< Jon corrects you on radiometrics, RATE, and Mt. Saint Helens >

< You are corrected on helium and container rocks >

< You are corrected on your false claims regarding K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating >

< You get corrected on Henry Morris here: >

< You get corrected on vertical Grand  Canyon walls here, and I correct you on your claim that I called Austin a crank, then I correct you on "silicate clay" strata in the Grand Canyon: >
--------------

This has nothing to do with you "having a life" and being unable to post -- you ignored my questions MANY times, yet posted continuously during that time.

It has nothing to do with ME "being online all day" -- some people have desk computers, blackberrys and laptops that allow quick answers whenever I happen to pop in...it took me all of 8 minutes to respond to your last "TEH Grand Canyon is made of CLAY> ZOMG!!!" bullshit, scienthuse

Considering the insults you tossed at me first, your claim to desire civil discourse is bullshit

Considering your inability to answer even basic questions on relevant topics, your claim  < Here > to "know" about subjects here is bullshit.

Considering how many times you had to be corrected on even ridiculously stupid shit like "TEH Grand Canyon iz CLAY, ZOMG and teh Mt. St. Helens 'canyon' is like it!!!!" ... your claim < here > to NOT be "green and tender" is bullshit.

You've been around here an AWFUL lot during the past four days for someone who "doesn't have the time" to answer basic questions politely (at first) asked.

I have no reason at all to be polite to you at all again, and I can assure you I won't get tired of making you look even more stupid than you already do So ... do your flounce-out, punkin'. It's not as if everyone here hasn't seen this act many times before -- The only thing that makes you "unique" is the particular depth of YEC intellectual dishonesty that you descend to.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 03 2009,21:22

awwww, you killed it!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 03 2009,21:23

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2009,21:59)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,19:47)
Deadman,

I have a life.  I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do.  You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.  

You have said many things, and so has everybody else.  Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions?  I said what I said.

I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC.  If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So...because you "have a life" that's the ONLY reason you have failed to answer my questions. Yet, you've managed to make 21 posts during your stay here.

Here's the first time I asked you to answer my two simple questions, Scienthuse:
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,20:40)
 I have two questions for you.

(1) You (and Austin, repeatedly, in that video) use the term "flood," singular...giving the impression that he and you believe that it was a singular flood event that created those formations and features. Do you believe that to be the case?

(2) In the video Austin mentions "his view" of the valley and "his view" of the boulder bar deposition. This left me with the impression that Austin was presenting an hypothesis original to Austin. Do you believe that to be the case -- that the catastrophic flooding hypothesis for the Santa Cruz valley and relevant features is original to Austin ?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

<
You ignored them, so I asked again, the second time >
<
I asked you to answer my original questions again (3rd time) ><
I ask you to answer my original questions for the fourth time here: ><
I ask you to answer my questions for the fifth time here: ><
I ask you to answer my questions for the sixth time here: >
----------------

Let me remind you of a few things, Scienthuse

first, your claims to desire civil scientific-based discussions  
First, my willingness to be civil:
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,04:31)


I'll continue this friendly-style discussion as long as you wish to remain civil and address MY points as well. You can start with my question above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your response, Scienthuse:
   
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,19:38)

I would like to be civil and I will also ignore uncalled-for sarcastic slams (not from you deadman).  We are all human beings who breathe the same air, even if we don't agree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently, your "interpretation" of civil discussions means ignoring a series of civil requests 6 times -- while you first avoid, THEN post well over a dozen times, then insult me by claiming I'd said things I had not.

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

The real reason you chose to behave that way was because you'd been corrected on your false "Answers in Genesis" and "ICR" talking points ...well, MANY times:  


< Your false claim on Darwin's "Son" and Darwin's "atheism" >

< False claim about Harlan Bretz being "ignored by science" >
(A standard AIG/ICR talking point)

< False claims on Mt. Saint Helens, corrected >
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

< Jon corrects you on radiometric dating >
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

< Jon corrects you again, on parent/daughter ratios >

< Jon corrects you on radiometrics, RATE, and Mt. Saint Helens >

< You are corrected on helium and container rocks >

< You are corrected on your false claims regarding K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating >

< You get corrected on Henry Morris here: >

< You get corrected on vertical Grand  Canyon walls here, and I correct you on your claim that I called Austin a crank, then I correct you on "silicate clay" strata in the Grand Canyon: >
--------------

This has nothing to do with you "having a life" and being unable to post -- you ignored my qustions MANY times, yet posted continuously during that time.

It has nothing to do with ME "being online all day" -- some people have computers, blackberrys and laptops that allow quick answers whenever I happen to pop in...it took me all of 8 minutes to respond to your last "TEH Grand Canyon is made of CLAY> ZOMG!!!" bullshit, scienthuse

Considering the insults you tossed at me first, your claim to desire civil discourse is bullshit

Considering your inability to answer even basic questions on relevant topics, your claim  < Here > to "know" about subjects here is bullshit.

Considering how many times you had to be corrercted on even ridiculously stupid shit like "TEH Grand Canyon iz CLAY, ZOMG and teh Mt. St. Helens 'canyon' is like it!!!!" ... your claim < here > to NOT be "green and tender" is bullshit.

Suck on that, Scienthuse...oh, and you've been around here an AWFUL lot during the past four days for someone who "doesn't have the time" to answer basic questions politely (at first) asked.

I have no reason at all to be polite to you at all again, and I can assure you I won't get tired of making you look even more stupid than you already do So ... do your flounce-out,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See people THAT is the sorta thing that gets you awards

kiss up teachers pet suck up grrrrr damn deadman always pwns the hardest
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,21:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See people THAT is the sorta thing that gets you awards
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if not, you can award them to yourself! &%#@ da man! Anarchy now! Power to teh pipples!
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 04 2009,09:03

Deadman,  Here's a summary--it you need references I can get it. So quit your griping--I'm trying to do you right.

1) Redwall Limestone and modern lime muds are different in their biologically produced material.  GC--calcite / modern lime muds--aragonite.

2)RL contains "clay sized" (smaller) calcite 4 microns.  Lime muds contain "silt sized" aragonite 20 microns.

3)Much evidence of transport and rapid water deposition in Redwall Limestone.

a)Chert--Chert resulted from diagenesis, which is chemical change after initial deposition and  lithification. Lithification is the process of water expulsion caused by pressure (which is evident in many limestone deposits).  I did not get this from AiG--this is from personal study--okay!  You guys think I'm stupid.

WHAT CAUSED the pressurized drainage which is evident in the chert????  If you counter with tectonic uplift from the ocean bottom, then you must explain the shale  that is both below and above the limestone.  It also forms under water.

b)McKee and Ghutschick (1969) admit lack of coral reefs,(hello WHERE ARE THEY?????) and stromalites "which might form slowly in tidal flat environments...."  Laminated algal masses show "concentric structure" (very significant evidence) and "and are best interpreted as algal masses which have been transported by rolling." Austin

4) Detailed but broken up fossils along with sand and other minerals shows rapid burial--evidence of transport
and rapid burial of bryozoan and an abundance of detailed crinoid fossils.

< Mckee and Gutschick redwall >

Fossils do not form by laying in shallow oxygenated waters.  Organisms will decay.

Some may suggest anoxic waters but this is not indicative of mud limes or coral reefs, neither forminafera or other phytoplankton.

Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon.

Uniformintarian interpretation is bogus in that it ignores obvious evidence and instead inserts and deletes certain evidences and or hypotheses where needed.  1)Because the mindset has been formed by indoctrination from grade school on--2) and because the careers and reputation of uniforms are paramount for continuance of such--there is much ignoring and "spinning" of the evidence.  All for the sake of the "grand geologic timescale model."
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2009,09:44

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When you say "rapid" how long are you talking about?

1 day?
1 year?

?

And did the Redwall Limestone form at a faster rate, the same rate or a slower rate then a comparable body of Limestone elsewhere? Or did *all* Limestone form at the same speed "rapidly"?

Define "rapid" please.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 04 2009,10:35

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find yet another creobot is both willfully ignorant in the extreme and a liar for Jesus to boot.

Fucktard #eleventybillion

I think all we're waiting on is the homoerotic photos of professional "wrestlers" and an altar call.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 04 2009,11:33

So what personal studies lead you to assume that chert can be "rapidly" deposited from 40 days and 40 nights of magic rain?
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 04 2009,11:47

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,09:44)
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When you say "rapid" how long are you talking about?

1 day?
1 year?

?

And did the Redwall Limestone form at a faster rate, the same rate or a slower rate then a comparable body of Limestone elsewhere? Or did *all* Limestone form at the same speed "rapidly"?

Define "rapid" please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Rapid" would be defined by the evidence as follows:

1)Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh."  In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial--because they are detailed--not a partially decomposed mess.  The fact that they are broken up but in "living detail" suggests transport and not decomposition.

2)I might add that this the case with many partial fossils.  They are broken but not decomposed.

As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone--since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly--in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??  

But instead you are going to  preach at me with your "liar for Jesus" stuff--you probably don't even believe he existed! When at the same time you are obviously full of bitterness and malice.  It's almost time for me to go--because I can feel the absolute cynicism and hardness in some of you.  It spreads like cancer!

 And if you think I'm a liar, I gave a link to the McKee and Gutschick research in the Redwall Formation.  It is uniformintarian in interpretation--but it will confirm that many detailed fossils exist in the RL.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2009,11:54

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh."  In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are circumstances where decomposition is not an accurate indication of time since death.

E.G. Peat Bogs.

And I saw no other indication of a time period in your comment.

Please put a figure, in time, on the formation of the Redwall Limestone. Hours, days, years. Whatever.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 04 2009,12:04

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,11:54)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh."  In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are circumstances where decomposition is not an accurate indication of time since death.

E.G. Peat Bogs.

And I saw no other indication of a time period in your comment.

Please put a figure, in time, on the formation of the Redwall Limestone. Hours, days, years. Whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.  But that they are in association with coral and algae in the limestone--this would suggest they came from similar habitat.

Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2009,12:20

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:04)
I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry then, I must have missed that. What time period was that?

Your previous post, as you say gives a time span. What you have not said is what possible chronological time period that span potentially covers.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't expect an exact time. I expect a "time span" to be given in units of time, and so far I've not seen that. As far as I can tell you could be defining "rapid" as millions of years.

What's the upper limit on the the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 04 2009,15:22

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
Deadman,  Here's a summary--it you need references I can get it. So quit your griping--I'm trying to do you right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Trying to do me right" --  on what? I point out the verticals on the Redwall limestone, their deposition and dolomitization, and how this factors into verticality that is contrary to Morris....and you trot out a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with that verticality question.

Here's what I had posted with that accompanying picture of Redwall Limestone:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what does YOUR post have to do with that? Why, nothing! Gish Gallop!

You did this earlier with Louis -- avoid what he's talking about, whip out enirely unrelated claims on T.Rex fossils, then ---what?

Sit back and enjoy your Gish Gallop?

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

Besides being completely off-point, virtually all of your post is merely you regurgitating Austin at ICR here:  < http://www.icr.org/article/337/ > and yes, the only thing you did (other than regurgitating Austin's claims) is look up "chert" (probably on Wikipedia) -- you don't KNOW this material, you're just parroting it, and amusingly stupidly. Oh, and since you said you can give me references on these claims of yours, I want them. All of them, because I'll be asking questions that will concern them. You'll be copy-pasting them from the Austin ICR article, won't you?

Most importantly, as I said, it has nothing to do with the reason I mentioned the Redwall -- VERTICAL CLIFFS that would NOT stand up under Henry Morris' scenarios.

Austin is able to bullshit you and casual "believers"  because he's selecting out or emphasizing things in a pseudo-"sciency" way calculated, designed, intended to merely cast doubt on "long-age" claims. He's stupid,  so he figures, hey, my readers are just as stupid, too. Which is why he uses his crap as propaganda and never publishes his (relevant)  claims in peer-reviewed journals.

What I'd like YOU to do is for YOU to go beyond this little bit you've read and puked up from from Austin and give me YOUR complete scenario on

(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences.   DETAILS
(illustration from < here > )

(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous  claims.  That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding a great deal.

In short, I'd like you to show that YOU can learn, rather than just squawk and parrot ICR and AIG. Can you? 

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

And on that peer-review journal bit...the ICR and AIG seem to always tout the fact that some of their folks HAVE gotten their work in print, so how is it that you say people like Austin CAN'T? You can't have it both ways and say "look, we have creationists in peer-reviewed scientific journals !!!" and then turn around and say "The Evil Evolutionist Cabal won't let us publish in their journals"

And one final point; I'm sure you realize that once again you've failed to actually address the questions I HAVE asked (oh, about 7 or  8 times now).

Start answering MY questions and I'll start answering yours -- otherwise, you can just continue your mindless Gish-gallop parroting, and I'll just keep mocking your ignorant recycling of already-dismantled "Young-Earth" creationist claims
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 04 2009,16:44

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,05:37)
Vertical canyon wall "shaping"You are completely right deadman.  But you forget we're not talking about a brick wall here--were talking about the ground.  It would be physically impossible for the walls to lean toward the river--but not impossible for them to be vertical or lean away from the river--WERE TALKING ABOUT HIGHLY SILICATE BASED SEDIMENT, NOT TOPSOIL MUD. 

I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I now know from the quoted material that this sciencey guy is either a loki troll, or a total whack-job.

I don't care either way. I have better ways to waste time.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 04 2009,16:49

I think he's just a kid (and a troll, sure). But... since I'm only half-watching american football at the moment (grunt, snork), I have time to play "hamstring the Gish Galloper"

P.S. "Scienthuse" I'm sure you'll be directly addressing OM's questions here, right?
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,12:20)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:04)
I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry then, I must have missed that. What time period was that?

Your previous post, as you say gives a time span. What you have not said is what possible chronological time period that span potentially covers.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't expect an exact time. I expect a "time span" to be given in units of time, and so far I've not seen that. As far as I can tell you could be defining "rapid" as millions of years.

What's the upper limit on the the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 04 2009,17:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone -- since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly -- in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought "uniformitarian" meant following the same rules of physics as similar processes would follow today? I.e., it doesn't imply anything about the rate of the process.

Henry
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 04 2009,18:46

I'm just wondering how well hysterics, whining and chucking teddy from the pram regarding all Teh Meanies of Teh Internetz has served our new chum in the past. He/she seems fond of the melodramatic approach.

Frankly, my 4 month old kid can spit his dummy out with more style and panache than this latest funster. (He rolled over by himself today, I am so proud.)

Clownshoes honks in, red nose and all, and chucks whitewash around whilst telling us off for being meanies and cynical, hard hearted meanies at that. Why some of us, according to Clownshoes, don't even believe Teh Jebus was real.

Someone please think of the children.

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 04 2009,19:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone please think of the children.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, ap-parent-ly you just did, so that request is already satisfied. :p

Henry
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 04 2009,19:15

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2009,01:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone please think of the children.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, ap-parent-ly you just did, so that request is already satisfied. :p

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My hat is off to you, sir. You never fail to pun appropriately. Here's looking at you, kid. I am now going to my new springless bed with a lady of negotiable virtue called Jenny. That's right, I'm about to be off spring with my pro Jenny.

Tip your veal, try the waitress, I'm all weak here.

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 04 2009,19:52

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,17:54)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone -- since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly -- in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought "uniformitarian" meant following the same rules of physics as similar processes would follow today? I.e., it doesn't imply anything about the rate of the process.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While we wait for the...er...aroma of Louis' last post to dissipate,  it's fun to see why I was pointing out that "Scienthuse's" posts also reeked, but for different reasons, and with Scienthuse's containing the familiar stench of creo-bullshit. Here's two of Scienthuse's posts:

     
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
b)McKee and Ghutschick (1969) admit lack of coral reefs,(hello WHERE ARE THEY?????) and stromalites "which might form slowly in tidal flat environments...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and
     
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that scienthuse is utterly ignorant of some basic facts: The redwall limestone generally dates from the early to middle Mississippian. In the grand canyon this limestone averages about 450 feet in thickness and 335 million years in age. It holds fossil corals, along with the bryozoans, crinoids, brachipods and other critters mentioned previously

Yet, "Scienthuse" seems to think he's (or she, who knows) is making some really IMPORTANT POINT by saying "look, no coral reefs, ma!"

Reef systems (say, in the Ordovician) were composed primarily of stuff like crinoid, bryozoan and brachiopod communities. By the Devonian, reefs incorporated more rugose corals < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugosa > -- but with brachiopods and crinoids still dominating.

This continues down through the Mississippian, which is why we do find coral fossils in the Redwall Limestone -- along with all the other fossils (crinoids, brachiopods, etc) characteristic of shallow epeiric seas

It's only really since the Triassic that we see modern corals (scleractinian) and bivalves, sponges, etc as primary reef-building organisms globally. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral >

So, in parroting Austin -- who is simply a con-artist -- "Scienthuse" (what a misnomer portmanteau that is!) simply shows how truly ignorant of the topics he is. Well, that and he apparently can't be arsed to either think for himself OR use Wikipedia, even.

And now, we return viewers back to the regularly scheduled pun 'n fun fest.

ETA: I'll be betting that "Scienthuse" tries to respond to *this* post rather than my previous one, which he'll avoid (in any meaningful detail) like the plague.

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
you are going to  preach at me with your "liar for Jesus" stuff--you probably don't even believe he existed! When at the same time you are obviously full of bitterness and malice.  It's almost time for me to go--because I can feel the absolute cynicism and hardness in some of you.  It spreads like cancer!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hahaha. Shorter Scienthuse:

"Stop spanking me like that! Yes, I avoid, bullshit and fling fallacies, but I'm *innocent*!! I'm going to run away, just you wait! WATERLOO!!!"
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 04 2009,21:00

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:47)
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone--since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly--in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??  

But instead you are going to  preach at me with your "liar for Jesus" stuff--you probably don't even believe he existed! When at the same time you are obviously full of bitterness and malice.  It's almost time for me to go--because I can feel the absolute cynicism and hardness in some of you.  It spreads like cancer!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Idiot.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 04 2009,22:02


There's your image deadman, and now here's your quote.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You gave me a pixel of the entire redwall formation, but we'll go with an initial observation.  First of all--there is no way it is 95% calcium carbonate. Do you know what is about 98% pure--the WHITE cliffs of Dover.  Did I "gallop' to know that?  Nah.  I already knew it.  

The cliffs of dover are WHITE chalk--made up of forminefera and other phytoplankton. Did I gallop--nah. Look at how RED your cliff is.  Do we need to say that's some kind of oxidation? Did I gallop--nah. Probably with some metal like magnesium--since you want me to talk about dolomitic limestone.  Did I gallop--a little, i had to research a little on dolomite--isn't a troll dishonest?

Limestone is not that pure. Maybe there is iron or another metal mixed in, I don't know--do you know what causes it to be red?  I'm sure you went there and analyzed the entire cliff Deadman--so why don't you tell me what it is (lol--I think we need to laugh a little).  Maybe it has "red clay" which comes from an ooze that is 30% or less of marine shells.  Anyway, I'm sure you're going to let me know after you tell me how much I don't know about it...:D

As far as jumping through your hoops--last time I checked you weren't my professor--so I don't have an assignment due.:)

Vertical structure--Ooze? Oozes are not 95% pure CC. Well didn't I tell you once that the RL is calcite and modern oozes are aragonite.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.  Do you or I think that cliff sits as it was originally formed--you don't and I don't.  Stuff fell off of it.  If it was cut by massive amounts of water having only a little plasticity (there is a scientific word for the thickness of a solution--do you remember what it is? I'm trying not to regurgitate much), which I believe it did--the pressure made it to drain quickly and probably it had already began to have secondary chemical changes--which some scientists believe is the cause of dolomite--but they don't know for sure--so I don't either.

Okay, you keep tripping over the fact that somehow it's going to fall over--I'll say it again--IT IS NOT A WALL--IT IS THE EDGE OF THOUSANDS OF CUBIC MILES OF HORIZONTAL SEDIMENT.  

My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

Then and most importantly above all.  You have no idea how many tectonic events have affected the Grand Canyon--while (hypothetically) the material was wet and when after (hypothetically) it was cut.

You have to understand, Deadman--you have to ask!  And another thing--I think we are all taking ourselves too seriously here.  Maybe we need to take a chill pill or blood pressure or something.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 04 2009,22:13

Disclaimer-- I realize after reading the illustration in my previous post that 1) the Redwall Limestone is much more complex, and 2) the illustration is very inexact and there is no way to know if it is accurate.  It is an illustration designed to get an idea accross.  Mainly that the edge of thousands of cubic miles of wet sediment is not necessarily  going to collapse--otherwise one could never dig a 35  foot well through "soft wet" soil.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 04 2009,22:19

My thought will never be the same when I hear that someone is being parroted.


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T1vfsHYiKY >
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 04 2009,22:41

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)

There's your image deadman, and now here's your quote.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You gave me a pixel of the entire redwall formation, but we'll go with an initial observation.  First of all--there is no way it is 95% calcium carbonate. Do you know what is about 98% pure--the WHITE cliffs of Dover.  Did I "gallop' to know that?  Nah.  I already knew it.  

The cliffs of dover are WHITE chalk--made up of forminefera and other phytoplankton. Did I gallop--nah. Look at how RED your cliff is.  Do we need to say that's some kind of oxidation? Did I gallop--nah. Probably with some metal like magnesium--since you want me to talk about dolomitic limestone.  Did I gallop--a little, i had to research a little on dolomite--isn't a troll dishonest?

Limestone is not that pure. Maybe there is iron or another metal mixed in, I don't know--do you know what causes it to be red?  I'm sure you went there and analyzed the entire cliff Deadman--so why don't you tell me what it is (lol--I think we need to laugh a little).  Maybe it has "red clay" which comes from an ooze that is 30% or less of marine shells.  Anyway, I'm sure you're going to let me know after you tell me how much I don't know about it...:D

As far as jumping through your hoops--last time I checked you weren't my professor--so I don't have an assignment due.:)

Vertical structure--Ooze? Oozes are not 95% pure CC. Well didn't I tell you once that the RL is calcite and modern oozes are aragonite.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.  Do you or I think that cliff sits as it was originally formed--you don't and I don't.  Stuff fell off of it.  If it was cut by massive amounts of water having only a little plasticity (there is a scientific word for the thickness of a solution--do you remember what it is? I'm trying not to regurgitate much), which I believe it did--the pressure made it to drain quickly and probably it had already began to have secondary chemical changes--which some scientists believe is the cause of dolomite--but they don't know for sure--so I don't either.

Okay, you keep tripping over the fact that somehow it's going to fall over--I'll say it again--IT IS NOT A WALL--IT IS THE EDGE OF THOUSANDS OF CUBIC MILES OF HORIZONTAL SEDIMENT.  

My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

Then and most importantly above all.  You have no idea how many tectonic events have affected the Grand Canyon--while (hypothetically) the material was wet and when after (hypothetically) it was cut.

You have to understand, Deadman--you have to ask!  And another thing--I think we are all taking ourselves too seriously here.  Maybe we need to take a chill pill or blood pressure or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you would simply google "redwall limestone"  you would find that the red is staining from the red beds of  the overlying Supai formation.

and you seem to be the only one hyperventilating.  Everyone else is just laughing.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 04 2009,23:42

Essentially, Scienthuse's argument boils down to "yes, Austin and Morris are right about how limestone can magically solidify, then be eroded because of a magical flood, and you should take a chill pill because you get mean in the way you get impatient with my inane non-responses!"

And this also fails to explain how there can be several fossil reefs preserved within the Grand Canyon, nor how the various layers of igneous rock were also magically lain down then eroded in a magical flood lasting 40 days and 40 nights.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,01:16

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 04 2009,22:41)
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)
There's your image deadman, and now here's your quote.
                 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You gave me a pixel of the entire redwall formation, but we'll go with an initial observation.  First of all--there is no way it is 95% calcium carbonate. Do you know what is about 98% pure--the WHITE cliffs of Dover.  Did I "gallop' to know that?  Nah.  I already knew it.  

The cliffs of dover are WHITE chalk--made up of forminefera and other phytoplankton. Did I gallop--nah. Look at how RED your cliff is.  Do we need to say that's some kind of oxidation?... Limestone is not that pure. Maybe there is iron or another metal mixed in, I don't know--do you know what causes it to be red?  I'm sure you went there and analyzed the entire cliff Deadman--so why don't you tell me what it is (lol--I think we need to laugh a little).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you would simply google "redwall limestone"  you would find that the red is staining from the red beds of  the overlying Supai formation.

and you seem to be the only one hyperventilating.  Everyone else is just laughing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's even funnier is this: earlier, local resident "genius" Scienthuse posted this site as evidence:
     
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
4) Detailed but broken up fossils along with sand and other minerals shows rapid burial--evidence of transport
and rapid burial of bryozoan and an abundance of detailed crinoid fossils.

< Mckee and Gutschick redwall >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he'd actually read that information THAT HE HIMSELF CITED, he'd see this:
"The Redwall Limestone is a very pure calcium carbonate rock containing less than one percent sand and shale particles."

High Purity or HICAL (high calcium) limestone is defined as limestone at (>95% wt% CaCO3) note to Clownshoes: CaCO3 = calcium carbonate

It's used for portland cement, gas-flue desulfurization, metallurgical flux, etc.

They used to mine limestone from the Grand Canyon Redwall for high-purity limestone.  Hell, the Horseshoe and Mooney Falls members of the Redwall both contain oolitic limestone and are both over 98% pure calcium carbonates. < http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm >

They can't mine the limestone out of protected federal lands anymore, but they DO mine the Redwall limestone in Utah, where it is 99% pure CaCo3.

See:   Tripp, Bryce T. (2003) High-calcium limestone resources of Utah. Pub. Utah Geological Survey. Table, p.8

Not the best image in the world, but I just used something that you could find online so that you didn't need to hyperventilate, Clownshoes. It says "99.4%" pure CaCO3(on average).

So, why didn't you answer my questions above, Scienthuse?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences. DETAILS
(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous claims. That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't do that, can you? Not with any of your YEC resources online. Oh, yeah -- I'm really unnerved and on edge about your teenage incompetence and that of Steve Austin ( who's only just a little better at bullshitting than you, Clownshoes) .
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 05 2009,02:52

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,12:20)
 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:04)
I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry then, I must have missed that. What time period was that?

Your previous post, as you say gives a time span. What you have not said is what possible chronological time period that span potentially covers.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't expect an exact time. I expect a "time span" to be given in units of time, and so far I've not seen that. As far as I can tell you could be defining "rapid" as millions of years.

What's the upper limit on the the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coward.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,04:08

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)
My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This was the funniest part, really. If you read it carefully, it's like someone on hallucinogens -- or maybe with brain damage -- wrote it.

Apparently, wet sand formed into a wall "300 feet" high (on a base 100 feet thick) ... left to dry for months...doesn't all collapse when one digs into it.

Majickally, no doubt.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 05 2009,04:16

Well if it's 95 % CaCO3 then it must not have much CaMg(CO3)2 in it.  But I was told it does...(?) You can guess who on this post--since you have it all figured out. Where did all that go?  As I was told in a manner of speaking--terminology means things.

Does anyone know the actual % of marine shells--because OOZES and lime muds do not produce the % you are talking about?

Anyway I'll be researching it. Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,04:18

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
Well if it's 95 % CaCO3 then it must not have much CaMg(CO3)2 in it.  But I was told it does...(?) You can guess who on this post--since you have it all figured out. Where did all that go?  As I was told in a manner of speaking--terminology means things.

Does anyone know the actual % of marine shells--because OOZES and lime muds do not produce the % you are talking about?

Anyway I'll be researching it. Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already know how they got there and so would you if you knew how to do a search.

Why don't you answer the questions I asked you, Clownshoes?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences. DETAILS
(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous claims. That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 05 2009,05:15

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll be right on that once you give a time period, in units of time, for the formation of the Redwall limestone.

You either know or you don't.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 05 2009,05:39

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,05:16)
Anyway I'll be researching it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Idiot.

Don't you think you might should have done that before you came in here running your mouth at a bunch of actual real-world scientists?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,05:55

Beware, the Scienthuse Synchronized Goalpost Moving Team:


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,09:57

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
 Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As I said, already done:


Oh, look -- it's a striated andesitic boulder on the north side of the Santa Cruz River valley, on the San Fernando terrace at an elevation of 40 m above the river valley, 90 km away from the Atlantic Ocean, right about where Darwin recorded similar erratic blocks of similar size.



<sarcasm>Gee, I guess no one but Steve Austin has studied the area at all.</sarcasm>
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 05 2009,11:29

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,20:02)
My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, for a small fraction of the cost of that ridiculous "museum", AIG could have bought a few boatloads of sand and given this a try.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 05 2009,12:31

hahahahahahahaha

Scienthuse don't take it personally.  It's ok to be wrong, and be corrected.  that's what science does.  hmmm YEC, not so much.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 05 2009,19:07

Here is another picture of the Redwall Limestone that clearly demonstrates the staining:



Note the section that says "Naked Redwall" is unstained because the Supai group has either eroded away or is not exposed.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 05 2009,19:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, look -- it's a striated andesitic boulder on the north side of the Santa Cruz River valley, on the San Fernando terrace at an elevation of 40 m above the river valley, 90 km away from the Atlantic Ocean, right about where Darwin recorded similar erratic blocks of similar size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those erratic boulders look pretty dangerous to me!*







*Pratchett's Interesting Times reference inside...**







**I've been waiting decades for someone to use "erratic boulders" on a forum. THAT'S commitment!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 05 2009,22:23

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,09:57)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
 Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As I said, already done:


Oh, look -- it's a striated andesitic boulder on the north side of the Santa Cruz River valley, on the San Fernando terrace at an elevation of 40 m above the river valley, 90 km away from the Atlantic Ocean, right about where Darwin recorded similar erratic blocks of similar size.



<sarcasm>Gee, I guess no one but Steve Austin has studied the area at all.</sarcasm>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From [URL=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1661&keywords=south+unstratified+deposits+contemporaneous+boulders+the+on+distribution+erratic+of+americ

a+and&pageseq=1]On the distribution of the erratic boulders and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits of South America[/URL]:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The valley in which the Santa Cruz flows, widens as it approaches the Cordillera, into a plain, in form like an estuary, with its mouth (see map, Pl. XL.) directed towards the mountains. This plain is only 440 feet above the level of the sea, and in all probability it was submerged within, or nearly within, the post-pliocene period. I am induced to form this inference from the presence of existing sea shells in the valley, and from the extension far up it of step-like terraces which on the sea-coast, certainly are of recent submarine origin. Round the estuary-like plain, and between it and the great high plain, there is a second plain, about 800 feet above the sea-level, and its surface consists of a bed of shingle with great boulders. In this part of the valley, namely, between thirty or forty miles from the Cordillera, there were, in the bed of the river, boulders* of granite, syenite and conglomerate, varieties of rock which I did not observe on the high plain; and I particularly noticed that there were none of the basaltic lava. From this latter fact and from several other circumstances, more especially from the immense quantity of solid matter which must have been removed in the excavation of the deep and broad valley, we may feel sure that the boulders on the intermediate plain and in the bed of the river, are not the wreck of those originally deposited on the high plain. These boulders, therefore, must have been transported subsequently from the Cordillera, and after an interval during which the land was modelled into the form above described. Those on the lowest plain must have been transported within, or not long before, the period of existing shells.

I have said that the first erratic block which I met with, was sixty-seven miles from the nearest slope of the Cordillera; I must, however, record the case of one solitary rounded fragment of feldspathic rock lying in the bed of the river, at the distance of 110 miles from the mountains. This fragment was seven feet in circumference, and projected eighteen inches above the surface, with apparently a large part buried beneath it. As its dimensions are not very great, we may speculate on some method of transportal different from that, by which the plain near the mountains was strewed with such innumerable boulders; for instance, of its having been imbedded in a cake of river ice. Its solitary position is, however, a singular fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The pictures deadman932 posted come from an < interesting paper by Strelin and Malagnino > that, for the most part confirms what Darwin proposed. One exception being that what Darwin thought was an paleo-estuary was actually a lake created by glacial damming. The article goes on to say:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, the origin of the erratic blocks (Fig. 2) found in the lower valley of the Río Santa Cruz (Site 1, Fig. 1) has not been elucidated yet. Darwin (1842b) was sensitive to this enigma, which he tried to solve when he suggested that they could have been accumulated after rafting over fluvial ice. At present we consider this feasible and furthermore that it could have been after the catastrophic draining of the ancient Arroyo Verde morainedammed glacier-lake (Strelin and Malagnino 1996).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



One interesting fact that the paper brings to light is that Darwin's observations in the area allowed later scientists to map the history and extent of glaciation in the area.
You might also find < this article by Strelin et al of interest. >

Edit to fix some formatting errors.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2009,22:41

*Shakes his fist*
DAMN YOU! Damn you and your inquisitive, always-seeking-knowledge, nosy nature, you bipedal ape!


:angry:
Here's some other cites for ya:

Depetris, P. J. and A. I. Pasquini. (2000) The hydrological signal of the Perito Moreno Glacier damming of Lake Argentino (southern Andean Patagonia): the connection to climate anomalies. Global and Planetary Change 26:367–374. < http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921818100000497 >

Rott, H.; Stuefer, M.; Nagler, T.; Riedl, C. (2005) Recent Fluctuations and Damming of Glaciar Perito Moreno, Patagonia, Observed by Means of ERS and Envisat Imagery. Proceedings of the 2004 Envisat & ERS Symposium (ESA SP-572). 6-10 September 2004, Salzburg, Austria. < http://earth.esa.int/symposi....117.pdf >

Skvarca, P., and R. Naruse (2006),Correspondence—Overview of the ice-dam formation and collapse of Glaciar Perito Moreno, southern Patagonia, in 2003/2004, J.Glaciol., 52(178),476–478.

Stuefer, M., H. Rott, and P.Skvarca (2007), Glaciar Perito Moreno, Patagonia: Climate sensitivities and glacier characteristics preceeding the 2003/04 and 2005/06 damming events, J.Glaciol., 53(180), 3–16.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The advance of Perito Moreno Glacier, a lacustrine calving glacier in Argentina, has periodically blocked a large tributary arm of the lake with dam failures there producing outburst floods that are reported to have released 3 to 4 km^3 of water < http://www.uas.alaska.edu/envs....007.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(the Perito Moreno is the source of the glacier-dam flooding, it does it a LOT, but flooding didn't create the entire friggin' valley -- contrary to Austin's implications, and certainly not in his implied singular megafludde)

An interesting map, by Chucky D:
First Geological Map of Patagonia: < http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/raga/v64n1/v64n1a07.pdf >

Stuff by Jorge Strelin et al,  minus the material which Mr. Nosy afarensis already pointed to:

Strelin, J.A. (1995). New evidences on the relationships between the oldest estra-andean glaciations in the the Santa Cruz River area. A.A. Balkema, Quaternary of South America and Antarctic Peninsula 9: 105-116, Rotterdam.

Strelin, J.A. and Malagnino, E.C. (1996). Glaciaciones Pleistocenas del Lago Argentino y Alto Valle del Río Santa Cruz. 13° Congreso Geológico Argentino, Actas 4: 311-326.

:)
--------------------------------------

ETA: I forgot about this one:
Aguirre-Urreta, Beatriz and Miguel Griffin, Victor A. Ramos (2009) Darwin's geological research in Argentina. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent. v.64 n.1 Buenos Aires ene./mar. 2009 < http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.....arttext >

In contrast to Austin's petty, propaganda-driven bullshit faulting Darwin for not being right about the erratics (when Darwin couldn't have even known about Agassiz' "glacier theories" at the time), it's interesting to see how much he got right at that distant date, and the sheer breadth & scope of the cross-disciplinary work he did by himself.

This is really important, for people interested in such topics, as opposed to wankers like clownshoes:

< http://www.scielo.org.ar/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/iah/ >

That link gives access to papers like these:

Ramos, Victor A. (2009) Darwin at Puente del Inca: observations on the formation of the Inca's bridge and mountain building. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.170-179. ISSN 0004-4822

Vizcaíno, Sergio F., Fariña, Richard A. and Fernicola, Juan Carlos (2009) Young Darwin and the ecology and extinction of pleistocene south american fossil mammals. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.160-169. ISSN 0004-4822

Fernicola, Juan Carlos, Vizcaíno, Sergio F. and De Iuliis, Gerardo (2009) The fossil mammals collected by Charles Darwin in South America during his travels on board the HMS Beagle. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.147-159.

Iriondo, Martin and Kröhling, Daniela (2009) From Buenos Aires to Santa Fe: Darwin's observations and modern knowledge. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.109-123.

Martínez, Oscar A., Rabassa, Jorge and Coronato, Andrea (2009) Charles Darwin and the first scientific observations on the patagonian shingle formation (Rodados Patagónicos). Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.90-100.

Giambiagi, Laura, Tunik, Maisa, Ramos, Victor A. et al. (2009) The High Andean Cordillera of central Argentina and Chile along the Piuquenes Pass-Cordon del Portillo transect: Darwin's pioneering observations compared with modern geology. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.43-54.

Aguirre-Urreta, Beatriz and Vennari, Verónica (2009) On Darwin's footsteps across the Andes: Tithonian-Neocomian fossil invertebrates from the Piuquenes pass. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.32-42.

AND 11 OTHER QUALITY PAPERS ON DARWIN'S WORK (just click the "texto en inglés" link next to each title)

Come to think of it, it might be useful for someone to notify the Pharyngula and ERV groups, etc. on these. Alas I don't have an insider pass to those folks. I am sooooo lonely :(
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 06 2009,00:10

Scheeze you guys, I was merely going to point out that Darwin never got close to the top of the canyon where he would have found live glaciers. According to his log of the trip, they had to turn back when the Andes were just in view.

But you have so totally demolished the stupidity of creato chew-toy sciencylouse that I feel quite redundant.


Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 06 2009,06:44

On Agassiz, Darwin in his 1842 work, linked to in my previous comment, had this to say:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
M. Agassiz has shown that blocks of rock are not imbedded in the ice of the Swiss glaciers, except high up near their sources, and that those numerous masses which lie on the surface, from not being exposed to much abrasion, remain angular: hence only loose angular blocks of rock (as was the case with those on the floating ice in Sir G. Eyre's Sound) can be transported by icebergs, detached from the glaciers of temperate countries. And to effect this, the icebergs must be floated off perpendicularly and in large masses, for otherwise the loose fragments would be at once hurled into the sea. These remarks do not necessarily apply to icebergs formed under a polar climate, for if a glacier in its descent, reached the sea before the fragments of rock which had fallen on the soft snow had come to the surface, icebergs would be produced with imbedded fragments of rock: I have described in the 'Geographical Journal'* the case of one huge fragment thus circumstanced, seen drifting far from land in the Antarctic Ocean.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,14:30

Ack, Mr. afarensis is right, as usual. When I said " Darwin couldn't have even known about Agassiz' "glacier theories" at the time," I was careless.

Darwin, in April of 1834 (the time of the Santa Cruz investigation), hadn't heard of Agassiz' theories.

By 1837, He had. Darwin expressed criticisms of Agassiz glacier theories in his Voyage of the Beagle, < here > and < here. >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"M. Agassiz has lately (Address to the Helvetic Society, July 1837, translated in Jameson's New Philosophical Journal, vol. xxiii., p. 364, and in several communications in the French periodical L'Institut) written on the subject of the glaciers and boulders of the Alps. He clearly proves, as it appears to me, that the presence of the boulders on the Jura cannot be explained by any debacle, or by the power of ancient glaciers driving before them moraines, or by the subsequent elevation of the surface on which the boulders now lie. M. Agassiz also denies that they were transported by floating ice, but he does not fully state his objections to this theory; nor does he oppose it, by the argument of the apparent anomaly of a low descent of glaciers."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By 1842, when Darwin had written " On the distribution of the erratic boulders and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits of South America " (Transactions of the Geological Society of London. 6: 415-432.), Darwin had read Agassiz' "Étude sur les glaciers" (1841) and disagreed with Agassiz claims.

Darwin wrote to Lyell that Darwin believed Agassiz "confessed" therein that  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"ordinary glaciers could not have transported the blocks there & if an hypothesis is to be introduced, the sea is much simpler" < Letter 595 — Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles, [12? Mar 1841] >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Darwin obviously knew about Agassiz' glacier theories when Darwin wrote up the erratics piece -- he simply disagreed with Agassiz' mechanism. I had meant to simply refer to the 1834 Santa Cruz expedition, and neglected to clarify my point. Either way, it was lazy to phrase things the way I did.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 06 2009,18:37

Yeah, I realized the distinction you were making later.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,19:03

You still seemed to have scared away Clownshoes. I blame you for breaking this toy.

THIS is why we can't have fun things around here anymore.

Well, that plus Louis' mum still ... oh, well, never mind.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 06 2009,19:11

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,19:03)
You still seemed to have scared away Clownshoes. I blame you for breaking this toy.

THIS is why we can't have fun things around here anymore.

Well, that plus Louis' mum still ... oh, well, never mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry :(  Didn't mean to break the toy....
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 06 2009,23:05

that toy was already broke it was just waiting for the wheels to come off.  mebbe he joined the mormons
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 07 2009,02:25

It would be interesting to point out the parallels between our two current shewtoys' arguments (FL and Clownshoes). Very similar tactics at time. WE know these kind of tactics, but it might enlighten the casual onlooker.

Just a thought...
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 07 2009,03:38

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 07 2009,08:25)
It would be interesting to point out the parallels between our two current shewtoys' arguments (FL and Clownshoes). Very similar tactics at time. WE know these kind of tactics, but it might enlighten the casual onlooker.

Just a thought...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Their tactics are a combination of Seagull and Princess of the Politeness Police.

The seagull element involves them flying in, squawking loudly and shitting everywhere, the PotPP element involves them pre-emptively whining about Teh Meanness so they have an excuse to run away or ignore inconvenient things like facts or logic.

FL has the additional element of "NUH UH you didn't say anything, lalalalalalalala can't hear you!", and both of them exhibit the wonderful creationist favourite of convenient relativism. I.e. they are dishonestly relativist when it suits them to be, they'll fall back on "same evidence, two interpretations" or an insinuation of this kind.

All very familiar, all very pathetic. Watch the tu quoque this engenders.

Louis

ETA: Oh you want a serious analysis, with examples? You think their schtick is worth it?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 07 2009,03:51

Naahh. You summed it up quite nicely...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,04:34

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,03:38)
ETA: Oh you want a serious analysis, with examples? You think their schtick is worth it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. I'd like that in Finnish and ...ummm...one of those African click languages, plz.

Arden can help you -- he said he's mastered many a tongue, something about Carlson's mum, etc.

ETA: Also, you guys/gals should be ashamed of tormenting poor little Clownshoes. (he did seem like a sock rather than a shoe).
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 07 2009,08:01

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,04:34)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,03:38)
ETA: Oh you want a serious analysis, with examples? You think their schtick is worth it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. I'd like that in Finnish and ...ummm...one of those African click languages, plz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean like the !Kung?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 07 2009,08:20

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,10:34)
[SNIP]

(he did seem like a sock rather than a shoe).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My feelings precisely. Mind you, I am so jaded with all this nonsense I am pretty sceptical about anyone on the net advancing anything. I've wasted vastly too much of my time chasing trolls and the utterly intellectually vacuous around their arguments. If someone genuinely novel and useful came along I'd be amazed, but until then, my care factor is loooooooow.

What really annoys me is this applies to the "bigwigs" too. If you've followed the Sullivan letters debacle on Jason Rosenhouse's blog, or (as any UD follower knows) Dembski's more academic works, or pretty much any theological "debate" the same shit applies. Bigger words and more erudite expression perhaps but the same asinine logical errors, the same evasion the same strawmen. The straw that broke this camel's back was Mark Vernon's book "After Atheism", it wasn't just bad, it was beautifully bad, so bad I was/am nearly inspired to write a book length rebuttal. If only my time wouldn't be utterly wasted in doing so, I think I would actually bother. My time is better spent with a book in hand, even one containing a bad argument like Vernon's, than chasing the asinine irrelevancy of another GoP, Skeptic or AFDave, or even (especially) someone with more time than sense imitating one of these bozos.

Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but, well, tough!

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,10:44

Oh, I agree for the most part, BUT there's a need for bullshit to be countered in the most efficient way, and dealing with the really smarmy types like AFDave or GoP or better yet, the "academics" ... it gives training in knowing, anticipating, countering and defeating their bullshit.

I think it can also fairly be said that the proper Bible-thumper can force deeper examinations of science (or other) topics that are rarely addressed in texts. Like the ongoing Dembski information debacle, maybe.

ETA: I'm not disagreeing that it's largely a waste of time, of course. But it does have some utilitarian value, however slight. I'd hate to see what the U.S. would look like if the Bible-thumpers were never opposed at every (meaningful) turn. Probably like this:    

Posted by: Louis on Oct. 07 2009,14:17

{Puts on vaguely serious hat for once}

Deadman,

Purpose and utility: I'm going to divide this into two types: personal and general.

The general purpose and utility of arguing with denialists of any stripe in any forum is undeniable. They need countering vocally in public and I fully agree that the web is a good place to "train" and cut one's chops so to speak. Not only that but for the professional combating of denialist nonsense it serves as an excellent way to gather information. Out of such efforts have things like the discovery of the Wedge document arisen. On the wider picture you and I are in full agreement.

The personal purpose and utility of arguing is also undeniable, but only up to a certain point. Yes, as mentioned above, it can serve as great training. Yes, it can force one to examine subjects one might not have even considered before. That for me personally has been the greatest utility. I've learned about areas of study I didn't know existed and my offline pursuit of understanding of them has broadened my education considerably. I have a vastly better understanding of how deeply ignorant I am about a huge amount of stuff! The more I learn, the more ignorant I realise I am. It's very humbling and very challenging. It makes me want to correct that ignorance ever more.

I agree think challenging yourself by arguing with people holding different ideas is a good thing, it's how I changed a lot of my old, dodgier ideas for one, and you're right it forces a deeper examination both personally and on a wider level. That said, for any given individual, that utility dramatically drops off when they've learned the general pattern of fundy funster behaviour etc. When the "basics" are learned then time offline, maybe even several years worth, is what's needed. The online antics and "debate" become a distraction from the pursuit of that self education that the original spurt of online antics and debate illustrated a need for.

For example, can you really say that any creationist has presented you with anything intellectually challenging within the last year (likely more than that)? Many of the people here have finely honed, highly tuned, massive calibre muppet guns. Let's for the sake of argument assume that Clownshoes is serious. Let's assume Clownshoes is a genuine creationist, a real person, most likely from somewhere in the central/southern USA who sincerely believes what he/she is typing out here. The second someone like Clownshoes puts finger to keyboard  half a dozen of us blow him out of the internet. These poor stooges have no chance, hence why they resort to the usual bullshit they do (tone concern, evasion, Gish Gallops etc etc). How many times have you played out the Grand Canyon arguments? How many times has the information issue been discussed? How many times has each and every one of us described the various modes of selection, the various types of speciation etc. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's not a challenge any more.

Also, let's be blunt, playing on the web has its uses but it's hardly real life activism. I think few, if any, of us can claim to contribute what, for example, Wes does in real life for the cause of combating antievolution. Things like PT, Pharyngula etc have grown out of people mucking about on TO, so I know this has its purposes and utility.

My comment above is more to do with individual utility. I'm not going to, or at least very unlikely to, go into combating antievolution in a direct professional sense. Hence this has reached a natural endpoint of utility for me. I don't need or want to tilt at every windmill that appears. I don't for one second criticise those who do, after all I did that too, it just no longer serves the purpose for me it once did. I have new things to learn. Hence why my continued ennui with the whole shebang. I will mention on very large caveat: should new evidence come up, or should a new creationist genuinely interested in discussion as opposed to recycling AIG misconceptions arrive, I'll change my tune. The intellectual to and fro is exciting, useful and interesting. Previous bouts have illustrated to me the glaring holes in my knowledge I need to fill, so my bookshelves now grown with a huge amount of books on evolutionary biology (all read), geology (some read), philosophy (some read) and theology (some read) etc. Amazon.co.uk has done very well out of me and my horizons have been sufficiently expanded to allow me to know what I need to learn better. I need to get on with doing that, and I am.

I hang around because, well, and don't take this the wrong way, I like you guys! The banter is, well, pretty silly, and that amuses me. The fact that there are a hardcore group of people that can swing into action at the merest sniff of a muppet is hilarious, and I'm still learning things from you guys occasionally (esp for example about computer science and information theory).

Cheers

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 07 2009,14:29

But, Louis, what about doing it for shit and giggles? It's not so much time consuming when you can home onto the creotards' stupidity in one go. your wit would be sadly miss here if you just went away.

for the sake of Fun, keep up the fight! :D
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 07 2009,14:41

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 07 2009,20:29)
But, Louis, what about doing it for shit and giggles? It's not so much time consuming when you can home onto the creotards' stupidity in one go. your wit would be sadly miss here if you just went away.

for the sake of Fun, keep up the fight! :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not going anywhere, but I'm certainly not going to put any effort into dealing with the odd creationist stooge that pops up. If they can't meet the barest minimum standard of intellectual honesty and novelty then why waste my time with them (apart from for shits and giggles of course)?

Mind you, it isn't as much fun for me as once it was, I crave the novel, the challenging, these guys simply cannot manage that any more. Plus I have serious real world commitments, so it's convenient that I care a little less because otherwise I'd be annoyed by wanting to bat the silly fuckers across the internet!

As for wit? Wit? WIT? Please! I make occasional low grade dick jokes.......oh I see what you mean, yeah, I'm fucking hilarious, me! ;-)

Louis

ETA: I'm also homing in on my 5000th post, which is far too many. I wonder what else I could have done with the time. For example I understand the internet has something called "pornography" on it. Now mental masturbation is all well and good, but it's no substitute for the real thing. Ask Deadman, he'll tell you. He is something of an autophilia enthusiast (as well as a scuridophile).
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 07 2009,14:47

Louis, i agree with you.  I have only been doing this a couple of months and I am sick and tired of trying to have a discussion with people whose only skill is cut and paste. I mean, are they even capable of having an original thought?

It was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel for a while, but now it's more like kicking puppies.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 07 2009,14:59

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 07 2009,20:47)
Louis, i agree with you.  I have only been doing this a couple of months and I am sick and tired of trying to have a discussion with people whose only skill is cut and paste. I mean, are they even capable of having an original thought?

It was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel for a while, but now it's more like kicking puppies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a great tool to train oneself on, as Deadman rightly says, but after that I really think one's time is better spent in the library. You really do get to a point where your denialist bashing skills and basic knowledge are sufficient to take on pretty much all comers when it comes to creationists.

To be blunt, there really aren't that many novel creationist ideas and strategies. They've been recycling the same few for decades, and borrowing from silly post modernists and other species of denialist (look at Holocaust denialists and attempts to bait Deborah Lipstadt into "debates" for example). It's just not that much of a challenge to be frank. I can imagine that the frustration of someone like Genie Scott (or Wes or your average US high school science teacher) who has to fight these fuckers in the field day in day out is enormous. It's important that they continue to do the excellent work they do though, and more power to them.

And I'm sure creationists have the capacity for original thought, in fact I know it's the case, I've worked with creationist colleagues who were excellent chemists. It's the same with all denialists, there is this (sometimes narrow) subset of their intellectual life where all reason seems to fly out of the window, and it's often for very profoundly personal reasons. I doubt you could, for example, find an ardent, active proponent of creationismwho didn't think that their open advocacy of creationism was tied to them being a good christian (and hence a good patriot or person etc). Look  at the FL thread, the guy is basically having a brainfart every time someone so much as mentions a different species of christianity. He literally cannot get his mind around the concept, and worse, he is trying very, very hard not to. It's illuminating.

Louis
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 07 2009,16:53

Louis: on the same note, seeing denialist abuse of logic has been illuminating to me, if for no other reason than that it has given me a "as it happens" perspective on a number of informal logical fallacies.

Pretty much like solving a problem with a classmate giving another perspective on a mathematical principle as opposed to reading the proof in one sitting.

Plus, there are numerous people on this forum that I'd like to have a beer with, should the temporal and geographical opportunity arise. Sorry FL/Clownshoes, you're not included in that group.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 07 2009,18:03

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,14:41)
ETA: I'm also homing in on my 5000th post, which is far too many.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dare we hope for the traditional Tardologue commemorating the event?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 07 2009,18:46

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 08 2009,00:03)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,14:41)
ETA: I'm also homing in on my 5000th post, which is far too many.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dare we hope for the traditional Tardologue commemorating the event?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly. I might break with the Hughes instigated tradition and do something serious about science.

Probably not, but I did briefly consider the idea.

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,18:55

shorter Louis:  I'm just here to meet boyfriends.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 07 2009,18:55

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 06 2009,00:10)
Scheeze you guys, I was merely going to point out that Darwin never got close to the top of the canyon where he would have found live glaciers. According to his log of the trip, they had to turn back when the Andes were just in view.


But you have so totally demolished the stupidity of creato chew-toy sciencylouse that I feel quite redundant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This was not caused by a glacier.
< Durham Canyon >

You really crack me up guys.  This place is like a high school locker room.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

I'm not done--I've been busy with work--you ever heard of it? I'll give you a nice research paper. Then you answer the EVIDENCE, not me.  

I already found a fact that deadman got wrong--namely the height of the redwall cliffs--by quite a bit.  Oh my, SEE, that means evolution is false because deadman got the height of the cliffs wrong!  That's called sarcasm, lest my words be used against me.  But will you ride that one for the next 50 posts--no because he's your boy!

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,19:00

riiiiight

tillable soil = solid rock

WATERLOOOOO
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 07 2009,19:04

And just for the record--the post that I put down that starting all your moaning about cutting and pasting--That was actually an outline by memory.  The one you called the gish gallop.

I had spent two hours preparing with quotes, references and elaboration when my system crashed.  i had to put it down quickly or guys would have whined or claimed that I had run out of steam or something.

Seriously, it amazes me that you guys are scientists or professors or whatever you are.  Some of you are very juvenile--you just use big words to cover it up.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,19:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seriously, it amazes me that you guys are scientists or professors or whatever you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah me too.  if you look reeeeeallllly closely at Louis's crotch (it's OK, I already saw you doing that anyway) you can see the fleshlight winking on and off.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,19:09

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,18:55)
Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

I'm not done--I've been busy with work--you ever heard of it? I'll give you a nice research paper. Then you answer the EVIDENCE, not me.  

I already found a fact that deadman got wrong--namely the height of the redwall cliffs--by quite a bit.  Oh my, SEE, that means evolution is false because deadman got the height of the cliffs wrong!  That's called sarcasm, lest my words be used against me.  But will you ride that one for the next 50 posts--no because he's your boy!

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I posted about the redwall:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y154985 >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice the part I bolded above, Clownshoes. It's in my original post. I also posted this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Notice that scienthuse is utterly ignorant of some basic facts: The redwall limestone generally dates from the early to middle Mississippian. In the grand canyon this limestone averages about 450 feet in thickness and 335 million years in age. It holds fossil corals, along with the bryozoans, crinoids, brachipods and other critters mentioned previously" [URL=http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6310;st=90#entry155099[/url]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So...what did I get wrong? Be specific, Clownshoes.

No one asked you a "million" questions, you simply got over a dozen things demonstrably, provably wrong, as I listed.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 07 2009,19:15

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,18:55)
]
This was not caused by a glacier.
< Durham Canyon >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me get this straight. You are comparing erosion of unconsolidated top soil to erosion of consolidated rock? hahahahahahahahhahahhhahahahaha.  OUch, I think I pulled something!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,19:20

Well, to be fair, Clownshoes DID write this bit of genius I mentioned previously:

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,04:08)
 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)
My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This was the funniest part, really. If you read it carefully, it's like someone on hallucinogens -- or maybe with brain damage -- wrote it.

Apparently, wet sand formed into a wall "300 feet" high (on a base 100 feet thick) ... left to dry for months...doesn't all collapse when one digs into it.

Majickally, no doubt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, yeah -- sand, unconsolidated soil, schist, sandstone, dolostone...all the same damn thing to Clownshoes.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,19:32

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,03:38)
Their tactics are a combination of Seagull and Princess of the Politeness Police.

The seagull element involves them flying in, squawking loudly and shitting everywhere, the PotPP element involves them pre-emptively whining about Teh Meanness so they have an excuse to run away or ignore inconvenient things like facts or logic...All very familiar, all very pathetic. Watch the tu quoque this engenders.
--Louis

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,18:55)
You really crack me up guys.  This place is like a high school locker room.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,19:04)
Seriously, it amazes me that you guys are scientists or professors or whatever you are.  Some of you are very juvenile--you just use big words to cover it up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




LOUIS IS A PSYCHO PSYCHIC
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,20:04

i still think it's broken, just a little juice left in the battery
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 07 2009,20:32

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 07 2009,20:04)
i still think it's broken, just a little juice left in the battery
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That may explain the change of subject.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 07 2009,20:41

Deadman wrote      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, why didn't you answer my questions above, Scienthuse?
Quote
(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences. DETAILS
(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous claims. That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding

Can't do that, can you? Not with any of your YEC resources online. Oh, yeah -- I'm really unnerved and on edge about your teenage incompetence and that of Steve Austin ( who's only just a little better at bullshitting than you, Clownshoes) .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Deadman let's take your last line there.  Are you inferring that I am misrepresenting myself or evidence.  I don't remember claiming to be a PhD or a professor or an authority in science.  Can you find that post?  But that does not mean I don't understand anything about standard geology, or  chemistry, or biology, or cytology, or bacteria.  

I understand it enough to know that there are plenty of problematic questions   (in reference to origins), so I have a problem with being interrogated and insulted by educated people who know the problems or things science can not account for.  The origin of dolomite is one --so why would you demand me to give account for it--when scientist can not find dolomite being formed??   I said once they believe it could have undergone a secondary chemical  change because of pressure and/or heat but there is no proof of this. < Dolomite >

Stokes Law--What is it you are getting at here? Are you suggesting that water does not move boulders?

I don't know if this is possible but I  wish you would stop pushing me as far as time.  I am very busy and all the referencing and research will take time.  Sometimes I have more time but now is not good.

I would like to say this to everyone here in closing.  Can this go on the record, so that everyone here will know what I understand.  I am well aware of the fact--before I got here--of the fact that limestone is currently forming from corals and other organisms  in shallow calm marine waters. Forminefera, and phytoplankton are also forming calcereous  oozes in deeper waters and these are the most common over the deeper ocean floor.

The issue is not whether the redwall was formed by corals and other calcite producing organisms but whether the origin of the formation is primary?  Is it in place, or is it a result of transport?  This is why I wish to present evidence that has not been mentioned here on this forum.

The problem has been that everyone wants to control the debate.  I will ask no questions--I want only to do one small  research post and if you can rip it apart then go ahead.  I will just learn.

Then I will begin on deadman's questions.  I don't know if you guys will wait that long though.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 07 2009,21:04

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,21:41)
Deadman let's take your last line there.  Are you inferring that I am misrepresenting myself or evidence.  I don't remember claiming to be a PhD or a professor or an authority in science.  Can you find that post?  But that does not mean I don't understand anything about standard geology, or  chemistry, or biology, or cytology, or bacteria.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, idiot.

First, he would be implying, not inferring.

Second, he's not implying anything. He's flat out saying it. Repeatedly. And he's right.

Third, not having a PhD does not mean you don't understand anything about those topics.

Not having a fucking clue however, does.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 07 2009,21:34

Scienthuse, check out a couple of books by donald l baars:  Navajo Country and The Colorado Plateau.  pages 16-19 in the latter talk about the deposition of the Redwall Limestone.  

Neither book is going to do you much good however if you continue to hang on to a 6000 year old earth perspective.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 07 2009,21:36

Hey troublemaker.  Infer and imply are the same thing.

Infer 1 : "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply"  

Imply 2 : "to involve or indicate by inference...."

I guess you don't know everything--but you think you do--that's YOUR problem--not mine --that's why I learn.  Take a lesson bright boy.

The height of the cliffs are 150-200m not thousands as deadman said.

The purity of the redwall which I was not aware of (because there are different purities of limestones) argues against primary formation.  Where's the silicate and sand from the ocean bottom(s)?

This is not from Steve Austin--it's from me.  I going to give you guys a research post after I ignore your arrogant bursts of deranged gloating.  What kind of science is this?

See you later.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 07 2009,21:41

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 07 2009,21:34)
Scienthuse, check out a couple of books by donald l baars:  Navajo Country and The Colorado Plateau.  pages 16-19 in the latter talk about the deposition of the Redwall Limestone.  

Neither book is going to do you much good however if you continue to hang on to a 6000 year old earth perspective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you nmgirl.  I will.  I'm not "hanging on."  Give me some time here--I don't have much.  I need to be getting this post ready.  But I will remember his name--and thank you again.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,21:45

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,21:36)
The height of the cliffs are 150-200m not thousands as deadman said.

The purity of the redwall which I was not aware of (because there are different purities of limestones) argues against primary formation.  Where's the silicate and sand from the ocean bottom(s)?

This is not from Steve Austin--it's from me.  I going to give you guys a research post after I ignore your arrogant bursts of deranged gloating.  What kind of science is this?

See you later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, genius, try reading my post for comprehension. I said there are thousands of feet of OVERLAY on top of the redwall.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y154985 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This doesn't mean that I said the CLIFFS are thousands of feet in exposed height. Do you know what "stratigraphic column" means? I posted an illustration that was just that.

P.S. the context of your statement: " Are you inferring that I am misrepresenting myself or evidence. " means that Lou is right. Beyond this, there is the Oxford English Dictionary remark on the matter. The OED being  the gold standard for Dictionaries:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
— USAGE The words imply and infer do not mean the same thing. Imply is used with a speaker as its subject, as in he implied that the General had been a traitor, and indicates that the speaker is suggesting something though not making an explicit statement. Infer is used in sentences such as we inferred from his words that the General had been a traitor, and indicates that something in the speaker’s words enabled the listeners to deduce that the man was a traitor. < http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/imply?view=uk >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I wasn't "inferring" anything from your statements nor is that able to be rationally derived from my comment that you cited. Is english your first language or do you have some kind of learning disability? I'm asking this directly because this is not the first or even third time that you have shown major comprehension problems
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 07 2009,21:59

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,22:36)
Hey troublemaker.  Infer and imply are the same thing.

Infer 1 : "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply"  

Imply 2 : "to involve or indicate by inference...."

I guess you don't know everything--but you think you do--that's YOUR problem--not mine --that's why I learn.  Take a lesson bright boy.

The height of the cliffs are 150-200m not thousands as deadman said.

The purity of the redwall which I was not aware of (because there are different purities of limestones) argues against primary formation.  Where's the silicate and sand from the ocean bottom(s)?

This is not from Steve Austin--it's from me.  I going to give you guys a research post after I ignore your arrogant bursts of deranged gloating.  What kind of science is this?

See you later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, they are not, tardbucket. Read the fucking definitions you just posted, moron.

And from what you've shown just in that one post, you contradict your own assertion in the next sentence about learning.

Fucktard.

Also, again, note what I mentioned the last time.

You might should do the goddamned research before you run your yap at people who've devoted their lives to studying the subjects on which you're bloviating.

BEFORE.

BEFORE.

BE FUCKING FORE

Get it? Should I misspell it for you, too? Would that help, if I spoke in fluent creobotese?

Put in the time and the work first. The conclusion comes last. After. After you learn the basics, after you do the research, after the evidence is gathered, after it's evaluated, after it's reviewed.

You haven't even started learning the basics, and you're going to lecture geologists about geology?

Ha. Your unjustifiable arrogance is as great as your complete ignorance. Project much?

Clown shoes.

Idiot.

Dining room table.

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2009,22:06

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,19:55)
This was not caused by a glacier.
< Durham Canyon >

You really crack me up guys.  This place is like a high school locker room.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

I'm not done--I've been busy with work--you ever heard of it? I'll give you a nice research paper. Then you answer the EVIDENCE, not me.  

I already found a fact that deadman got wrong--namely the height of the redwall cliffs--by quite a bit.  Oh my, SEE, that means evolution is false because deadman got the height of the cliffs wrong!  That's called sarcasm, lest my words be used against me.  But will you ride that one for the next 50 posts--no because he's your boy!

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


trash talk and name calling comes because you, somehow, think "this was not caused by a glacier" is relevant to the discussion.

because you fail to read for comprehension and then piss and moan about the height of the cliffs.

because you try to sneak bullshit lines like "all the evidence for a young earth" like there was any.

it's old hat, friend.  you should ask blipey for some tips on how to make this clown shtick a little more believable.  but then, he takes it seriously.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,22:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem has been that everyone wants to control the debate.  I will ask no questions--I want only to do one small  research post and if you can rip it apart then go ahead.  I will just learn.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. This isn't a "debate" in any meaningful sense.
2. I'd love to see your "research" post. It should be a hoot, given your track record so far.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 08 2009,00:06

I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 08 2009,01:07

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,20:41)
The issue is not whether the redwall was formed by corals and other calcite producing organisms but whether the origin of the formation is primary?  Is it in place, or is it a result of transport?  This is why I wish to present evidence that has not been mentioned here on this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given that the Redwall formation is found in < Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and California > one doubts it was transported.

Edit to add link.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 08 2009,01:19

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 07 2009,22:06)
I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because big numbers are scary and confuse them?
Maybe they can't count that high :p
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,04:32

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,00:55)
shorter Louis:  I'm just here to meet boyfriends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dammit. Rumbled.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,04:39

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,03:59)
[SNIP ABUSE]

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Lou I am bitterly disappointed. All that vitriol, all that abuse. You missed so much out! Here are a few choice bon mots you missed....

anti-intellectual fuckpig

clueless gibbering tosspot

mammering gudgeon (a personal favourite from ages hence)

But wait, there's more!

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,04:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clownshoes, no one has said this, no one would say this. If they said this in my presence I would be all over them vastly harder than I would pounce on any mistake you may or may not have made.

I know this is shocking, but just maybe, juuuuuust maybe there are a couple of punters here that know more about this subject than you, or even your heroes Gish, Ham, Baugh, Hovind etc etc etc etc ad very large nauseum.

I know, shocking isn't it. Anyway, I know you're having fun sneering at people with a greater understanding of the subjects at hand than you, and nailing yourself to a martyr's cross because we're so mean, so I'll leave you to enjoy yourself.

Louis

ETA: In case you haven't got it yet, take this tiny piece of advice: You said you work in the building trade. I couldn't build a building if my life depended on it, I haven't the first clue about building. Oh I can stick one brick on top of another with some tiny chance of not being mocked off the site by a real bricky. Both my grandfathers were chippies and taught me a lot so I can do a good bit of carpentry. I know some basic electrics and plumbing, but beyond that I leave it all to the relevant experts. I know my limits. This doesn't mean I cannot learn these things, this means I currently have not learned them. (Same applies to you btw)

Imagine if I came to your workplace, the pub/bar you have a beer in with your buddies, or perhaps even a message board on the internet you frequent which, whilst there is a lot of irrelevant banter and silliness, was populated by a bunch of builders and experts on building topics. Imagine I then burst into this place and started spouting off about how stupid what all these people thought and knew was, how sophomoric and mean they all were. Imagine if I started regurgitating age old nonsense, long refuted, about how to build a house by hanging bricks on sky hooks and building down (sky hooks it should be noted, don't exist). Imagine if I did so very arrogantly, with a tone of condescension. What reaction would I get? Like it or not this is the equivalent of what you are doing.

You might not realise it but you are utterly transparent in this regard. We've seen it all before. Your claims aren't new, your manner is certainly not new, and the utter pap you are spouting about science is hilariously nonsensical. It's ok, I know you don't get this. Just think about it. As mean as Lou's message comes across, as mean as I come across (and I am a terrible meanie!), listen to it, he's right. Do your research FIRST. It's pretty clear that you haven't despite what you claim.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,04:53

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,01:32)
[SNIP]

LOUIS IS A PSYCHO PSYCHIC
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were right first time.

Louis
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 08 2009,06:12

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 08 2009,01:06)
I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He can't see it that way because he is stuck with his literalist interpretation of the bible.  Giving up on that would be like giving up on God.  To me it is a form of idolatry, worshiping the book, rather than God.  The earth has to have been created in 6 days.  There has to have been a world-wide flood.  It says so in the bible!

It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.

That's why they come here and spout off about subjects they know little about and lecture experts on the "facts", the real "truth".  They think we're the ones with the blinders on, we're the ones with the closed minds.  Why don't we open our eyes to the real truth?  It comes from God, so it must be true!  How can we leave out God and learn anything about his creation?  This makes no sense to them.  In fact, it is a threat to their own faith.  We can't be right.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 08 2009,07:36

Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

Posted by: JonF on Oct. 08 2009,07:39

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,20:04)
And just for the record--the post that I put down that starting all your moaning about cutting and pasting--That was actually an outline by memory.  The one you called the gish gallop.

I had spent two hours preparing with quotes, references and elaboration when my system crashed.  i had to put it down quickly or guys would have whined or claimed that I had run out of steam or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see you didn't look up "Gish Gallop". Your original post would have been an example of a Gish Gallop.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,07:45

let's face it: it's always nice to find a chewtoy willing to run the gautlet for our amusement. But this one (and FL) are starting to get tiresome...
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,08:40

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,13:36)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the problem is they do interpret the bible. There is no other option available to them

The bible they read is at least a translation of a translation of a compromise set of documents of various ages written by different authors at different times with different goals which have been abridged, added to and modified several times before and after the specific translation they are dealing with. And even then it has to pass the filter of their preconceptions derived from their cultural and social prejudices and ideas.

This isn't a criticism by the way. It is practically impossible for any one individual (or even group of collaborating individuals) to do anything else with a "book" (it really isn't a single book) of this historical nature. That's even granting them the ability to do so as objectively as possible in the absence of the huge cultural significance and social environment that such a "book" has.

The "literal" reading they claim to give this "book" really is nothing of the kind. Even the sophisticated theologians are really doing little more than the best that literary criticism and analysis can achieve with (for example) The Lord of the Rings. At best the biblical scholarship that is so often trotted out as some kind of defence of a specific religious interpretation rises to the level of an English Literature major/student/academic's literary criticism. At the worst it is navel gazing, the self referential arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I.e. utterly useless unless you sign up to their beliefs in the first place, and pretty much useless even then.

BTW I agree with you that the subtext (and it ain't very sub!) of the dreck spouted by FL and chums is "ZOMG YOU DOODS GOING TO HELLZ!!!!!!!!1111!!!111ONEELEVEN1111!!!!! I'M DUN WANNA GOES TO HELL I'MA GONNA STICK WITH MAH JEBUS!!!!!!!111!!!!1!!1"

It's funny, but it's very dumb and very annoying.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,08:41

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,13:45)
let's face it: it's always nice to find a chewtoy willing to run the gautlet for our amusement. But this one (and FL) are starting to get tiresome...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Starting?

Louis
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 08 2009,08:54

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,09:40)
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,13:36)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the problem is they do interpret the bible. There is no other option available to them

The bible they read is at least a translation of a translation of a compromise set of documents of various ages written by different authors at different times with different goals which have been abridged, added to and modified several times before and after the specific translation they are dealing with. And even then it has to pass the filter of their preconceptions derived from their cultural and social prejudices and ideas.

This isn't a criticism by the way. It is practically impossible for any one individual (or even group of collaborating individuals) to do anything else with a "book" (it really isn't a single book) of this historical nature. That's even granting them the ability to do so as objectively as possible in the absence of the huge cultural significance and social environment that such a "book" has.

The "literal" reading they claim to give this "book" really is nothing of the kind. Even the sophisticated theologians are really doing little more than the best that literary criticism and analysis can achieve with (for example) The Lord of the Rings. At best the biblical scholarship that is so often trotted out as some kind of defence of a specific religious interpretation rises to the level of an English Literature major/student/academic's literary criticism. At the worst it is navel gazing, the self referential arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I.e. utterly useless unless you sign up to their beliefs in the first place, and pretty much useless even then.

BTW I agree with you that the subtext (and it ain't very sub!) of the dreck spouted by FL and chums is "ZOMG YOU DOODS GOING TO HELLZ!!!!!!!!1111!!!111ONEELEVEN1111!!!!! I'M DUN WANNA GOES TO HELL I'MA GONNA STICK WITH MAH JEBUS!!!!!!!111!!!!1!!1"

It's funny, but it's very dumb and very annoying.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree completely.  I have to laugh whenever someone tells me they don't interpret the bible, the just do what it says.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,08:56

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:41)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,13:45)
let's face it: it's always nice to find a chewtoy willing to run the gautlet for our amusement. But this one (and FL) are starting to get tiresome...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Starting?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, because before that I was most happy to use their names in search of funny anagrams.

For exemple, Floyde Lee gloriously comes out as Yodel Elf...


EDIT: and you, Louis, come out as Oil Us...weird...
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,09:11

{Aside: SD are you prepared, you are about to enter the AtBC upper echelons, I have spoken to the Masters and your admission has been agreed. You will be taught the secret handshake. How you respond to this post will determine your level of entry. Choose carefully.}



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[SNIP]

Oil Us

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's what your mum and female relatives/girlfriend said.

Thank you.

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,09:20

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,16:11)
{Aside: SD are you prepared, you are about to enter the AtBC upper echelons, I have spoken to the Masters and your admission has been agreed. You will be taught the secret handshake. How you respond to this post will determine your level of entry. Choose carefully.}

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[SNIP]

Oil Us

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's what your mum and female relatives/girlfriend said.

Thank you.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Er....herm.....



PM me for my mom's and "relative" girlfriends contacts (including phone numbers, facebook accounts, yearly OBGY results and such...)

So, about that promotion...
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,09:25

About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 08 2009,09:34

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,10:25)
About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is how it works:

HAR HAR, THIS IS YOU!


Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,09:36

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,15:25)
About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes the LOLCat and HAHA THIS IS YOU would have been the standard method, and indeed would have earned you a reasonable promotion. Creative use thereof would of risen you to higher ranks.

Offering up your female friends/relatives however is suitably disgusting and has several biblical precdents. I'm afraid at this time you are simply too biblically oriented for a full promotion. You do however get a sticker for recognising the correct path which reads "I'm Mummy's Special Boy!". So well done, champ, well done.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,09:37

Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,15:34)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,10:25)
About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is how it works:

HAR HAR, THIS IS YOU!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well done PPB, and excellent illustration of what we were looking for. You win 3 quatloos and a go on Arden.

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,09:39

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,09:36)
[snip]

Offering up your female friends/relatives however is suitably disgusting and has several biblical precdents. .
[snip]
Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shorter Louis: "Damn! Why didn't I think of that?!?!"

PS: I really want to see Clownshoes' "research"
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 08 2009,10:18

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,09:40)
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,13:36)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the problem is they do interpret the bible. There is no other option available to them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course. But that's the lie they have to tell themselves.
Posted by: ppb on Oct. 08 2009,10:38

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,10:37)
You win 3 quatloos and a go on Arden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A go on Arden?  What would I have gotten if I had won?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,10:39

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,15:39)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,09:36)
[snip]

Offering up your female friends/relatives however is suitably disgusting and has several biblical precdents. .
[snip]
Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shorter Louis: "Damn! Why didn't I think of that?!?!"

PS: I really want to see Clownshoes' "research"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh please. *I* didn't think of something utterly inappropriate and disgusting? Where have you been this last billion years or so?

Louis
Posted by: OWKtree on Oct. 08 2009,12:36

The last six pages of chewtoy-dom aside does the acceptance of geological "deep time", a long age of the earth, etc. therefore require the acceptance of evolutionary theory to explain the development of life on the aged orb?

I think any explanation that the current (or very similar to current) lifeforms were developed at that time (e.g. multiple billions of years ago) and have existed in something close to a static state for that length of time is:
1. Not supported by the fossil evidence
2. Not supported by the DNA evidence (pointing to development and diversity of species in relatively rapid time frames.)

To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,12:40

Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,16:38)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,10:37)
You win 3 quatloos and a go on Arden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A go on Arden?  What would I have gotten if I had won?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


4 qualtoos, 1 internet and a "Get out of goes on Arden" card for one week.

Anyway, he's greased himself up and he's ready to go. Well, I say "he" but there's no real way to tell any more. I just go by the amount of hair and hope for the best.

Louis
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 08 2009,13:09

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,05:39)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,03:59)
[SNIP ABUSE]

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Lou I am bitterly disappointed. All that vitriol, all that abuse. You missed so much out! Here are a few choice bon mots you missed....

anti-intellectual fuckpig

clueless gibbering tosspot

mammering gudgeon (a personal favourite from ages hence)

But wait, there's more!

;-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was on a short homework and study break. I had a midterm in World Lit at 8 this morning.
Posted by: nmgirl on Oct. 08 2009,13:28

Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,12:36)
The last six pages of chewtoy-dom aside does the acceptance of geological "deep time", a long age of the earth, etc. therefore require the acceptance of evolutionary theory to explain the development of life on the aged orb?

I think any explanation that the current (or very similar to current) lifeforms were developed at that time (e.g. multiple billions of years ago) and have existed in something close to a static state for that length of time is:
1. Not supported by the fossil evidence
2. Not supported by the DNA evidence (pointing to development and diversity of species in relatively rapid time frames.)

To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think you can even discuss evolution without an acceptance of deep time. And i don't understand how you can know anything about geology and deny deep time.

I also don't see how you can deny all the evidence of an old earth by claiming that god deliberately faked all that evidence. I think it's blasphemy to claim that god is a fraud.
Posted by: OWKtree on Oct. 08 2009,13:50

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 08 2009,13:28)
Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,12:36)
The last six pages of chewtoy-dom aside does the acceptance of geological "deep time", a long age of the earth, etc. therefore require the acceptance of evolutionary theory to explain the development of life on the aged orb?

I think any explanation that the current (or very similar to current) lifeforms were developed at that time (e.g. multiple billions of years ago) and have existed in something close to a static state for that length of time is:
1. Not supported by the fossil evidence
2. Not supported by the DNA evidence (pointing to development and diversity of species in relatively rapid time frames.)

To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think you can even discuss evolution without an acceptance of deep time. And i don't understand how you can know anything about geology and deny deep time.

I also don't see how you can deny all the evidence of an old earth by claiming that god deliberately faked all that evidence. I think it's blasphemy to claim that god is a fraud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am working this from the opposite tack - assuming you accept deep time and the geology, what are the rational options for explaining the diversity and scope of life on the planet given the existing evidence?

- Kurt
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 08 2009,13:52

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 08 2009,13:28)
I don't think you can even discuss evolution without an acceptance of deep time. And i don't understand how you can know anything about geology and deny deep time.

I also don't see how you can deny all the evidence of an old earth by claiming that god deliberately faked all that evidence. I think it's blasphemy to claim that god is a fraud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, technically, you can discuss evolution without mentioning deep time if you're talking about recent examples of evolution, i.e., the development of new breeds of domesticated animals, new biological innovations among agricultural pests, etc.

On the other hand, when you move on to more esoteric and or touchy matters like the interrelationships of big taxa and or fossil taxa (i.e., birds vs reptiles, or ammonites, etc), then the acceptance of deep time is automatic.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,13:58

Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,12:36)
To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When you look for what the anti-evolutionists actually believe about the the facts which we see -- fossils, radiometric dating, etc) the only ones that are relatively clear and upfront about their ideas are the YECS, in my opinion. Sure, they're wrong, but at least they're clear about what they think.


The ID-ists that I know about range from Behe's acceptance of evolution to Dembski's "I'll never tell!." The latter accepts an old age for the Earth, but is also a literalist who accepts a real Adam and Eve, but never really reveals how he thinks species arise. He now rejects "front-loading," though. I figure he really accepts that evolutionary speciation occurs, but he doesn't want to rankle the people that buy his books most.

The rest of the ID crowd also seems to be clearest about what they dislike about NeoDarwinian Theory rather than what THEY propose as mechanism. Again, deliberately, in my view.

With "Long-Age" ANTI-evolutionists...the only thing I can think of that they propose as a mechanism for new forms to arise is special creation for each one via "Divine genetic engineering" in the words of some of Hugh Ross' group. As near as I could tell, it appears to be species arising through special creation all through time, really.

I certainly haven't seen any detailed, defensible theory out of any of the Anti-Evolutionists, whether Yec, Long-Age antievo or IDist antievo.

I don't see how anyone can get around the evidence we now have in terms of an old Earth and The New Synthesis. It's simply better than anything else offered.

I'd certainly be interested to hear what info others might have read on any actual mechanisms proposed by Long-Age or ID Antievolutionists
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,14:03

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,16:36)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,15:25)
About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes the LOLCat and HAHA THIS IS YOU would have been the standard method, and indeed would have earned you a reasonable promotion. Creative use thereof would of risen you to higher ranks.

Offering up your female friends/relatives however is suitably disgusting and has several biblical precdents. I'm afraid at this time you are simply too biblically oriented for a full promotion. You do however get a sticker for recognising the correct path which reads "I'm Mummy's Special Boy!". So well done, champ, well done.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well now, that sucks! Can't I even get the first half of the 15 minutes secret handshake for offering my female relatives?

Damn! You Church-Burning-Ebola-Boys are more closed-up than the famous "can't-fink-of-a-name" Ankh-Morpork troll gang*...






*who have, as a permanent member, a block of concrete on a piece of string.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,14:08

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,19:09)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,05:39)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,03:59)
[SNIP ABUSE]

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Lou I am bitterly disappointed. All that vitriol, all that abuse. You missed so much out! Here are a few choice bon mots you missed....

anti-intellectual fuckpig

clueless gibbering tosspot

mammering gudgeon (a personal favourite from ages hence)

But wait, there's more!

;-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was on a short homework and study break. I had a midterm in World Lit at 8 this morning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are forgiven your trespasses. Say three Hail RichTards and an Our Carlson, perform one act of Deadmanesque contrition with a squirrel and buy J-Dog a beer*.

Go in peace, Oh Moderator and Homonymous Biologist of Teh Future!

Louis

*J-Dog, don't ever say I don't do anything for you.

ETA: Lou, the midterm, it went superbly one presumes?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,14:12

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,20:03)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,16:36)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,15:25)
About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes the LOLCat and HAHA THIS IS YOU would have been the standard method, and indeed would have earned you a reasonable promotion. Creative use thereof would of risen you to higher ranks.

Offering up your female friends/relatives however is suitably disgusting and has several biblical precdents. I'm afraid at this time you are simply too biblically oriented for a full promotion. You do however get a sticker for recognising the correct path which reads "I'm Mummy's Special Boy!". So well done, champ, well done.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well now, that sucks! Can't I even get the first half of the 15 minutes secret handshake for offering my female relatives?

Damn! You Church-Burning-Ebola-Boys are more closed-up than the famous "can't-fink-of-a-name" Ankh-Morpork troll gang*...






*who have, as a permanent member, a block of concrete on a piece of string.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you've got to really hate the Romans Creationists to be in the People's front of Judea Church Burnin' Ebola Boys.

Do you really hate them? Do you, Brian Schrodinger's Dog?

Louis

P.S. You're not the Messiah, you're a very naughty boy.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,14:21

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,21:12)
But you've got to really hate the Romans Creationists to be in the People's front of Judea Church Burnin' Ebola Boys.

Do you really hate them? Do you, Brian Schrodinger's Dog?

Louis

P.S. You're not the Messiah, you're a very naughty boy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Brian: Have I got a big nose, Mum?
Brian's mother: Stop thinking about sex!
Brian: I wasn't!
Brian's mother: You're always on about it. "Will the girls like this? Will the girls like that? Is it too big? Is it too small? "
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,14:25

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,14:08)
{snip blah,blah blah}  Say three Hail RichTards and an Our Carlson, perform one act of Deadmanesque contrition with a squirrel and buy J-Dog a beer*.

Go in peace, Oh Moderator and Homonymous Biologist of Teh Future!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF!?!?! Why is J-Dog the only one that gets a beer? And why are you calling Lou a homoname?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 08 2009,14:30

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:08)
ETA: Lou, the midterm, it went superbly one presumes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it seemed to.

I took a gratuitous shot at a creotard classmate in the essay which may or may not have gone over well, however.

I did support my claim that "Humanism is selfish, it's all about me and becoming God" was a retarded statement (though I worded that part more academically) made in willful ignorance and my answer was on topic, so I can't see how the instructor could really bitch about it.

Other than that, I pretty well nailed it to the wall and watched it bleed.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,14:32

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,20:21)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,21:12)
But you've got to really hate the Romans Creationists to be in the People's front of Judea Church Burnin' Ebola Boys.

Do you really hate them? Do you, Brian Schrodinger's Dog?

Louis

P.S. You're not the Messiah, you're a very naughty boy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Brian: Have I got a big nose, Mum?
Brian's mother: Stop thinking about sex!
Brian: I wasn't!
Brian's mother: You're always on about it. "Will the girls like this? Will the girls like that? Is it too big? Is it too small? "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All right, Shirley, you're in.

Now we here at the Church Burnin' Ebola boys are strongly affiliated with the Evil Atheist Conspiracy* (which doesn't exist). There will be no black helicopters converging on your position as we speak and they will not in any way be full of Training Operatives who will provide you with armaments we don't own and train you in handshakes and anti-religious person techniques we haven't developed.

Louis

* The EAC doesn't exist. Forget I said anything, which of course I didn't, because there's nothing for me to have said anything about. Our operatives, which are not in any way arriving at your location as we speak, will not be erasing the memory of this post from your mind. Because this post didn't get posted and those operatives don't exist. This in no way goes for all of you reading this, that would be impossible. Or would it be?** Remember: The Evil Atheist Conspiracy, We're After Your Puppies and Kids. Or we would be if we existed. Which we don't

** Yes it would.***

*** Or would it be?**
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,14:37

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,20:25)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,14:08)
{snip blah,blah blah}  Say three Hail RichTards and an Our Carlson, perform one act of Deadmanesque contrition with a squirrel and buy J-Dog a beer*.

Go in peace, Oh Moderator and Homonymous Biologist of Teh Future!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF!?!?! Why is J-Dog the only one that gets a beer? And why are you calling Lou a homoname?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You get the happy knowledge that another innocent person (who just happens to wear the occasional dress) has been seduced into your seedy world of squirrel bothering.

Oh all right, I'll send you a beer.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,14:41

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,20:30)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:08)
ETA: Lou, the midterm, it went superbly one presumes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it seemed to.

I took a gratuitous shot at a creotard classmate in the essay which may or may not have gone over well, however.

I did support my claim that "Humanism is selfish, it's all about me and becoming God" was a retarded statement (though I worded that part more academically) made in willful ignorance and my answer was on topic, so I can't see how the instructor could really bitch about it.

Other than that, I pretty well nailed it to the wall and watched it bleed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taking pot shots at creationist classmates? Lou, you have balls as big as church bells. Won't there be a collective bout of pearl clutching and finger wagging? Do you have a fainting couch ready for the inevitable casualties?

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,14:42

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,21:32)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,20:21)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,21:12)
But you've got to really hate the Romans Creationists to be in the People's front of Judea Church Burnin' Ebola Boys.

Do you really hate them? Do you, Brian Schrodinger's Dog?

Louis

P.S. You're not the Messiah, you're a very naughty boy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Brian: Have I got a big nose, Mum?
Brian's mother: Stop thinking about sex!
Brian: I wasn't!
Brian's mother: You're always on about it. "Will the girls like this? Will the girls like that? Is it too big? Is it too small? "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All right, Shirley, you're in.

Now we here at the Church Burnin' Ebola boys are strongly affiliated with the Evil Atheist Conspiracy* (which doesn't exist). There will be no black helicopters converging on your position as we speak and they will not in any way be full of Training Operatives who will provide you with armaments we don't own and train you in handshakes and anti-religious person techniques we haven't developed.

Louis

* The EAC doesn't exist. Forget I said anything, which of course I didn't, because there's nothing for me to have said anything about. Our operatives, which are not in any way arriving at your location as we speak, will not be erasing the memory of this post from your mind. Because this post didn't get posted and those operatives don't exist. This in no way goes for all of you reading this, that would be impossible. Or would it be?** Remember: The Evil Atheist Conspiracy, We're After Your Puppies and Kids. Or we would be if we existed. Which we don't

** Yes it would.***

*** Or would it be?**
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, ok. That's all settled, then.

Should I prepare some cookies* and milk** for my non-existant visitors? Just asking...







*girls

**booze
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 08 2009,14:47

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:41)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,20:30)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:08)
ETA: Lou, the midterm, it went superbly one presumes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it seemed to.

I took a gratuitous shot at a creotard classmate in the essay which may or may not have gone over well, however.

I did support my claim that "Humanism is selfish, it's all about me and becoming God" was a retarded statement (though I worded that part more academically) made in willful ignorance and my answer was on topic, so I can't see how the instructor could really bitch about it.

Other than that, I pretty well nailed it to the wall and watched it bleed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taking pot shots at creationist classmates? Lou, you have balls as big as church bells. Won't there be a collective bout of pearl clutching and finger wagging? Do you have a fainting couch ready for the inevitable casualties?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite possibly. It's a good story, but I'm on my way out the door. It'll have to wait.

The question was regarding remnants of Romanticism in the culture today as a philosophy based on emotion and rejection of Enlightenment ideals of reason and logic.

That was all the opening I needed.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,14:53

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,20:42)
[SNIP]

Should I prepare some cookies* and milk** for my non-existant visitors? Just asking...







*girls

**booze
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Our operatives, which don't exist, are very fond of girls and booze, which do exist.

They will not enjoy themselves because they won't be there. But if they were there, and if they existed, they'd really enjoy a pastis, perhaps some calvados.* And a blonde. Those non existent operatives like blondes.

Louis

* I know these are traditionally Norman/Northern French tipples, but I forget which part of France you live in (our operatives know, but I'm {ahem} pretending not to know), so I can't request regional delicacies.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,15:01

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,20:47)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:41)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,20:30)
 
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:08)
ETA: Lou, the midterm, it went superbly one presumes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it seemed to.

I took a gratuitous shot at a creotard classmate in the essay which may or may not have gone over well, however.

I did support my claim that "Humanism is selfish, it's all about me and becoming God" was a retarded statement (though I worded that part more academically) made in willful ignorance and my answer was on topic, so I can't see how the instructor could really bitch about it.

Other than that, I pretty well nailed it to the wall and watched it bleed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taking pot shots at creationist classmates? Lou, you have balls as big as church bells. Won't there be a collective bout of pearl clutching and finger wagging? Do you have a fainting couch ready for the inevitable casualties?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite possibly. It's a good story, but I'm on my way out the door. It'll have to wait.

The question was regarding remnants of Romanticism in the culture today as a philosophy based on emotion and rejection of Enlightenment ideals of reason and logic.

That was all the opening I needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL That is an opening as wide as the Pacific Ocean. I think you're on safe turf.

There's a Freak Brothers cartoon where Fat Freddy sets about trying to write a horror movie (after a disappointing cinematic experience) and uses a huge quantity of speed as {cough} inspiration to churn out a quick script. Freewheelin' Franklin and Phineas return to read the script which basically reads:

"....And they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went and they went and then they went....."

If given the sort of opportunity you were I'm afraid I might end up with a Fat Freddy-esque screed that ran roughly:

"...And then fucking homeopaths di this and then fucking creationists did that and then and then and then and then..."

At the end of the exam period I'd probably need to be shot with a heroin/thorazine dart to stop me.

Louis
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 08 2009,15:07

Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,11:50)
 
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 08 2009,13:28)
   
Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,12:36)
The last six pages of chewtoy-dom aside does the acceptance of geological "deep time", a long age of the earth, etc. therefore require the acceptance of evolutionary theory to explain the development of life on the aged orb?

I think any explanation that the current (or very similar to current) lifeforms were developed at that time (e.g. multiple billions of years ago) and have existed in something close to a static state for that length of time is:
1. Not supported by the fossil evidence
2. Not supported by the DNA evidence (pointing to development and diversity of species in relatively rapid time frames.)

To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think you can even discuss evolution without an acceptance of deep time. And i don't understand how you can know anything about geology and deny deep time.

I also don't see how you can deny all the evidence of an old earth by claiming that god deliberately faked all that evidence. I think it's blasphemy to claim that god is a fraud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am working this from the opposite tack - assuming you accept deep time and the geology, what are the rational options for explaining the diversity and scope of life on the planet given the existing evidence?

- Kurt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are lots of ways that a god might have "poofed" things into existence over time.  It's the "rational" part that's hard to come by.  About the only alternative that I've heard that even flirts with some form of rationality, is that an unseen, all-powerful god subtly manipulated many individual quantum events over the eons, in such a way that the overall statistics remained unchanged, and therefore undetectable, yet steered the macroscopic results.
Of course that scenario is as unfalsifiable as the all powerful entity itself.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,15:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
* I know these are traditionally Norman/Northern French tipples, but I forget which part of France you live in (our operatives know, but I'm {ahem} pretending not to know), so I can't request regional delicacies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Pastis is actualy a typical south drink. I live in Nice, on the French Riviera, and Pastis is our traditional drink. Calvados is drank here as well, but as a post-dinner cordial...
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,15:32

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,21:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
* I know these are traditionally Norman/Northern French tipples, but I forget which part of France you live in (our operatives know, but I'm {ahem} pretending not to know), so I can't request regional delicacies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Pastis is actualy a typical south drink. I live in Nice, on the French Riviera, and Pastis is our traditional drink. Calvados is drank here as well, but as a post-dinner cordial...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My bad, I thought pastis was Northern (mostly). I don't know why I thought that, but I did. I shall perform three acts of contrition with some bad mayonnaise and sing the Marseillaise at an England rugby match to cover the shame I have brought on my French ancestors (my paternal grandmother was half French).

Of course everyone who is anyone drinks calvados.

Nice, lovely place. I've been there several times and enjoyed myself immensely. It's also not too far from some decent rugby! ;-)

Dammit, now I am getting my weekly Francophile urges. I would dearly love to live in France, the thing that scares me off a little is the bureaucracy associated with scientific institutions....mind you, bureaucracy always appears worse from far away!

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,18:38

What the..?!? Why are you damned Euros all drinking avocados and wearing pasties?  And why does "avocat" and spanish "abogado" sound like an avocado? Do they expect some damn fruit to become a lawyer over there? Never mind, don't answer that, you'll probably show me some fat european lawyer in a speedo smeared in avocados and wearing pasties.

Frankly, you Europeans should be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,18:42

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,01:38)
Frankly, you Europeans should be ashamed of yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,18:45

Excellent use of L'owl katz.

Now if you can only teach Louis that, proper english* and basic hygeine --voila!

For those that don't know it, Louis speaks in a highly exaggerated, almost indecipherable Cockney accent. Makes Eliza Doolittle sound like a toff. Also, I think he's a chimney sweep on weekends.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 08 2009,19:55

And as I supposed, no one of you people have accounted  for the purity of the redwall limestone.  Corals, though in a calcite environment, have a SEAFLOOR.  

Seafloors in shallow marine environments MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE SAND, maybe something besides calcium carbonate.
Deadman has so well established the fact that there is what--1% sand in the limestone.

You might also find that there are billions of dead nautiloids many of them crushed that are in a 2 m layer of the limestone.  And it extends far beyond the canyon.  Surely you all knowing people knew this though.

"Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.

Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.

Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks."
2002 Denver Annual Meeting (October 27-30, 2002)
Session No. 187
Paleontology/Paleobotany (Posters) II
Colorado Convention Center: Exhibit Hall
8:00 AM-12:00 PM, Wednesday, October 30, 2002

Crinoids are abundant in the limestone as you can check.  They are fossilized with their heads.  If you research you will find that crinoid heads decay very quickly.  

Well continue on in your omniscience.  Bye for good.  No more of this cancerous hate for me! Stay in here and be legends in your own mind.  I'm starting to really feel sick of you, so it's time to go.  nmgirl was the only true science person and able to communicate her views with little sarcasm.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 08 2009,20:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well continue on in your omniscience.  Bye for good.  No more of this cancerous hate for me! Stay in here and be legends in your own mind.  I'm starting to really feel sick of you, so it's time to go.  nmgirl was the only true science person and able to communicate her views with little sarcasm.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, looks like we've done broken Clownshoes...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,20:27

There's a lot of candidates for dumbass statements in Clownshoes' posts. First he says the Redwall isn't 95% pure, then he says YES, it's pure, but science cannot explain it, ZOMG!!11!. Then he posts up his "research" that is 182 words of his own. Yay,

Me, I think this is the funniest part of his post:

"If you research you will find that crinoid heads decay very quickly."

Wow. Time-travel machine? Secret extinct-crinoid farm in Atlantis? Aliens in his head whispering arcane secrets? Extrapolation from modern crinoids? Will we ever know?

P.S. Clownshoes : Great. A localized event that accounts for 6 feet of material in a formation that averages ... what, about 450 feet in thickness, on average? WATERLOO!!! Oh, I feel faint. I concede your mighty victory, Clownshoes ; clearly, you have overturned all of evilushuns!!
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 08 2009,20:58

Among other things, it was pointed out that there were three reefs, composed of very different organisms, stacked within the stratum of the Grand Canyon, with no species from one reef found within any of the others, nor fossils of any modern day reef-dwelling organism found within any of them.  How is your explanation supposed to imply that there was one reef buried?

Furthermore, even if there was one reef, how does your explain demonstrate that the whole structure was formed, and then eroded within the same flood that lasted 40 days and 40 nights?  I mean, you do realize that the limestone, shale, gneiss and granites of the Grand Canyon are profoundly different than the loosely consolidated ash of Mt St Helens, right?

As for the crinoids: when they're found intact, that means they were buried quickly, because of a storm, not a flood.  A catastrophic flood would suggest a great deal of violent turbation, something that would not lend to preserving intact crinoids.  Also, you fail to explain how a catastrophic flood would not only bury a reef with great violence, yet, be also able to preserve footprints, as well.

As for your whining about cancerous hate, well, it seems very odd that you would whine about being so busy with your real life, yet, find plenty of time to piss and moan about us being assholes, even though you, yourself, have demonstrated that you're an even bigger Asshole for Jesus.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 08 2009,21:09

One more thing, why would there be dolomite in the Grand Canyon, if dolomite can not be formed or deposited in a flood?
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 08 2009,21:15

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,20:27)
Me, I think this is the funniest part of his post:

"If you research you will find that crinoid heads decay very quickly."

Wow. Time-travel machine? Secret extinct-crinoid farm in Atlantis? Aliens in his head whispering arcane secrets? Extrapolation from modern crinoids? Will we ever know?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The tests and skeletons of echinoderms, except sand dollars, do indeed tend to disarticulate very quickly due to decomposition of the connecting tissue: we see this in both fossil and modern species.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean that the intact crinoids prove that the Grand Canyon was lain down in a magic flood.  Echinoderm tests and skeletons will also quickly disarticulate when exposed to violent forces, such as turbulence caused by a (magic) flood.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2009,21:46

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,20:32)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,03:38)
Their tactics are a combination of Seagull and Princess of the Politeness Police.

The seagull element involves them flying in, squawking loudly and shitting everywhere, the PotPP element involves them pre-emptively whining about Teh Meanness so they have an excuse to run away or ignore inconvenient things like facts or logic...All very familiar, all very pathetic. Watch the tu quoque this engenders.
--Louis

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,18:55)
You really crack me up guys.  This place is like a high school locker room.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,19:04)
Seriously, it amazes me that you guys are scientists or professors or whatever you are.  Some of you are very juvenile--you just use big words to cover it up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




LOUIS IS A PSYCHO PSYCHIC
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


all right louis the jig is up.  you are clownshoes right?
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 08 2009,21:54

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,21:46)
all right louis the jig is up.  you are clownshoes right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should be bushwhacked with a gorse bush for suggesting something so utterly obscene.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 08 2009,22:05

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,18:38)
What the..?!? Why are you damned Euros all drinking avocados and wearing pasties?  And why does "avocat" and spanish "abogado" sound like an avocado? Do they expect some damn fruit to become a lawyer over there? Never mind, don't answer that, you'll probably show me some fat european lawyer in a speedo smeared in avocados and wearing pasties.

Frankly, you Europeans should be ashamed of yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wildly off-topic, but y'all have broken the chew toy anyway...

I had a student a few years back who simply couldn't prevent herself from calling 6.022*10^23 Avocado's number.  I always had to suppress a giggle.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2009,22:41

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 08 2009,22:54)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 08 2009,21:46)
all right louis the jig is up.  you are clownshoes right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should be bushwhacked with a gorse bush for suggesting something so utterly obscene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i'm sorry.

i know in some parts of the world that "jig" has connotations that I didn't mean to imply.

my apologies.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,22:53

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 08 2009,21:15)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,20:27)
Me, I think this is the funniest part of his post:

"If you research you will find that crinoid heads decay very quickly."

Wow. Time-travel machine? Secret extinct-crinoid farm in Atlantis? Aliens in his head whispering arcane secrets? Extrapolation from modern crinoids? Will we ever know?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The tests and skeletons of echinoderms, except sand dollars, do indeed tend to disarticulate very quickly due to decomposition of the connecting tissue: we see this in both fossil and modern species.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean that the intact crinoids prove that the Grand Canyon was lain down in a magic flood.  Echinoderm tests and skeletons will also quickly disarticulate when exposed to violent forces, such as turbulence caused by a (magic) flood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here I thought my point was clear. Apparently not.

The Austin claims, which l which I have read, describe an unusual hydroplaning-bed event in which nautiloids (not crinoids) are the focus.

It was the focus of a discussion at Talk Rational that some people here took part in, it's been discussed at PT, Dawkins, IIDB and other sites, of course. During that time, people would post up papers/citations on relevant studies -- including extrapolation decay studies done on extant species that descend from the post-permian. Yes, one can apply such studies --  but how Clownshoes determined that crinoids decay, not disarticulate, "quickly" remains a mystery, given that he only cited that Austin work which may represent an event that took place over a matter of hours or a day (five meters/sec est. velocity). Yet such studies are easy to find, sure.

And, most amusingly (only to me, I see) is that Clownshoes was asked twice in this thread to state how fast he thought "quickly" meant.

Humorously, also - Austin's scenario doesn't even vaguely reflect the kinds of deposition normally seen in the Redwall. It's 6 meters out of hundreds.

In other words, there's a great deal of meat he could have added to his "research" to substantiate his belief. It's hand-waving of the worst sort. Maybe  you don't find it funny, but I do, Stanton.

P.S. Your 40 days 40 nights of flood need to include the 150-day post-rain period (Genesis 7:24), since we're apparently being keen on critical evaluation.
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 08 2009,23:02

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,22:53)
In other words, there's a great deal of meat he could have added to his "research" to substantiate his belief. It's hand-waving of the worst sort. Maybe  you don't find it funny, but I do, Stanton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose so.  I used to laugh at similar such things and situations when I was a child, but, I was forced to grow out of it, as my mother kept lecturing me, "De-de, stop staking the slugs on pine needles for the ants. It's not a nice hobby to have."
Posted by: Stanton on Oct. 08 2009,23:03

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,22:41)
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 08 2009,22:54)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 08 2009,21:46)
all right louis the jig is up.  you are clownshoes right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should be bushwhacked with a gorse bush for suggesting something so utterly obscene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i'm sorry.

i know in some parts of the world that "jig" has connotations that I didn't mean to imply.

my apologies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean, along the lines of "Ahah!  The jig is up!" "And gone!"
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,23:12

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 08 2009,23:02)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,22:53)
In other words, there's a great deal of meat he could have added to his "research" to substantiate his belief. It's hand-waving of the worst sort. Maybe  you don't find it funny, but I do, Stanton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose so.  I used to laugh at similar such things and situations when I was a child, but, I was forced to grow out of it, as my mother kept lecturing me, "De-de, stop staking the slugs on pine needles for the ants. It's not a nice hobby to have."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet in your childishness, you seem to find it neccessary in the Floyd Lee thread to point remarks at people who are clearly being satirical or ironic.

When they say things like "Gee, floyd Lee, I thought you were being honest" you have remarked more than a few times (certainly more than three) the same kinds of childish mild insult: "Har, har, If you think that, I have some (desert, swampland, etc) to sell you" ...as if the person being sarcastic...were somehow stupid for being sarcastic.

But you're not being childish, right?? Fuck off and sell that "I'm better than that" bullshit somewhere else, wanker.

Certainly if you wish to claim that me finding humor in Clownshoe's wallowing is "childish" then your pleasure in poking at people clearly being ironic indicates deeper issues than my humor shows.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,23:19

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 08 2009,23:02)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,22:53)
In other words, there's a great deal of meat he could have added to his "research" to substantiate his belief. It's hand-waving of the worst sort. Maybe  you don't find it funny, but I do, Stanton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose so.  I used to laugh at similar such things and situations when I was a child, but, I was forced to grow out of it, as my mother kept lecturing me, "De-de, stop staking the slugs on pine needles for the ants. It's not a nice hobby to have."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, and one final thing: your remarks towards Floyd Lee alone kind of put the bullshit stamp on your claim above. Pot, meet Kettle.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 08 2009,23:34

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,20:27)
There's a lot of candidates for dumbass statements in Clownshoes' posts. First he says the Redwall isn't 95% pure, then he says YES, it's pure, but science cannot explain it, ZOMG!!11!. Then he posts up his "research" that is 182 words of his own. Yay,

Me, I think this is the funniest part of his post:

"If you research you will find that crinoid heads decay very quickly."

Wow. Time-travel machine? Secret extinct-crinoid farm in Atlantis? Aliens in his head whispering arcane secrets? Extrapolation from modern crinoids? Will we ever know?

P.S. Clownshoes : Great. A localized event that accounts for 6 feet of material in a formation that averages ... what, about 450 feet in thickness, on average? WATERLOO!!! Oh, I feel faint. I concede your mighty victory, Clownshoes ; clearly, you have overturned all of evilushuns!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman,

Purity...purity...purity.

You do the same thing you say I do--don't pay attention!   Why don't you just explain why it is so pure and quit your QUIBBLING??  

Extrapolation?  Did you forget--"the present is the key to the past?" I mean it's your mantra.

Nautiloids with "...implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity..." shows catastrophic deposition.  

Six feet--times "[15,000] km2"  A nautiloid per m2--15%  of the population vertical=mass kill.

And the 95% purity issue.  The fact is you can't account for it. You established the fact so now I would be happy to know why it's pure without indication of seafloor material.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,23:47

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 08 2009,23:34)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,20:27)
There's a lot of candidates for dumbass statements in Clownshoes' posts. First he says the Redwall isn't 95% pure, then he says YES, it's pure, but science cannot explain it, ZOMG!!11!. Then he posts up his "research" that is 182 words of his own. Yay,

Me, I think this is the funniest part of his post:

"If you research you will find that crinoid heads decay very quickly."

Wow. Time-travel machine? Secret extinct-crinoid farm in Atlantis? Aliens in his head whispering arcane secrets? Extrapolation from modern crinoids? Will we ever know?

P.S. Clownshoes : Great. A localized event that accounts for 6 feet of material in a formation that averages ... what, about 450 feet in thickness, on average? WATERLOO!!! Oh, I feel faint. I concede your mighty victory, Clownshoes ; clearly, you have overturned all of evilushuns!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman,

Purity...purity...purity.

You do the same thing you say I do--don't pay attention!   Why don't you just explain why it is so pure and quit your QUIBBLING??  

Extrapolation?  Did you forget--"the present is the key to the past?" I mean it's your mantra.

Nautiloids with "...implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity..." shows catastrophic deposition.  

Six feet--times "[15,000] km2"  A nautiloid per m2--15%  of the population vertical=mass kill.

And the 95% purity issue.  The fact is you can't account for it. You established the fact so now I would be happy to know why it's pure without indication of seafloor material.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are coral reefs so "pure" Clownshoes?

Here I thought you flounced out with your final post. Why should I have answered you under those claimed circumstances, again?

If Mississippian reefs were composed of the critters I cited, and they grew in reef-fashion and they are subject to periods of sea-regression (and uplift) in which reefs built upon reefs are buried...why wouldn't they be "pure" as the other reef systems in geology ? Or the cliffs of Dover, for that matter?

ETA: Added "uplift"

Now...when again will you be answering my questons? Was that post of yours  your "research " in total, Clownshoes?

And when exactly will you be answering my questions I gave you?
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 09 2009,00:13

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 08 2009,20:58)
Among other things, it was pointed out that there were three reefs, composed of very different organisms, stacked within the stratum of the Grand Canyon, with no species from one reef found within any of the others, nor fossils of any modern day reef-dwelling organism found within any of them.  How is your explanation supposed to imply that there was one reef buried?

Furthermore, even if there was one reef, how does your explain demonstrate that the whole structure was formed, and then eroded within the same flood that lasted 40 days and 40 nights?  I mean, you do realize that the limestone, shale, gneiss and granites of the Grand Canyon are profoundly different than the loosely consolidated ash of Mt St Helens, right?

As for the crinoids: when they're found intact, that means they were buried quickly, because of a storm, not a flood.  A catastrophic flood would suggest a great deal of violent turbation, something that would not lend to preserving intact crinoids.  Also, you fail to explain how a catastrophic flood would not only bury a reef with great violence, yet, be also able to preserve footprints, as well.

As for your whining about cancerous hate, well, it seems very odd that you would whine about being so busy with your real life, yet, find plenty of time to piss and moan about us being assholes, even though you, yourself, have demonstrated that you're an even bigger Asshole for Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did you read that I said there was only one reef buried? I didn't say that.  

If there was a deluge, Stanton, we have absolutely nothing to compare it with.  So the physics of it would only be on paper--and that might not be right.

You seem like a decent guy Stanton, but I have comments and questions that I would never speak or ask here, because of the poisonous atmosphere.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, you fail to explain how a catastrophic flood would not only bury a reef with great violence, yet, be also able to preserve footprints, as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since you want to bring up the deluge Stanton, there was tectonic, and volcanic activity involved with the water "the fountains of the deep were broken up."  Therefore there could have been all kinds of different geologic events.  Landslides, mudslides, outburst floods, rock movement, and possibly tsunamis, depending on the extent of tectonic activity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
even though you, yourself, have demonstrated that you're an even bigger Asshole for Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It wouldn't have mattered what approach I took.  You would have found fault.  The real issue is that we have two different philosophical positions which are results from our theology or lack thereof.  People who have no interest in God usually take issue with people who do take interest.

And the only people I remember mentioning Jesus is you and Lou.  I wasn't saying anything, because if I did I would have been quickly reminded that this was a science forum.

Still no purity hypotheses--well I think it has to do with drainage--but there's no way to prove it.  

Tell deadman that no one broke me.  I'm not gonna waste my time with a bunch of name calling complainers who have thoroughly analyzed me, but at the same time can't see how rancid and odorous their own behavior is.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,00:16

Didn't you already say this before?

Is this your Final Flounce -- or will you be back tomorrow to ask why no one answered you?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 09 2009,04:06

Good bye for good*? Cancerous hate? Rancid and odorous? Poisonous atmosphere?

LOL

Purple prose and martyrdom all in one blast. Oh you're really enjoying yourself aren't you? Clownshoes I couldn't hate you if I tried. I don't know you and I haven't the capacity for that particular emotion. I will however mock you mercilessly for acting like an utter muppet. Complain all you like about it, it will continue as long as you act the muppet.

Perhaps you can't tell the difference between mildly disinterested mockery and hate. Well that's not very surprising because it seems you can't tell the difference between a big pile of wet sand and the walls of the Grand Canyon.

Pity poor Clownshoes for he is persecuted and his skin is very very thin. I wonder what your real problem is. You entered AtBC with an obviously preprepared exit excuse (oh they are all so MEAN) and spouted off about a subject you clearly know nothing about and have been caught out. Why don't you tell us what the real issue is. After all, you clearly don't care about geology, if you did, you'd have learned something about it and wouldn't be cutting and pasting creationist talking points. Come on Clownshoes, let the dog see the rabbit.

Louis

*And yet you're back. I am, yet again, reminded of the song by Motley Crue. This one's for you, Clownshoes: < Hit it boys! >
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 09 2009,04:32

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 09 2009,03:46)
all right louis the jig is up.  you are clownshoes right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, but I think you might be.

Louis
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 09 2009,04:35

Kliban says it best (again):


Posted by: Louis on Oct. 09 2009,04:42

I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing, Amadan. Mind you, just in case I have my fainting couch ready for anyone who feels they might get a touch of the vapours.

Louis
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 09 2009,05:12

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 08 2009,22:13)
Since you want to bring up the deluge Stanton, there was tectonic, and volcanic activity involved with the water "the fountains of the deep were broken up."  Therefore there could have been all kinds of different geologic events.  Landslides, mudslides, outburst floods, rock movement, and possibly tsunamis, depending on the extent of tectonic activity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh right, so in your explanation, pretty much anything could have happened... but  for some reason you are sure whatever it was happened really quickly in a singular "deluge".

Note that you completely ignored the meat of Stantons post with your little tirade
     
Quote (stanton @ ,)
Among other things,it was pointed out that there were three reefs, composed of very different organisms, stacked within the stratum of the Grand Canyon, with no species from one reef found within any of the others, nor fossils of any modern day reef-dwelling organism found within any of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even your "some unspecified random geologic shit happened" will have to do a great deal of special pleading to make that work.

You are bullshitting, and the problem is with bullshitting is that if the people you are trying to bullshit know something about the subject, they can tell. Right away. Don't be surprised when they point and laugh and call you dishonest.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 09 2009,11:40

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 08 2009,22:05)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,18:38)
What the..?!? Why are you damned Euros all drinking avocados and wearing pasties?  And why does "avocat" and spanish "abogado" sound like an avocado? Do they expect some damn fruit to become a lawyer over there? Never mind, don't answer that, you'll probably show me some fat european lawyer in a speedo smeared in avocados and wearing pasties.

Frankly, you Europeans should be ashamed of yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wildly off-topic, but y'all have broken the chew toy anyway...

I had a student a few years back who simply couldn't prevent herself from calling 6.022*10^23 Avocado's number.  I always had to suppress a giggle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avocado's number is a guaca-mole.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 09 2009,12:17

Reed,

If you don't mind I am going to riff on your comment re: bullshit. Forgive me because I intend to quote Frankfurt on this one:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The pertinent comparison is not, however, between telling a lie and producing some particualr instance of bullshit. The elder Simpson identifies the alternative to telling a lie as "bullshitting one's way through". This involves not merely producing one instance of bullshit; it involves a program of producing bullshit to whatever extent the circumstances require. This is a key, perhaps, to his preference. Telling a lie is an act with a sharp focus. It is designed to insert a particular falsehood at a specific point in a set or system of beliefs, in order to avoid the consequences of having that point occupied by the truth. This requires a degree of craftsmanship, in which the teller of the lie submits to objective constraints imposed by what he takes to be the truth. The liar is inescapably concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a lie at all, he must first think he knows what is true. And in order to invent an effective lie, he must design his falsehood under the guidance of that truth.

On the other hand, a person who undertakes to bullshit his way through has much more freedom. His focus is panoramic rather than particular. He does not limit himself to inserting a certain falsehood at a specific point, and thus he is not constrained by the truths surrounding that point or intersecting with it. He is prepared, so far as required, to fake the context as well. This freedom from the constrainst to which the liar must submit does not necessarily mean, of course, that his task is easier than the task of the liar. But the mode of creativity upon which it relies is less analytical and less deliberative than that which is mobilized in lying. It is more expansive and independentm with more spacious opportunities for improvisation, color, and imaginative play. This is less a matter of craft than it of art. Hence the familiar notion of the "bullshit artist"....

...What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers not the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of it being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to.

This is the crux of the distinction between him and the liar. Both he and the liar represent themselves falsely as endeavouring to communicate the truth. The success of each depends on deceiving us about that. But the fact about himself that the liar hides is that he is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false. The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it. This does not mean his speech is anarchically impulsive, but that the motive guiding and controlling it is unconcerned with how the things about which he speaks truly are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From Harry G Frankfurt's On Bullshit.

Just thought it might be relevant....

Louis
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 09 2009,14:13

Ohhhhhh, Flood Geology AND bullshit!

My two favorite topics.

Global flood, eh, Clownshoes?  Rough ride for Noah in a wooden boat stuffed with animals and dinosaurs.

But, let's back up a sec.  Before you can carve the Grand Canyon you've got a water problem to solve.  It appears that in order to flood the planet with enough water to cover the mountains (and I'm not going to quibble with you that Mt. Everest was "a lot shorter then than it is today") you pick the depth.

You need about 600 million cubic miles of water more than there is on the planet.  That's roughly the area of Texas to a depth of 300 miles, to give you a visual.

So, where did all the water come from?

And, more importantly as this bears directly on Grand Canyon carving, once the planet was completely covered in water, how did it drain?

Oh, and that "poisonous atmosphere" you commented about, that's called Academic Freedom.  I thought you supported that.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 09 2009,14:16

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 09 2009,15:13)
Ohhhhhh, Flood Geology AND bullshit!

My two favorite topics.

Global flood, eh, Clownshoes?  Rough ride for Noah in a wooden boat stuffed with animals and dinosaurs.

But, let's back up a sec.  Before you can carve the Grand Canyon you've got a water problem to solve.  It appears that in order to flood the planet with enough water to cover the mountains (and I'm not going to quibble with you that Mt. Everest was "a lot shorter then than it is today") you pick the depth.

You need about 600 million cubic miles of water more than there is on the planet.  That's roughly the area of Texas to a depth of 300 miles, to give you a visual.

So, where did all the water come from?

And, more importantly as this bears directly on Grand Canyon carving, once the planet was completely covered in water, how did it drain?

Oh, and that "poisonous atmosphere" you commented about, that's called Academic Freedom.  I thought you supported that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why is there only one Grand Canyon and why that particular location?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 09 2009,14:41

The Grand Canyon is in Arizona because Arizona is the "Grand Canyon state!"

Don't you know anything, Khan?
Posted by: khan on Oct. 09 2009,14:45

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 09 2009,15:41)
The Grand Canyon is in Arizona because Arizona is the "Grand Canyon state!"

Don't you know anything, Khan?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you working on a degree in theology?
:)
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 09 2009,15:12

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 09 2009,20:13)
[SNIP]

So, where did all the water come from?

And, more importantly as this bears directly on Grand Canyon carving, once the planet was completely covered in water, how did it drain?

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heyyyyyyy I wanted to ask that!* Didn't you get the message via the Evil Atheist Conspiracy Channels (which of course don't exist).

The EAC: Now with even less belief in Jesus.**

Louis

* I just love reading/hearing about new thermodynamic methods for moving enormous quantities of water in incredibly short timespaces without broiling, well, everything. We may even get to superfast continents wanging about the globe fast enough to turn to plasma. Always a favourite.

** We don't believe in other deities either, but as Clownshoes said, some of us probably don't even believe Jesus existed, so I thought I'd focus on that fictional character this once. Next post's Sponsor Deity: Amaterasu Omikami!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 09 2009,15:15

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 09 2009,19:17)
Forgive me because I intend to quote Frankfurt on this one:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, who here is even remotely surprised that louis needs to "quote" a Frankfurt?*









*Sorry, but since this thread looks more and more like a peanut gallery I thought my expertise on the subject of not-so-subtle penis references might be needed...
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 09 2009,16:23

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 09 2009,13:12)
* I just love reading/hearing about new thermodynamic methods for moving enormous quantities of water in incredibly short timespaces without broiling, well, everything. We may even get to superfast continents wanging about the globe fast enough to turn to plasma. Always a favourite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No need.  Fiddling with the weak nuclear force in order to make all radioactive dating wrong already broiled everything.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 09 2009,16:25

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 09 2009,13:15)
*Sorry, but since this thread looks more and more like a peanut gallery I thought my expertise on the subject of not-so-subtle penis references might be needed...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a little unnecessary, SD.  The last thing Louis needs help with is knob jokes.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 09 2009,16:48

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 09 2009,22:23)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 09 2009,13:12)
* I just love reading/hearing about new thermodynamic methods for moving enormous quantities of water in incredibly short timespaces without broiling, well, everything. We may even get to superfast continents wanging about the globe fast enough to turn to plasma. Always a favourite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No need.  Fiddling with the weak nuclear force in order to make all radioactive dating wrong already broiled everything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's a little unnecessary, SD.  The last thing Louis needs help with is knob jokes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah.

Wait.....HEY!

Louis
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 09 2009,19:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, more importantly as this bears directly on Grand Canyon carving, once the planet was completely covered in water, how did it drain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Snowball earth? :p
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 09 2009,19:33

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 09 2009,17:05)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, more importantly as this bears directly on Grand Canyon carving, once the planet was completely covered in water, how did it drain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Snowball earth? :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, I'm sure some aquatic ape pulled the drain plug. I haz a book that sez so!

eta:
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 09 2009,12:13)
Ohhhhhh, Flood Geology AND bullshit!

My two favorite topics.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm, are you sure that is two topics ?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 09 2009,19:36

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 10 2009,02:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, more importantly as this bears directly on Grand Canyon carving, once the planet was completely covered in water, how did it drain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Snowball earth? :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I knew this whole flud thing was about < snowballing >
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 09 2009,21:26

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 09 2009,11:40)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 08 2009,22:05)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,18:38)
What the..?!? Why are you damned Euros all drinking avocados and wearing pasties?  And why does "avocat" and spanish "abogado" sound like an avocado? Do they expect some damn fruit to become a lawyer over there? Never mind, don't answer that, you'll probably show me some fat european lawyer in a speedo smeared in avocados and wearing pasties.

Frankly, you Europeans should be ashamed of yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wildly off-topic, but y'all have broken the chew toy anyway...

I had a student a few years back who simply couldn't prevent herself from calling 6.022*10^23 Avocado's number.  I always had to suppress a giggle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avocado's number is a guaca-mole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Consider that stolen.  :)
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 09 2009,21:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, where did all the water come from?

And, more importantly as this bears directly on Grand Canyon carving, once the planet was completely covered in water, how did it drain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, where it went after is the better question, since it could have come from comets or something else from space. But coming down is easier than going away after getting here.

Henry
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 10 2009,08:11

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 09 2009,14:13)
And, more importantly as this bears directly on Grand Canyon carving, once the planet was completely covered in water, how did it drain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Easy when you know how:



Edit for speling
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 10 2009,11:03

Quote (khan @ Oct. 09 2009,20:16)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 09 2009,15:13)
Ohhhhhh, Flood Geology AND bullshit!

My two favorite topics.

Global flood, eh, Clownshoes?  Rough ride for Noah in a wooden boat stuffed with animals and dinosaurs.

But, let's back up a sec.  Before you can carve the Grand Canyon you've got a water problem to solve.  It appears that in order to flood the planet with enough water to cover the mountains (and I'm not going to quibble with you that Mt. Everest was "a lot shorter then than it is today") you pick the depth.

You need about 600 million cubic miles of water more than there is on the planet.  That's roughly the area of Texas to a depth of 300 miles, to give you a visual.

So, where did all the water come from?

And, more importantly as this bears directly on Grand Canyon carving, once the planet was completely covered in water, how did it drain?

Oh, and that "poisonous atmosphere" you commented about, that's called Academic Freedom.  I thought you supported that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why is there only one Grand Canyon and why that particular location?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way, and I know this is late, but I just want to say that this is a bloody good question that should be used a lot more. It cuts right to the heart of the glib superficiality of the creationist claims.

Khan, your prize is 4 quatloos, 1 internet and absolutely no goes on Arden unless you really want to.

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 10 2009,11:11

Yo, Amadan? Your planet's leaking.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 10 2009,12:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
khan:
And why is there only one Grand Canyon and why that particular location?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah. Evidence for a world-wide event would have to be, shall we say, world wide. Think iridium layer, or something analogous.

Henry
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 10 2009,12:53

There isn't a Grand Canyon in Rhode Island because it's too small.

There was supposed to be a Grand Canyon in the Caribbean but due to a typo it came out Grand Cayman.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 10 2009,13:42

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2009,12:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
khan:
And why is there only one Grand Canyon and why that particular location?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah. Evidence for a world-wide event would have to be, shall we say, world wide. Think iridium layer, or something analogous.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well now, if one takes the top of Mt. Everest as their starting point then the rest of the world could be considered one giant canyon.  :D
Posted by: khan on Oct. 10 2009,14:10

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 10 2009,14:42)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2009,12:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
khan:
And why is there only one Grand Canyon and why that particular location?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah. Evidence for a world-wide event would have to be, shall we say, world wide. Think iridium layer, or something analogous.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well now, if one takes the top of Mt. Everest as their starting point then the rest of the world could be considered one giant canyon.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the planet was flat back then.
Posted by: HelpingHand on Oct. 10 2009,15:18

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 10 2009,11:03)
 
Quote (khan @ Oct. 09 2009,20:16)

And why is there only one Grand Canyon and why that particular location?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way, and I know this is late, but I just want to say that this is a bloody good question that should be used a lot more. It cuts right to the heart of the glib superficiality of the creationist claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I tried that angle a few years back with a creationist in the forums for the Weather Channel.  (What can I say?  It was one of the few sites that came through the company firewall and twelve hour graveyard shifts streeeeetch...)

I was informed that the Grand Canyon, La Petite Canyon and Average Canyon in addition to every river valley, mountain pass, scabland, trench, ditch and culvert on the planet were evidence of the Great Flood.  The only reason the Grand Canyon keeps coming up is because us atheistic evilutionists keep harping on it while ignoring all the rest of the evidence.  Typical of our godless intellectually dishonest ilk.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 10 2009,15:22

Quote (khan @ Oct. 10 2009,14:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 10 2009,14:42)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2009,12:18)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
khan:
And why is there only one Grand Canyon and why that particular location?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah. Evidence for a world-wide event would have to be, shall we say, world wide. Think iridium layer, or something analogous.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well now, if one takes the top of Mt. Everest as their starting point then the rest of the world could be considered one giant canyon.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the planet was flat back then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, and mountains aren't really the result of uplift. They are canyon walls from when the flood carved the flat earth! Jeebus Wins!
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 10 2009,15:57

There is a canyon somewhere in the Himalayas that is a rather recent discovery. AiG didn't know anything about it when I asked a few years ago. From what I remember, it seemed that as far as science was concerned the canyon could only be the result of events spread out over a long time period.

< This, I believe. >

Edit, added link.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Oct. 10 2009,16:30

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 10 2009,13:53)
There isn't a Grand Canyon in Rhode Island because it's too small.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't prove Narragansett Bay wasn't created by a global flood.  Therefore Jebus.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 10 2009,16:33

Wouldn't a world wide flood sufficient to carve out the Grand Canyon also be sufficient to erode all the mountains flat?

And wouldn't everything then come out even?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 10 2009,22:50

Quote (HelpingHand @ Oct. 10 2009,13:18)
Typical of our godless intellectually dishonest ilk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, what you said. Well,so, welcome to the swamp. It looks better already.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 14 2009,21:20

I'm sure I will be criticized for something I say but I didn't want you guys to get too bored.  So at least I have a purpose being the oddball.

Anyway, this is for Lou who called me an idiot and a moron--I guess I must have really got under his skin--  concerning our little tussle over "imply" and "infer."  

Main Entry: in·fer
4 : suggest, hint <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>intransitive verb

"infer" seems to have a broader array of definitions--but basically I used it correctly in asking--"...Are you inferring I'm misrepresenting myself?"

I've seen a few things you guys have been discussing about the flood.  First of all, current YEC theory believes tectonics and/or vulcanism to be major players in the flood, not just water.  

Louis mentioned thermodynamics and the broiling of things by the sediment and water.  Why?

If the water was rising slowly over 40 days then it would have reached different levels in different geographical areas.  So different events would be happening at different times. If there was alot of thermodynamic effect by fast moving sediment we would have convective heat transfer in the water and alot of potential for diffusion of the heat.

Also, it was asked where did the water come from and where did it go.  There are different theories.  Not to escape the issue but isn't that like asking where did hydrogen come from?  Yes I know--after the big bang it just formed--but isn't that kind of like the antithesis of  "God did it."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 14 2009,21:47

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 14 2009,22:20)
I'm sure I will be criticized for something I say but I didn't want you guys to get too bored.  So at least I have a purpose being the oddball.

Anyway, this is for Lou who called me an idiot and a moron--I guess I must have really got under his skin--  concerning our little tussle over "imply" and "infer."  

Main Entry: in·fer
4 : suggest, hint <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>intransitive verb

"infer" seems to have a broader array of definitions--but basically I used it correctly in asking--"...Are you inferring I'm misrepresenting myself?"

I've seen a few things you guys have been discussing about the flood.  First of all, current YEC theory believes tectonics and/or vulcanism to be major players in the flood, not just water.  

Louis mentioned thermodynamics and the broiling of things by the sediment and water.  Why?

If the water was rising slowly over 40 days then it would have reached different levels in different geographical areas.  So different events would be happening at different times. If there was alot of thermodynamic effect by fast moving sediment we would have convective heat transfer in the water and alot of potential for diffusion of the heat.

Also, it was asked where did the water come from and where did it go.  There are different theories.  Not to escape the issue but isn't that like asking where did hydrogen come from?  Yes I know--after the big bang it just formed--but isn't that kind of like the antithesis of  "God did it."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Scienthuse, Mt Everest was how high before the flood?  And how high is it now?  We need rough estimates of these parameters for your model before we can estimate the heat involved.

seashells on everest + young earth = origin from flood, right?

just making sure this is your argument before we start boiling ham shem and japheth alive.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 14 2009,22:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Louis mentioned thermodynamics and the broiling of things by the sediment and water.  Why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe because that much moving around of stuff creates heat?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If there was alot of thermodynamic effect by fast moving sediment we would have convective heat transfer in the water and a lot of potential for diffusion of the heat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Diffusion to where? I thought you were referring to something planet wide.

Henry
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 14 2009,22:42

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 14 2009,19:20)
Also, it was asked where did the water come from and where did it go.  There are different theories.  Not to escape the issue but isn't that like asking where did hydrogen come from? Yes I know--after the big bang it just formed--
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it isn't remotely comparable. You can reasonably say that the big bang "just happened", and that the particular physical laws and fundamental constants we ended up with may well be arbitrary. If it makes you feel better, you can even stuff your own personal god in there, although he doesn't add any explanatory value.

From that first few milliseconds onward, things appear to follow those laws in a coherent manner. As best as we can tell, millions of cubic miles of water don't just poof out of nowhere, and poof back to nowhere later. If you are going to insert "supernatural shit happened" anywhere your theory seems to contradict what we understand about the universe, why bother trying to match it up to evidence at all ?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 14 2009,22:52

Hey, SciMoron, how's the water going?

Every creationist I've cornered with this question about water has run to Mama because he/she can't do the math.

Poor baby.

So, where did the water come from and where did it go?

Also, you've got a time problem.  You've got to get to 30,000 feet in 40 days.  That's roughly 1000 feet per day of rain.

Slowly?  You can't go slowly and flood the earth, moron.  Srsly, does it hurt being stupid?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 14 2009,22:57

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 14 2009,22:20)
Anyway, this is for Lou who called me an idiot and a moron--I guess I must have really got under his skin--  concerning our little tussle over "imply" and "infer."  

Main Entry: in·fer
4 : suggest, hint <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>intransitive verb

"infer" seems to have a broader array of definitions--but basically I used it correctly in asking--"...Are you inferring I'm misrepresenting myself?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't flatter yourself.

Seriously, is English not your first language?

If you say something that might be dishonest, he can infer that you're dishonest. He didn't have to infer anything, it was perfectly clear.

 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,21:41)
Deadman let's take your last line there.  Are you inferring that I am misrepresenting myself or evidence.  I don't remember claiming to be a PhD or a professor or an authority in science.  Can you find that post?  But that does not mean I don't understand anything about standard geology, or  chemistry, or biology, or cytology, or bacteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In this context you were asking him to clarify his remark. His remark would be an implication. He would have been implying that you were lying.

Of course, he didn't really imply anything either. He pretty much came out and said it. The remark to which you were referring:

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,02:16)
Can't do that, can you? Not with any of your YEC resources online. Oh, yeah -- I'm really unnerved and on edge about your teenage incompetence and that of Steve Austin ( who's only just a little better at bullshitting than you, Clownshoes) .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So let me reiterate:

 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 07 2009,22:59)
   
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,22:36)
Hey troublemaker.  Infer and imply are the same thing.

Infer 1 : "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply"  

Imply 2 : "to involve or indicate by inference...."

I guess you don't know everything--but you think you do--that's YOUR problem--not mine --that's why I learn.  Take a lesson bright boy.

The height of the cliffs are 150-200m not thousands as deadman said.

The purity of the redwall which I was not aware of (because there are different purities of limestones) argues against primary formation.  Where's the silicate and sand from the ocean bottom(s)?

This is not from Steve Austin--it's from me.  I going to give you guys a research post after I ignore your arrogant bursts of deranged gloating.  What kind of science is this?

See you later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, they are not, tardbucket. Read the fucking definitions you just posted, moron.

And from what you've shown just in that one post, you contradict your own assertion in the next sentence about learning.

Fucktard.

Also, again, note what I mentioned the last time.

You might should do the goddamned research before you run your yap at people who've devoted their lives to studying the subjects on which you're bloviating.

BEFORE.

BEFORE.

BE FUCKING FORE

Get it? Should I misspell it for you, too? Would that help, if I spoke in fluent creobotese?

Put in the time and the work first. The conclusion comes last. After. After you learn the basics, after you do the research, after the evidence is gathered, after it's evaluated, after it's reviewed.

You haven't even started learning the basics, and you're going to lecture geologists about geology?

Ha. Your unjustifiable arrogance is as great as your complete ignorance. Project much?

Clown shoes.

Idiot.

Dining room table.

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TARD
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 14 2009,23:04

buuuuuuut

grammar is about the least of yer concerns, anyhoo

looking forward to boiling the seedbanks with ya!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 14 2009,23:10

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 15 2009,00:04)
buuuuuuut

grammar is about the least of yer concerns, anyhoo

looking forward to boiling the seedbanks with ya!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the fucktard can't even read for comprehension the definitions he posts himself...
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 15 2009,00:41

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 14 2009,19:20)
Also, it was asked where did the water come from and where did it go.  There are different theories.  Not to escape the issue but isn't that like asking where did hydrogen come from?  Yes I know--after the big bang it just formed--but isn't that kind of like the antithesis of  "God did it."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer of "I don't have a fucking clue" duly noted.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2009,05:34

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 14 2009,21:20)
[snip extraneous crap...whoops, that eliminated the whole post]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Schithouse...I thought you already did your flounce, princess. Try not to pee all over the floor again, plz.
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 15 2009,06:03

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 14 2009,21:20)
I've seen a few things you guys have been discussing about the flood.  First of all, current YEC theory believes tectonics and/or vulcanism to be major players in the flood, not just water.  

Louis mentioned thermodynamics and the broiling of things by the sediment and water.  Why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Because (a) tectonic processes involve rocks sliding against each other, which means said processes necessarily generate heat (see also: "friction"), and (b) volcanic processes typically involve spewing heat -- and rather a lot of heat -- into the environment (see also "lava flow"). Since you YECists purport to accept all the same evidence as real science, but merely interpret it differently, you surely agree with real scientists about how many different lava flows have occured in the Earth's history; you just claim that all of said lava flows happened within a timespan of a few thousand years, as opposed to the few-billion-year timespan which real science says said lava flows happened within.
A few thousand years versus a few billion years: This is not a trivial difference. In fact, the difference is a factor of about one million. So when you YECists claim to accept all the same evidence as real science, you're cramming all those lava flows, and consequently all the heat associated with said lava flows, into a timespan roughly one one-millionth as long as what real science says. In other words: The YECist "same evidence, different interpretation" position necessarily entails that in the total heat output from volcanic processes be one million times greater than what real science says.
One.
Million.
Times.
Greater.

You shine one heat lamp on somebody, and they stay comfortable in cold weather; shine one million heat lamps on that same person, and they're quick-fried to a crackly crunch.
See the problem?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the water was rising slowly over 40 days...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So how fast was the water rising over those 40 days, hm?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...then it would have reached different levels in different geographical areas.  So different events would be happening at different times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

At different times within a total timespan of 40 days, yes. Unless you want to argue that it took more than 40 days for the Floodewaters to cover over every bleeding point on Earth's surface?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If there was a lot of thermodynamic effect by fast moving sediment we would have convective heat transfer in the water and a lot of potential for diffusion of the heat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's nice, Scienthuse. I notice that you didn't bother to even pretend to work out how much heat would have to be dissipated (by convective heat transfer and diffusion and yada yada yada), but it's nice. And as I pointed out above, you YECists are cramming billions of years' worth of heat-generating events into a timespan of a mere thousands of years. So you YECists damn well better have a good, solid answer to "where'd the heat go, huh?", and not just some vague, unquantified handwaving in the general direction of "Uh... diffusion and convection! Yeah, that's the ticket..."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, it was asked where did the water come from and where did it go.  There are different theories.  Not to escape the issue but isn't that like asking where did hydrogen come from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not really. According to you Floode-believing YECists, there was dry land before the Floode; there was no dry land during the Floode; and finally there was dry land once again after the Floode. Therefore, you Floode-believing YECists simply must explain where the heck all the Floodewaters were hiding before the Floode, and where the heck said Floodewaters snuck off to after the Floode. Okay, you Floode-believing YECists only have to do that if you want the Floode to be accepted as a realio-trulio, sho'-nuff SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!! -- but hey, you Floode-believing YECists do want the Floode to be accepted as a scientific theory, don't you? I mean, that's the whole point of all that those-nasty-dogmatic-Darwinians-won't-even-look-at-our-perfectly-reasonable-scientific-theory noise you YECists insist on making, right?
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 15 2009,06:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, I knew this whole flud thing was about snowballing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you'd only left out the link. Thank God it wears off though...
Is it possible to be a prissy liberal?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 15 2009,06:31

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 15 2009,13:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, I knew this whole flud thing was about snowballing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you'd only left out the link. Thank God it wears off though...
Is it possible to be a prissy liberal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, Quack, I'm really sorry about that. It's just that maybe not everyone knows what snowballing is.

on the other hand, I didn't force you to click the link :p
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 15 2009,12:34

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:41)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,20:30)
 
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:08)
ETA: Lou, the midterm, it went superbly one presumes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it seemed to.

I took a gratuitous shot at a creotard classmate in the essay which may or may not have gone over well, however.

I did support my claim that "Humanism is selfish, it's all about me and becoming God" was a retarded statement (though I worded that part more academically) made in willful ignorance and my answer was on topic, so I can't see how the instructor could really bitch about it.

Other than that, I pretty well nailed it to the wall and watched it bleed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taking pot shots at creationist classmates? Lou, you have balls as big as church bells. Won't there be a collective bout of pearl clutching and finger wagging? Do you have a fainting couch ready for the inevitable casualties?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I got the midterm back today.

Not only did I not get scolded for taking my classmate to the woodshed in my essay, I got 110 points out of 100 and some lovely commentary in the margins of both my midterm and the paper I turned in last week.

The paper concerned me too, as it was really not my best work. I got an A anyway, though. It was on the symbolism of the keys in Chekov's play, The Cherry Orchard. I'll post it to Crowded Head later, but for now I have to run off to a Zo study session. Exam tomorrow morning on Platyhelminthes, Nematoda, Rotifera, and Mollusca.


Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 15 2009,12:37

Livin' in NASCAR country, everythin' has a racin' or car analogy.

Doin' geology without gettin' all a' bothered by them pesky fossils in evilution, is like puttin' more gas and oil in your car while not lookin' at the water in your radiator then a wonderin' why the car overheated when you just put gas an' oil in it.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 15 2009,12:58

I always think of creation science as the equivalent of pouring gas and oil on the outside of the car.

As with those mathematicians, who shall remain unnamed, who can calculate probabilities without knowing how or when to apply them.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 15 2009,13:10

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,10:58)
As with those mathematicians, who shall remain unnamed, who can calculate probabilities without knowing how or when to apply them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are they related to these mathematicians?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got 110 points out of 100
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congrats, Lou!
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 15 2009,14:34

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 15 2009,18:34)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:41)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,20:30)
 
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:08)
ETA: Lou, the midterm, it went superbly one presumes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it seemed to.

I took a gratuitous shot at a creotard classmate in the essay which may or may not have gone over well, however.

I did support my claim that "Humanism is selfish, it's all about me and becoming God" was a retarded statement (though I worded that part more academically) made in willful ignorance and my answer was on topic, so I can't see how the instructor could really bitch about it.

Other than that, I pretty well nailed it to the wall and watched it bleed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taking pot shots at creationist classmates? Lou, you have balls as big as church bells. Won't there be a collective bout of pearl clutching and finger wagging? Do you have a fainting couch ready for the inevitable casualties?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I got the midterm back today.

Not only did I not get scolded for taking my classmate to the woodshed in my essay, I got 110 points out of 100 and some lovely commentary in the margins of both my midterm and the paper I turned in last week.

The paper concerned me too, as it was really not my best work. I got an A anyway, though. It was on the symbolism of the keys in Chekov's play, The Cherry Orchard. I'll post it to Crowded Head later, but for now I have to run off to a Zo study session. Exam tomorrow morning on Platyhelminthes, Nematoda, Rotifera, and Mollusca.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My admirayshun. You has it.

Louis
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 15 2009,14:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
on the other hand, I didn't force you to click the link
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about the other hand
I am not able to resist a link more than I used not to be able to resist chicks. Ah, the chase...

Srsly, back to business, that is fun too!
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 15 2009,14:48

Awesome Lou!
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 15 2009,14:49

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 15 2009,20:42)
Srsly, back to business, that is fun too!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will I regret googling that term?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 15 2009,14:54

Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 15 2009,12:49)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 15 2009,20:42)
Srsly, back to business, that is fun too!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will I regret googling that term?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends.  Is it your turn for a go on Arden today?
Posted by: khan on Oct. 15 2009,14:57

Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 15 2009,15:49)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 15 2009,20:42)
Srsly, back to business, that is fun too!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will I regret googling that term?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 15 2009,17:28

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 15 2009,12:34)
The paper concerned me too, as it was really not my best work. I got an A anyway, though. It was on the symbolism of the keys in Chekov's play, The Cherry Orchard. I'll post it to Crowded Head later, but for now I have to run off to a Zo study session. Exam tomorrow morning on Platyhelminthes, Nematoda, Rotifera, and Mollusca.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lou, if you wanted a great paper on The Cherry Orchard you should have used this refernce: < The Cherry Orchard >

Is that the guys from UD or what?
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 15 2009,20:08

Texas Teach:

Did you frequent the CARM board with Piokilotherm, Q and others?  If so, did you use another name?
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 15 2009,20:25

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 15 2009,04:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, I knew this whole flud thing was about snowballing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you'd only left out the link. Thank God it wears off though...
Is it possible to be a prissy liberal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Powerless...can't...resist...temptation....

So, uh, would you say it left a bad taste in your mouth?

OK, I'll see myself out....
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 15 2009,21:01

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 14 2009,22:52)
Hey, SciMoron, how's the water going?

Every creationist I've cornered with this question about water has run to Mama because he/she can't do the math.

Poor baby.

So, where did the water come from and where did it go?

Also, you've got a time problem.  You've got to get to 30,000 feet in 40 days.  That's roughly 1000 feet per day of rain.

Slowly?  You can't go slowly and flood the earth, moron.  Srsly, does it hurt being stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take it since we are talking about the flood, we can use just a bit of scripture--just this one.

Genesis 7:11, 12 -- In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.  12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

First, Doc Bill, don't be fooled by the simplicity of the narrative--it is speaking to people of all generations--what makes us think our scientific culture is so special?  The arrogant scorn of these last generations at texts that were here long before we were ever thought of amazes some people.

Second, we don't know if the water level was 30,000 feet--that's based on today's figures.  We don't know ocean levels or how much tectonic movement has occurred in orogeny since then.  By the figure you mentioned you're referring to the narrative saying the water went above the mountains.

Third, in reference to other comments--no one here can do any math without variables--and no one has them--because it is in the past. Please don't start with math since evolutionists are notorious at turning a deaf ear to the improbability of unguided mutation as a mechanism for macroevolution.

Fourth, there were obviously two major water sources and a third may be considered.  Hard rain by the metaphor "floodgates,"  and the "springs (or fountains) of the great deep" being the second.  This could refer to oceanic and/or subterranean origin of the waters.  

The third could be only considered--it seems that the water "bursting forth" or being "broken up" in other translations--KJV (NIV is a modern accurate translation--not a paraphrase but not quite as literal as KJV) could imply (inductively only) tectonics.  And many creationists include this possibility throughout the deluge--not only during the rain, but during the drainage period.

Fifth, Where did it go?  I'm not an expert on creationist theories but the general gist is that tectonic uplift would have been involved here.  Baumgardner did a computer model for his PhD--I couldn't find it.  I'll look for it.  The model is one of the Atlantic ocean during the  deluge.  It's not just a video.  He seems to be quite advanced in his knowledge of computers.

Sixth, can you let me ask a question.

This is off the subject of the flood. During the formation of the earth why did the rocks and asteroids in open space defy Newton's third law?    

If I take a bat and hit a ball it rebounds from the bat in reaction--I understand we are talking about very large objects. i understand this is based on Einstein's theory--gravitational attraction pulls the objects together. But meteorites come to us from our asteroid belt regularly as a result of collisions.  Newton's third law is empirical in nature and in space.

No.1 This < VIDEO > does not teach that they were pulled gently into each other, they were "violent" collisions.  

No2. Either way--gentle or violent--I tend to think Newton's law is going to work.  They are going to bounce off of each other--otherwise why should we ever have to worry about any asteroids from our asteroid belt?  I realize that other asteroids come in from other places--but some of them come from the AB--some of them no doubt resulting from collisions.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2009,21:12

Hah. Damn, it's as though you cracked open your own skull and started shoveling the crap contents out onto the thread.

I won't even bother to Fisk it -- it's like a kid wrote it.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 15 2009,21:26

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 15 2009,20:08)
Texas Teach:

Did you frequent the CARM board with Piokilotherm, Q and others?  If so, did you use another name?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I wandered here from the Thumb, but never posted there.  I lurked here for quite a while thinking I couldn't possibly match the fisking skills or the humor (or in Louis's case humour) of the regulars.  Then one day Rich got lonely because nobody loved him and asked all the lurkers to come out and play.  (I may be misremembering some of the details ;) ).
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 15 2009,21:36

Asteroids are not rubber balls.

Henry
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 15 2009,21:37

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 15 2009,21:36)
Asteroids are not rubber balls.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were you there?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 15 2009,21:40

The phrase "breathtaking inanity" comes to mind...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,21:41

shorter clownshoes



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please don't start with math
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You Got It!!!

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 15 2009,21:46

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 15 2009,22:41)
shorter clownshoes



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please don't start with math
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You Got It!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy crap, 'Ras!!!

What are the odds that you would have used exactly three exclamation points???

I mean, you could have used two or four or like most people, one, but you used THREE!!! Out of all the infinite possible numbers of exclamation points, you used exactly three to finish that sentence, and it was PERFECT!!!

What are the odds that you would have used three? It's AMAZING!!!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,21:49

lou i thought clownshoes told you not to start with the maths.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 15 2009,21:51

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 15 2009,22:49)
lou i thought clownshoes told you not to start with the maths.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You evilutionists just ignore the odds of there being exactly three exclamation points at the end of that sentence because you know you can't explain it.

Therefore (Clownshoes' particular) god.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 15 2009,21:59

I guess I can use a bit of scripture too.

(NIV) 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b] , [c]

Now, Mount Hermon is the highest point in Isreal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hermon) at 9230 feet.  [Since no other culture mentions a great flood around this time, I guess it's fair to exclude their mountains.  God probably put a shield around Isreal and Judea at that time... but he must include Turkey.]  Ignore all of the above, Greater Ararat in Turkey has a height of 16,800 feet  or 5178 meters. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat)

So the water had to be that deep.  Since that's roughly  half of Bill's calculation, then you still have to contend with 500 feet (152 meters) of water per day.

The area of Turkey, Syria, and Isreal combined is rough 390,000 km^2 (ignoring the minor countries around them).

390,000 km^2 * 150m/day = 58,800 cubic kilometers of water per day for 40 days.  That means that the entire Gulf of Mexico was dropped on 3 countries if 40 days.  

Hurricane Katrina dropped almost 15 inches of water on LA.  Thats .380 meters.

So where did that water come from again?

Keep in mind that fresh water has a mass of 1g/cm^3.  That's the same as 1,000,000,000 kilograms per cubic kilometer.  So that comes to 58,800,000,000,000 kilograms of water per day for 40 days.  Moving at 1 meter per second... that equals 29,400,000,000,000 Joules of energy.

A kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 Joules, so that's 8.16 million kilowatt hours... more than 8 times the energy use of the state of California in one year (2008).

That's a lot of energy.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 15 2009,22:14

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,19:01)
Third, in reference to other comments--no one here can do any math without variables--and no one has them--because it is in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Earlier in this thread, you made arguments concerning alleged evidence for the flood. Now you are basically saying that evidence is irrelevant, because you just can't know what happened in the past.

Brilliant :D
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,22:17

yw Ogre

please don't start with math
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 15 2009,22:28

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 15 2009,22:17)
yw Ogre

please don't start with math
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry.  I like math.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 15 2009,22:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Texas Teach, posted 10/15/09 8:37 PM
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Henry J @ Oct. 15 2009,21:36)
Asteroids are not rubber balls.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were you there?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Henry
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 15 2009,23:07

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 15 2009,21:59)
I guess I can use a bit of scripture too.

(NIV) 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b] , [c]

Now, Mount Hermon is the highest point in Isreal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hermon) at 9230 feet.  [Since no other culture mentions a great flood around this time, I guess it's fair to exclude their mountains.  God probably put a shield around Isreal and Judea at that time... but he must include Turkey.]  Ignore all of the above, Greater Ararat in Turkey has a height of 16,800 feet  or 5178 meters. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat)

So the water had to be that deep.  Since that's roughly  half of Bill's calculation, then you still have to contend with 500 feet (152 meters) of water per day.

The area of Turkey, Syria, and Isreal combined is rough 390,000 km^2 (ignoring the minor countries around them).

390,000 km^2 * 150m/day = 58,800 cubic kilometers of water per day for 40 days.  That means that the entire Gulf of Mexico was dropped on 3 countries if 40 days.  

Hurricane Katrina dropped almost 15 inches of water on LA.  Thats .380 meters.

So where did that water come from again?

Keep in mind that fresh water has a mass of 1g/cm^3.  That's the same as 1,000,000,000 kilograms per cubic kilometer.  So that comes to 58,800,000,000,000 kilograms of water per day for 40 days.  Moving at 1 meter per second... that equals 29,400,000,000,000 Joules of energy.

A kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 Joules, so that's 8.16 million kilowatt hours... more than 8 times the energy use of the state of California in one year (2008).

That's a lot of energy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you calculate all the water in the oceans and where that came from--water vapor wasn't it--I believe the Archaen era--not looking--may be wrong.  Water vapor, methane, nitrogen, CO2 all from volcanoes--and the earth cooled how again?  Where did all the greenhouse gases go--the CO2 and water vapor?  How did the earth cool so that the water vapor could form an ocean.  That's alot of water vapor--it expands 1600 times the volume of liquid water.  

So you have the same problem accounting for water--only you have no God in your equations--no creator who might be catalyst for some phenomena.  

Again as I said no one knows the height of any mountains 4000 years ago. Your math is without variables when it is based on today's data.

It might be more pertinent to know something of thermal runaway in silicate and other minerals.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,23:12

so scienthuse, the seashells on everest, did they get there 4000 years ago or did jesus and satan have an oyster roast during the temptation?

AAAAAAND I thought we weren't going to get into the maths since Henry J wasn't there...
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 15 2009,23:30

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,21:07)
Again as I said no one knows the height of any mountains 4000 years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you did say it. It was extraordinarily stupid the first time, and repetition didn't make it any less so.

If we can't figure out something basic like that from observable evidence, how do you come to the conclusion the flood is real ? If there is no way to come to reasonable conclusions based on evidence, why have you spent so much time arguing about evidence ?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 15 2009,23:35

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,23:07)
Did you calculate all the water in the oceans and where that came from--water vapor wasn't it--I believe the Archaen era--not looking--may be wrong.  Water vapor, methane, nitrogen, CO2 all from volcanoes--and the earth cooled how again?  Where did all the greenhouse gases go--the CO2 and water vapor?  How did the earth cool so that the water vapor could form an ocean.  That's alot of water vapor--it expands 1600 times the volume of liquid water.  

So you have the same problem accounting for water--only you have no God in your equations--no creator who might be catalyst for some phenomena.  

Again as I said no one knows the height of any mountains 4000 years ago. Your math is without variables when it is based on today's data.

It might be more pertinent to know something of thermal runaway in silicate and other minerals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, but science has 4.5 billion years to dissipate the heat.  That's well within the rules for thermodynamics.

The Bible has to deal with that and do it in 40 days and not fry the 8 humans left.

CO2: hmmm... ever heard of carbon sinks?  Life (especially photosynthetic bacteria) take in CO2 and use sunlight to convert it to energy and structure.  Basic Biology.  

Mountain height: are you honestly telling me that mountain ranges (even in just say Turkey) grew so much in just 4000 odd years?  Even halving the height 4000 years ago creates some insurmountable problems for you.  That means that Mount Ararat had to increase in height an average of 2 feet per year for 4000 years.

Basically, you depend on God to do these amazing miracles and then turn them all off, just in time for science to really start to be able to explain them.

You use a lot of fancy words, but I don't think they mean that you think they mean.

Thermal runaway in silicates was a hypothesis to explain the magnetic field on Ganymede.  However, "We find that, contrary to expectations, there are no physically plausible scenarios in which tidal heating in the silicates is sufficient to cause the thermal runaway necessary to prevent core cooling." (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Icar..198..384B)
Some (very quick) research also indicates that Ganymede has significantly more silicon in its composition than Earth does.  Plus, the Earth doesn't have sufficient tidal interaction to generate the heat needed to begin a silicate thermal runaway.  I mean, the articles in question are discussing changes in the orbit of Ganymede, not just friction rubbing.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2009,23:40

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,23:07)
Again as I said no one knows the height of any mountains 4000 years ago. Your math is without variables when it is based on today's data.

It might be more pertinent to know something of thermal runaway in silicate and other minerals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have to convince you of the correctness of any calculations I (or anyone else arguing against your stupidity) do.

All that YOU have to do is show that you have any calculations at all. From your last two posts, it appears you're going to TRY to use Baumgardner's "runaway subduction" model, which you allude to twice.

Did you bother to check his "calculations?" Did you know his model for a 1-year global catastrophe would release (from each square cm of the Earth's surface per second) roughly about 40,000 times the energy that the Earth receives per surface centimeter^2  each second from the sun?

The kind of heat that Baumgardner eventually has to say "oh, well, a miracle happened" to explain why the whole Earth didn't just melt into a ball of lava? How could ANY water exist during that kind of episode, goober, much less your "ark"?

Why don't you do your homework before trying to pimp this laughable creationist crap, kid? Earlier I posted you a link to a Theology Web "debate" where John Baumgardner actually showed up and got his stupid fuckin' clock cleaned, so he ran off yapping about God's punishment and similar crap. < http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103916 >

I was amazed to even see the weasel since the RATE/ICR/AIG people are notorious for refusing to even TRY to post at websites that are not their own.

It's your job to show, to demonstrate that the creationist crap you're going to TRY to use...is valid.

Let's see you actually do that.

Ogre: he's appealing to John Baumgardner's crap at ICR: < http://www.icr.org/research/jb/runawaysubduction.htm/ >
See also the Talk Origins response here: < http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH430.html >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 15 2009,23:51

what was it Loose said about massive anti-idiot guns?  yeah.  that.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 15 2009,23:54

Math is a bit of a stretch, SciMoron.  It's more like arithmetic.

I didn't exactly need Dr. Dr. Dembski to postulate a "probability" to figure out that to reach a depth of 400 feet in 40 days, let's see, drop the naughts, four into four goes one time, move the naught, ah ha!, 10 feet per day!

So, you're pulling the old "nobody knows how high the mountains were 4000 years ago," eh?  Doesn't matter, S'Moron, you've got the same problem.

You see, your problem is you don't know how to think.

Let's puzzle this one together.  Where does rain come from?  Well, we know from third grade science class (you did make it through the third grade?), anyway, we know there's something called the Rain Cycle!  Water evaporates from over there, flies over here in a cloud and rains.  Water runs downhill back to there where it starts all over again.

Now, pay attention to this part because it's critical.  In order to cover a sphere to any depth whatsoever you're going to need MORE WATER than  you have on the sphere to begin with.  

Oh, I'm sorry, I said "sphere."  Thoughtless of me!  Think of a ball instead if that makes it easier for you.

You think I'm kidding but Great Creationist Scientists, smarter than you and me combined* have tried to figure this out.  Hovind envisioned an Ice Shield which, unfortunately, would have blocked all sunlight thus killing the planet before the ice shield collapsed which would have incinerated the planet.

Brown hypothesised (I use the misspelled term loosely) a "vapor barrier" which, unfortunately, would have been 3000 miles thick thus blocking out all sunlight, and blah, blah, blah like Hovind.

EVERYBODY, except you apparently, knows about Baumgartner's model which B-gart admits has a "heat problem."  Yeah, it melts the planet.

OK, let's get back to the subject at hand, SciMoron, which is where did the water come from and where did it go.  So far you suck at an answer.  

Do better.


*combining my IQ (138) with yours (-200 estimated) yields -68 which even the absolute value of which would be a few points less than Hovind and Brown.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 15 2009,23:55

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 15 2009,23:40)
Ogre: he's appealing to John Baumgardner's crap at ICR: < http://www.icr.org/research/jb/runawaysubduction.htm/ >
See also the Talk Origins response here: < http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH430.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I see.  Garbage in the simulation, garbage out of the simulation.  Got it.  Thanks for the links.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 16 2009,00:07

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,21:07)
It might be more pertinent to know something of thermal runaway in silicate and other minerals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"thermal runaway"

WTF?

Is that like creatinist runsaway?

Are you (I am being too lenient) making up some bullshit? Maybe some extrapolation of specific or latent heat?

Maybe?
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 16 2009,01:28

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,21:07)
Did you calculate all the water in the oceans and where that came from--water vapor wasn't it--I believe the Archaen era--not looking--may be wrong.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, you are wrong, but allow me to point something out to you:  water vapor is....water.  So, what?  You're contention is that it's somehow a problem that all that water came from all that water?  

But, he typed magnanimously, here's the quick version: when an oxygen really likes a hydrogen molecule, it'll get up all close like and then the hydrogens will extend valence electrons towards the oxygen's special orbital place and they make sweet, sweet covalent love.  So anyway, this happened about a gajillion-trillion times in the solar system of uber-yore, like way before Earth even formed and so it was right there for the taking and Earth was all like "Dude, gotta get me some of that."  And it did, with its amazing gravity superpowers.  Oh, and some comets and other stuff with even more water kept falling onto the planet.  It was sort of fad there for awhile.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Water vapor, methane, nitrogen, CO2 all from volcanoes--and the earth cooled how again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Same way everything does? You know, losing heat because it was, like, way warmer than outer space and stuff?  Thermodynamics, entropy...ringing any bells yet?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where did all the greenhouse gases go--the CO2 and water vapor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, um, the water vapor mostly turned into that lame "liquid" water stuff, whatever that's all about. Tends to do that once it cools. I think that thermodynamics crap is involved somehow.  Seems like it's got its fingers in everything. But whatever...

So, OK, like a lot of CO2 got broken down (by The Man, of course). The carbon, which you may have noticed is prone to forming all that biochemical stuff, eventually formed a bunch of biochemical stuff.  Plus some of the less fortunate atoms got mixed-up with mineral and other inorganic manufacturing cartels ( I don't want to talk about the poor bastards that radioactively decayed.  Too fucking sad, man.  Not goin' there). The O2 went solo (or I guess duo) and just sort of roamed the atmosphere, gathering numbers and waiting for when the time was right to strike.  Or rather, when the time was right start getting consumed in all sorts of newfangled biochemical reactions.  Some CO2 managed to escape this chemical doom and went on the lam, hiding in the oceans and suchlike.  Similar epic sagas can be recited for other components of the early atmosphere.  Hey, I just had an idea: try looking this stuff up, man.  I would totally bet someone's looked into this already. Anyway, all this water talk's got me thirsty....
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 16 2009,04:50

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,21:01)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 14 2009,22:52)
Hey, SciMoron, how's the water going?

Every creationist I've cornered with this question about water has run to Mama because he/she can't do the math.

Poor baby.

So, where did the water come from and where did it go?

Also, you've got a time problem.  You've got to get to 30,000 feet in 40 days.  That's roughly 1000 feet per day of rain.

Slowly?  You can't go slowly and flood the earth, moron.  Srsly, does it hurt being stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take it since we are talking about the flood, we can use just a bit of scripture--just this one.

Genesis 7:11, 12 -- In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.  12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

First, Doc Bill, don't be fooled by the simplicity of the narrative--it is speaking to people of all generations--what makes us think our scientific culture is so special?  The arrogant scorn of these last generations at texts that were here long before we were ever thought of amazes some people.

Second, we don't know if the water level was 30,000 feet--that's based on today's figures.  We don't know ocean levels or how much tectonic movement has occurred in orogeny since then.  By the figure you mentioned you're referring to the narrative saying the water went above the mountains.

Third, in reference to other comments--no one here can do any math without variables--and no one has them--because it is in the past. Please don't start with math since evolutionists are notorious at turning a deaf ear to the improbability of unguided mutation as a mechanism for macroevolution.

Fourth, there were obviously two major water sources and a third may be considered.  Hard rain by the metaphor "floodgates,"  and the "springs (or fountains) of the great deep" being the second.  This could refer to oceanic and/or subterranean origin of the waters.  

The third could be only considered--it seems that the water "bursting forth" or being "broken up" in other translations--KJV (NIV is a modern accurate translation--not a paraphrase but not quite as literal as KJV) could imply (inductively only) tectonics.  And many creationists include this possibility throughout the deluge--not only during the rain, but during the drainage period.

Fifth, Where did it go?  I'm not an expert on creationist theories but the general gist is that tectonic uplift would have been involved here.  Baumgardner did a computer model for his PhD--I couldn't find it.  I'll look for it.  The model is one of the Atlantic ocean during the  deluge.  It's not just a video.  He seems to be quite advanced in his knowledge of computers.

Sixth, can you let me ask a question.

This is off the subject of the flood. During the formation of the earth why did the rocks and asteroids in open space defy Newton's third law?    

If I take a bat and hit a ball it rebounds from the bat in reaction--I understand we are talking about very large objects. i understand this is based on Einstein's theory--gravitational attraction pulls the objects together. But meteorites come to us from our asteroid belt regularly as a result of collisions.  Newton's third law is empirical in nature and in space.

No.1 This < VIDEO > does not teach that they were pulled gently into each other, they were "violent" collisions.  

No2. Either way--gentle or violent--I tend to think Newton's law is going to work.  They are going to bounce off of each other--otherwise why should we ever have to worry about any asteroids from our asteroid belt?  I realize that other asteroids come in from other places--but some of them come from the AB--some of them no doubt resulting from collisions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Question for you, Scienthuse: Do you believe it's possible to learn about events that occured in the past by studying the traces which were left on physical objects when said events occured?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Oct. 16 2009,05:03

Some persons need explanations with lots of pictures. Maybe scienthuse is one of them:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fs0KHlm7aw >

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gztPlTR-ATM >

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7y0HmBezM >

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIjhHmsBkeE >
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 16 2009,05:10

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,21:01)
Sixth, can you let me ask a question.

This is off the subject of the flood. During the formation of the earth why did the rocks and asteroids in open space defy Newton's third law?    

If I take a bat and hit a ball it rebounds from the bat in reaction--I understand we are talking about very large objects. i understand this is based on Einstein's theory--gravitational attraction pulls the objects together. But meteorites come to us from our asteroid belt regularly as a result of collisions.  Newton's third law is empirical in nature and in space.

No.1 This < VIDEO > does not teach that they were pulled gently into each other, they were "violent" collisions.  

No2. Either way--gentle or violent--I tend to think Newton's law is going to work.  They are going to bounce off of each other--otherwise why should we ever have to worry about any asteroids from our asteroid belt?  I realize that other asteroids come in from other places--but some of them come from the AB--some of them no doubt resulting from collisions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Er...no.

Similarly sized objects that are traveling at orbital velocities (tens of km/sec) when they collide don't "bounce off" one another.  They are pulverized with a good deal of their kinetic energy being converted to heat energy. The resultant debris cloud(s) will continue to follow all the laws of gravity and physics, and will coalesce due to gravity back into one solid mass.  If one object is much larger than the second, the larger will have a crater blasted into it and absorb most of the kinetic to heat released energy.

That video is an extremely simple conceptualization and does not accurately model the real collisions and subsequent reformings that took place.

Are you surprised that the planes that hit the WTC didn't just "bounce off"?  Both plane and building are much harder than stone.  How did they defy Newton's third law?

Asteroids from the asteroid belt don't head our way due to collisions.  They are ejected into highly elliptical Earth crossing orbits due to gravitational slingshotting, usually from Jupiter.
Posted by: FrankH on Oct. 16 2009,09:46

Scienthuse:

Look up the definitions of "Elastic" and "Inelastic" collisions.

Please note cars in a traffic accident can be really good examples of inelastic collisions.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2009,10:34

Just out of sheer curiosity and a desire to obey my own concepts of ethical conduct, I have to ask you this, Scienthuse: how old are you, approximately?

I'm asking because your posts show little else than an ability to use Google. Your claims seem to indicate (to me) nothing more than that; no checking on the claims yourself, no use of your own knowledge to determine credibility, no insight to basic science that an older student might well have absorbed as they learned how to learn.

Your posts give me the impression that you're more likely an adolescent male, perhaps as old as 16 or 17. I don't want to fault you overmuch for your youth, but rather for your intellectual laziness, so if you're OVER 18, that would be best for my purposes. Then I can make fun of you to my heart's content and not feel as though I'm berating a puppy.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 16 2009,12:08

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,19:01)
I take it since we are talking about the flood, we can use just a bit of scripture--just this one.

Genesis 7:11, 12 -- In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.  12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

<three paragraphs of nonsense snipped>

Fourth, there were obviously two major water sources and a third may be considered.  Hard rain by the metaphor "floodgates,"  and the "springs (or fountains) of the great deep" being the second.  This could refer to oceanic and/or subterranean origin of the waters.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Metaphor, Scienthuse?  Metaphor?  I thought every word of the bible was literally true.  Now here you are telling me that some of it is metaphor!

So, let's say parts of the bible are not to be taken literally, and your god didn't have really huge water tanks, with honking great sluice-gates, in the sky.  Perhaps, then, other things in the bible might not be literally true?  Things which are just as silly and obviously metaphorical as gigantic orbiting reservoirs?  Maybe, for example, a global flood which left no evidence?
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 17 2009,12:14

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 16 2009,12:08)
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,19:01)
I take it since we are talking about the flood, we can use just a bit of scripture--just this one.

Genesis 7:11, 12 -- In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.  12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

<three paragraphs of nonsense snipped>

Fourth, there were obviously two major water sources and a third may be considered.  Hard rain by the metaphor "floodgates,"  and the "springs (or fountains) of the great deep" being the second.  This could refer to oceanic and/or subterranean origin of the waters.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Metaphor, Scienthuse?  Metaphor?  I thought every word of the bible was literally true.  Now here you are telling me that some of it is metaphor!

So, let's say parts of the bible are not to be taken literally, and your god didn't have really huge water tanks, with honking great sluice-gates, in the sky.  Perhaps, then, other things in the bible might not be literally true?  Things which are just as silly and obviously metaphorical as gigantic orbiting reservoirs?  Maybe, for example, a global flood which left no evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are you talking about?  Of course the Bible contains metaphorical language.  Because a narrative contains a metaphor does not make the entire narrative a metaphor.

You also don't understand the water canopy theory.  It has been shelved as I said.  But there was obviously a mechanism in the past which made the poles warm. Look it up.< Warm arctic >

There is no doubt of water covering the earth--even mountains (e.g. shells on Everest as mentioned earlier)--but you guys choose to interpret it as tectonic uplift or receding oceans. How you betray your arguments by not allowing the same latitude for the flood.  You need to read < Baumgardner >
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 17 2009,12:33

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,10:14)
You also don't understand the water canopy theory.  It has been shelved as I said.  But there was obviously a mechanism in the past which made the poles warm. Look it up.< Warm arctic >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, that's called the greenhouse effect, Sci.  

Here, I looked it up the relevant article for you:

< Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum >

And yes, water vapor's involved.  Unfortunately for you, the Earth would still have to be in the midst of the Flood in order for that to save your idea.  

*Looks around*

Nope: you're wrong.  Unless all that water just magically disappeared.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[snip]but you guys choose to interpret it as tectonic uplift or receding oceans[snip]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, yeah, but only because we like to be not dead-ass wrong and ignore mountains of evidence (you're goddamn right that pun was intended).

(edited: more power)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 17 2009,14:01

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,12:14)
What are you talking about?  Of course the Bible contains metaphorical language.  Because a narrative contains a metaphor does not make the entire narrative a metaphor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, here's the critical question:

How do you tell the difference?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 17 2009,15:07

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,12:14)
There is no doubt of water covering the earth--even mountains (e.g. shells on Everest as mentioned earlier)--but you guys choose to interpret it as tectonic uplift or receding oceans. How you betray your arguments by not allowing the same latitude for the flood.  You need to read < Baumgardner >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most of us have read Baumgardner.  To put it mildly, the guy's so full of shit his eyes are brown.  He cherry picks isolated pieces of data he can hand-wave away, while completely ignoring the 99.9% that he can't.  He then wraps that bit in meaningless sciency sounding gobbledygook just wow to his target uneducated YEC audience.  Profession geologists just point and laugh.

As has already been pointed out, the heat generated by his "catastrophic plate tectonics," model would melt the planet and vaporize Noah et al.  Here's another big one he ignores - the ages of the formations around the mid-ocean ridges.



< larger image here >

Source: Marine Geology and Geophysics Division, National Geophysical Data Center, NOAA.

If all this spreading happened in just one year, why is there such a huge discrepancy in the dates of the seafloor as you get farther away from the MORs?  Why doesn't the whole seafloor show the same age?  The bullshit Accelerated Nuclear Decay hand-wave can't explain the gradients, can you?
Posted by: JLT on Oct. 17 2009,15:50

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,18:14)
There is no doubt of water covering the earth--even mountains (e.g. shells on Everest as mentioned earlier)--but you guys choose to interpret it as tectonic uplift or receding oceans. How you betray your arguments by not allowing the same latitude for the flood.  You need to read < Baumgardner >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I figured it all out!
First the earth contracted*, so that the existing water covered it. No need for extra water. It probably also rained a lot, but maybe it was just bad weather season.

Then, Noah, boat, etc.

Finally, the earth expanded** again!

Makes as much sense as Baumgardner's stories.

* Could be, that a big gas bubble inside the earth burst***
** and gas built up again.
*** We all know that the earth is hollow on the inside, don't we.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 17 2009,15:59

Quote (JLT @ Oct. 17 2009,15:50)
*** We all know that the earth is hollow on the inside, don't we.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, yeah!  I saw this movie last night that had a geologist in it, so it must right.  Anyway, the world was hollow and there was this big ocean.  And a lot of the water went up through the volcano.  Oh and there were dinosaurs and people walking side-by-side.

It must be true, I heard that the book the movie was based on is almost 150 years old.  That's the same age as Darwin's book.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 17 2009,15:59

Quote (JLT @ Oct. 17 2009,16:50)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,18:14)
There is no doubt of water covering the earth--even mountains (e.g. shells on Everest as mentioned earlier)--but you guys choose to interpret it as tectonic uplift or receding oceans. How you betray your arguments by not allowing the same latitude for the flood.  You need to read < Baumgardner >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I figured it all out!
First the earth contracted*, so that the existing water covered it. No need for extra water. It probably also rained a lot, but maybe it was just bad weather season.

Then, Noah, boat, etc.

Finally, the earth expanded** again!

Makes as much sense as Baumgardner's stories.

* Could be, that a big gas bubble inside the earth burst***
** and gas built up again.
*** We all know that the earth is hollow on the inside, don't we.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds reasonable.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 17 2009,16:16

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 17 2009,12:01)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,12:14)
What are you talking about?  Of course the Bible contains metaphorical language.  Because a narrative contains a metaphor does not make the entire narrative a metaphor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, here's the critical question:

How do you tell the difference?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prayer?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2009,16:44

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,12:14)
There is no doubt of water covering the earth--even mountains (e.g. shells on Everest as mentioned earlier)--but you guys choose to interpret it as tectonic uplift or receding oceans. How you betray your arguments by not allowing the same latitude for the flood.  You need to read < Baumgardner >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) Everest wasn't a mountain when it began to rise as a result of the Indian Plate subducting under Eurasia.
2) It's not a mere matter of "interpretation" as uplift when all the scientific data point that way and your view has none.
3) IF you HAVE studied both Baumgardner's claims and those of your opposition, why weren't you critical of Baumgardner's obvious errors?

Based on your previous blatherings, my informed guess is that you really don't know shit about Baumgardner's crap or the actual views of real scientists today.

So, how old are you, kid?
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 17 2009,17:26

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,10:14)
There is no doubt of water covering the earth--even mountains (e.g. shells on Everest as mentioned earlier)--but you guys choose to interpret it as tectonic uplift or receding oceans. How you betray your arguments by not allowing the same latitude for the flood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are bullshitting again. Doesn't your religion tell you something about lying ? We don't just arbitrarily choose a particular explanation. We follow the evidence.

You previously said
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Third, in reference to other comments--no one here can do any math without variables--and no one has them--because it is in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet now, you are claiming the evidence supports your theory again. Why is it, that when you think evidence supports your theory, that's all good, but when some well supported evidence contradicts your theory, you retreat to "well anything could have happened, we just don't know!!!!111".

If you want to discard the utility of evidence, that's OK. There's nothing left to discuss, because you have abandoned reason as a valid path to understanding. Have fun in fantasy land, but please don't try to argue that your fantasy is supported by evidence!

If on the other hand you do accept the utility of evidence, you have a big problem. We have many, many lines of evidence that absolutely contradict a global flood in the last few hundred million years. For example, we have ice core records that have annual layers going back many thousands of years. There are lakes with sedimentary records going back tens of thousands of years. Heck, there are living trees that are older than your flood. Have a look at < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html >.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 17 2009,18:35

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 17 2009,16:44)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,12:14)
There is no doubt of water covering the earth--even mountains (e.g. shells on Everest as mentioned earlier)--but you guys choose to interpret it as tectonic uplift or receding oceans. How you betray your arguments by not allowing the same latitude for the flood.  You need to read < Baumgardner >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) Everest wasn't a mountain when it began to rise as a result of the Indian Plate subducting under Eurasia.
2) It's not a mere matter of "interpretation" as uplift when all the scientific data point that way and your view has none.
3) IF you HAVE studied both Baumgardner's claims and those of your opposition, why weren't you critical of Baumgardner's obvious errors?

Based on your previous blatherings, my informed guess is that you really don't know shit about Baumgardner's crap or the actual views of real scientists today.

So, how old are you, kid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your quite a lippy guy.    

Your so smart and intelligent and all--why don't you give me a lesson as to why this happened?

Clock in a rock


Keys in rock


Fossil hat


Petrified flour

"A small sample of petrified flour was chipped from one of the bags for analysis. It was like hammering hard rock. Microscopic examination revealed that the flour was still present, but all the air space had been filled with tiny calcium carbonate crystals. There was no burlap bag remaining—it must have rotted away."

doorknobs in coal


Why is this evidence not being presented in scientific conventions.  Is it because it is "religious?"
Posted by: khan on Oct. 17 2009,18:44

We're definitely into guano territory.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 17 2009,18:49

I think we have a loki troll.
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 17 2009,18:49

This is about to get very entertaining very fast.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 17 2009,18:54

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 17 2009,16:49)
I think we have a loki troll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hadn't occurred to me, but now that you mention it...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 17 2009,18:56

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,19:54)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 17 2009,16:49)
I think we have a loki troll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hadn't occurred to me, but now that you mention it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's so hard to tell anymore, though, because no matter how fucking insane you make the parody, it's still not as insane as the real deal.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 17 2009,18:59

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2009,16:56)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,19:54)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 17 2009,16:49)
I think we have a loki troll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hadn't occurred to me, but now that you mention it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's so hard to tell anymore, though, because no matter how fucking insane you make the parody, it's still not as insane as the real deal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oddly, this applies to metal bands as well as creationists.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 17 2009,19:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is this evidence not being presented in scientific conventions.  Is it because it is "religious?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that's probably not why.

lolololololololol
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 17 2009,19:14

I would like to point out that I am incredibly offended that you hotlinked to a site that requires cookies to be implanted on my PC.  Try doing things respectfully.

Furthermore, if you believe that any of that is a problem for science, then you really are incredibly confused.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 17 2009,19:54

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2009,18:56)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,19:54)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 17 2009,16:49)
I think we have a loki troll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hadn't occurred to me, but now that you mention it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's so hard to tell anymore, though, because no matter how fucking insane you make the parody, it's still not as insane as the real deal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know.  GoP's use of sweaty wrestlers to prove geocentrism might have exceeded that upper bound.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 17 2009,19:57

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 17 2009,20:54)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2009,18:56)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,19:54)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 17 2009,16:49)
I think we have a loki troll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hadn't occurred to me, but now that you mention it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's so hard to tell anymore, though, because no matter how fucking insane you make the parody, it's still not as insane as the real deal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know.  GoP's use of sweaty wrestlers to prove geocentrism might have exceeded that upper bound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not a regular at < FSTDT > then, I take it?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 17 2009,20:09

Is that pronounced "fisted?"

I am doing two lectures next week at Cal State Fullerton. I think I'll add those photos of creato frauds to my slides of Carl Baugh's fake foot prints.


Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 17 2009,20:12

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2009,19:57)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 17 2009,20:54)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2009,18:56)
 
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,19:54)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 17 2009,16:49)
I think we have a loki troll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hadn't occurred to me, but now that you mention it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's so hard to tell anymore, though, because no matter how fucking insane you make the parody, it's still not as insane as the real deal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know.  GoP's use of sweaty wrestlers to prove geocentrism might have exceeded that upper bound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not a regular at < FSTDT > then, I take it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After reading the quote about NASA finding a missing day (WTF? How would that even work?), I retract my previous post.  I'm going to go stare at Lou's picture of heaven until my mind is cleansed.

ETA: lol at Dr. GH
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 17 2009,20:26

I thought you guys were going to let me know why this happened.  No matter how "crazy" I am you still have rocks with modern artifacts in them.  This would have profound implications on your teaching about lithification.  Can anyone answer this?  If you can, besides claiming fraud, I would be very interested in knowing how these rocks lithified so fast but the rest of the lithosphere hardened slowly several small  layers at a time.

As I said, I have touched hardened boulders that have fallen from the cliff/ banks they came from.  Yet the boulders stacked up above them are still soft, and the cliff is soft.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 17 2009,20:30

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,21:26)
I thought you guys were going to let me know why this happened.  No matter how "crazy" I am you still have rocks with modern artifacts in them.  This would have profound implications on your teaching about lithification.  Can anyone answer this?  If you can, besides claiming fraud, I would be very interested in knowing how these rocks lithified so fast but the rest of the lithosphere hardened slowly several small  layers at a time.

As I said, I have touched hardened boulders that have fallen from the cliff/ banks they came from.  Yet the boulders stacked up above them are still soft, and the cliff is soft.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's an idea: I'll do my own homework instead, and you do yours for a change.

Lazy fucker.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 17 2009,20:37

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,18:26)
As I said, I have touched hardened boulders that have fallen from the cliff/ banks they came from.  Yet the boulders stacked up above them are still soft, and the cliff is soft.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude!  You should go back there with a sledgehammer and/or explosives and do some field research.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 17 2009,20:53

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,21:37)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,18:26)
As I said, I have touched hardened boulders that have fallen from the cliff/ banks they came from.  Yet the boulders stacked up above them are still soft, and the cliff is soft.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude!  You should go back there with a sledgehammer and/or explosives and do some field research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, no shit!  

wait, YOU HAVE THESE ARTIFACTS?????//??/???

you might try dialing up Science or Nature, i'm sure they'd love to hear your expert analysis!

pssst if you do that lock your doors at night and don't answer the phone.  the EAC will be after you.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

tard
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2009,20:54

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,18:35)
Your quite a lippy guy.    

Your so smart and intelligent and all--why don't you give me a lesson as to why this happened?
[snip AIG and Creation magazine pics]

Why is this evidence not being presented in scientific conventions.  Is it because it is "religious?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I may be lippy, but I know the difference between a possessive and a contraction. This also seems to have eluded you. 

I also know that it's unlikely to have your "pictures" presented in a "scientific convention" -- not because they're "religious," but because the con artists trying to sell them to sheep like you never presented any scientific papers analyzing the materials.

You sure haven't done that either.  How about you try giving me something to analyze other than photos that can be easily faked? I'd like to see hard-copy studies, with chemical analyses, dating methods, chain-of-evidence data, and so forth. Got any?

I also notice that in your Gish-Galloping hurry to move on,  that you never acknowledged the obvious errors in Baumgardner's claims -- although you were bubbling over just a while ago about how good his work was.

Oh, and how old are you?
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 17 2009,20:56

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,18:26)
I thought you guys were going to let me know why this happened. No matter how "crazy" I am you still have rocks with modern artifacts in them.  This would have profound implications on your teaching about lithification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the only thing it implies that you are either a troll, or profoundly gullible and ignorant. I lean toward the former, but as a great man once said* "Sufficiently advanced idiocy is indistinguishable from trolling"

On the off chance you are actually serious, you had an opportunity here to have an honest, serious discussion with people who know a lot about geology, paleontology and related topics. By ignoring or failing to comprehend their responses, and instead just pasting obvious creationist bullshit, you've lost that chance. Your loss.

* paraphrased loosely.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 17 2009,20:56

Hey, I just got a call from a guy named Noah.

Says he left his hat on Mt. Ararat.

Anybody seen it?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 17 2009,20:59

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 17 2009,21:56)
Hey, I just got a call from a guy named Noah.

Says he left his hat on Mt. Ararat.

Anybody seen it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he dropped it when Ham was giving him the old amurrikan style butt sex.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 17 2009,21:03

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,16:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 17 2009,12:01)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,12:14)
What are you talking about?  Of course the Bible contains metaphorical language.  Because a narrative contains a metaphor does not make the entire narrative a metaphor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, here's the critical question:

How do you tell the difference?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In case you missed it...  

I really, really want this one answered.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2009,21:04

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 17 2009,20:53)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,21:37)
 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,18:26)
As I said, I have touched hardened boulders that have fallen from the cliff/ banks they came from.  Yet the boulders stacked up above them are still soft, and the cliff is soft.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude!  You should go back there with a sledgehammer and/or explosives and do some field research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, no shit!  

wait, YOU HAVE THESE ARTIFACTS?????//??/???

you might try dialing up Science or Nature, i'm sure they'd love to hear your expert analysis!

pssst if you do that lock your doors at night and don't answer the phone.  the EAC will be after you.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

tard
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he just likes touching "hardened" boulders and stuff with his soft, uncalloused, trembling-with-sweaty-anticipation hands.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 17 2009,21:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,12:14)
What are you talking about?  Of course the Bible contains metaphorical language.  Because a narrative contains a metaphor does not make the entire narrative a metaphor.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Therefore, even if the narrative as a whole is non-metaphor, there's no reason to assume that any one particular part of it isn't such?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fossil hat

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indian Jones meets Doctor Who.

Henry
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 17 2009,23:52

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 17 2009,20:54)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,18:35)
Your quite a lippy guy.    

Your so smart and intelligent and all--why don't you give me a lesson as to why this happened?
[snip AIG and Creation magazine pics]

Why is this evidence not being presented in scientific conventions.  Is it because it is "religious?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I may be lippy, but I know the difference between a possessive and a contraction. This also seems to have eluded you. 

I also know that it's unlikely to have your "pictures" presented in a "scientific convention" -- not because they're "religious," but because the con artists trying to sell them to sheep like you never presented any scientific papers analyzing the materials.

You sure haven't done that either.  How about you try giving me something to analyze other than photos that can be easily faked? I'd like to see hard-copy studies, with chemical analyses, dating methods, chain-of-evidence data, and so forth. Got any?

I also notice that in your Gish-Galloping hurry to move on,  that you never acknowledged the obvious errors in Baumgardner's claims -- although you were bubbling over just a while ago about how good his work was.

Oh, and how old are you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where are his errors--the age of the earth? Or the age of the coastal crust?  I must have missed it.  Obviously--he's a PhD and he must have missed it too.
Posted by: Scienthuse on Oct. 18 2009,00:01

Deadman--good one--"you're."  Is that better?  You didn't catch the fact that sometimes I put a period on the end of a question.  I bet you never have to edit your papers.  Technically, there is no compound word for "deadman."  It's "dead man."  Now you're going to explain that since it's a proper noun it is justified.  How petty!
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 18 2009,00:02

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,21:52)
Where are his errors--
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In his writing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

the age of the earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or the age of the coastal crust?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Roger that.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I must have missed it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure did.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Obviously--he's a PhD and he must have missed it too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Damn straight.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 18 2009,00:02

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,23:52)
Where are his errors--the age of the earth? Or the age of the coastal crust?  I must have missed it.  Obviously--he's a PhD and he must have missed it too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pH.D.s do not grant one infallibility... of course neither does being a Christian.

that's why there's this process called peer-review...


BTW: How do  know when you can read the Bible metaphorically and when you must read it literally?
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 18 2009,00:08

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,22:01)
Technically, there is no compound word for "deadman."  It's "dead man."  Now you're going to explain that since it's a proper noun it is justified.  How petty!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tell it to this dude:




Also, a surname:

< http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Deadman >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 18 2009,00:10

jesus we got a dumb one here.



Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2009,00:23

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 18 2009,00:01)
Deadman--good one--"you're."  Is that better?  You didn't catch the fact that sometimes I put a period on the end of a question.  I bet you never have to edit your papers.  Technically, there is no compound word for "deadman."  It's "dead man."  Now you're going to explain that since it's a proper noun it is justified.  How petty!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(1) It's justified by being an internet user nickname, tard-boy.

(2) Re. your other post:

I pointed to Baumgardner's "calculation" errors, which you seem to have ignored. So, when will I be reading those technical reports on those "fossils" you posted?

Finally,..how old are you?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 18 2009,00:25

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 18 2009,00:52)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 17 2009,20:54)
   
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,18:35)
Your quite a lippy guy.    

Your so smart and intelligent and all--why don't you give me a lesson as to why this happened?
[snip AIG and Creation magazine pics]

Why is this evidence not being presented in scientific conventions.  Is it because it is "religious?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I may be lippy, but I know the difference between a possessive and a contraction. This also seems to have eluded you. 

I also know that it's unlikely to have your "pictures" presented in a "scientific convention" -- not because they're "religious," but because the con artists trying to sell them to sheep like you never presented any scientific papers analyzing the materials.

You sure haven't done that either.  How about you try giving me something to analyze other than photos that can be easily faked? I'd like to see hard-copy studies, with chemical analyses, dating methods, chain-of-evidence data, and so forth. Got any?

I also notice that in your Gish-Galloping hurry to move on,  that you never acknowledged the obvious errors in Baumgardner's claims -- although you were bubbling over just a while ago about how good his work was.

Oh, and how old are you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where are his errors--the age of the earth? Or the age of the coastal crust?  I must have missed it.  Obviously--he's a PhD and he must have missed it too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It took me longer to write this than to learn the deal with the hat.

< AIG misrepresented it. >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This miner's hat is rock hard. It was found in a mine in Tasmania where it had been covered with water for more than 50 years.

Over that time the chemicals in the water precipitated within the open structure of the felt material of the soft hat, thus turning the soft hat into stone by a process called calcification, which means that solid calcium carbonate has impregnated the original felt material of the hat.

The hat is now on display in a mining museum on Tasmania's west coast.

This quick-forming 'stone' hat adds weight to the claims that creation scientists are correct when they say that thousands or millions of years are not needed to form rocks and fossilize animals and plants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The hat isn't fossilized, it's calcified. The AIG article says so itself.

They even put the word 'stone' in quotes. They know that this is different than fossilization, but then go on to claim it supports their young earth bullshit anyway. They're either utterly incompetent or they're deliberately misrepresenting the import of the hat as evidence. Given their quote marks, it's quite apparent which.

They lied.

You bought it, because you're too fucking lazy and willfully ignorant to take 30 seconds to google it.

The "PhD" touting the hat?

< Ken Ham >.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In two 90-minute workshops for children, Ham adopted a much lighter tone, mocking scientists who think birds evolved from dinosaurs ("if that were true, I'd be worried about my Thanksgiving turkey!").

He showed the children a photo of a fossilized hat found in a mine to prove it doesn't take millions of years to create ancient-looking artifacts. He pointed out cave drawings of a creature resembling a brachiosaur to make the case that man lived alongside dinosaurs after God created all the land animals on Day 6.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



lol.

I wouldn't parade that hat photo around too much, Scienthuse. Erasmus' photo should give you a hint as to why, TARD.

Idiot.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2009,00:31

If I recall correctly, the "clock" and keys are marine encrustations.

ETA: Couldn't find the info on the keys, but the clock thing is here: < http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/clock.asp >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The item shown in the photograph here is a striking example of the fact that rock can form quickly. It shows part of the mechanism of a man-made clock encased in solid rock, along with seashells. Obviously, the clock was not made millions of years ago!

This 'clock rock' was found in 1975 by Dolores Testerman, just a short way south of the South Jetty at Westport, Washington, USA. There have been many shipwrecks and boats sunk in the area. "

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis.

Solid rock...uh-huh. Chemical analysis done? Nope. Nothing but an empty claim to gull the gullible. Yawn. Typical creationist bullshit tactics.

So, when will I be reading those technical reports/scientific papers on those "fossils," Clownshoes? And once again...how old are you?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 18 2009,03:09

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,23:52)
Where are his errors--the age of the earth? Or the age of the coastal crust?  I must have missed it.  Obviously--he's a PhD and he must have missed it too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, you missed it because you're woefully ignorant of actual geology.  Baumgardner deliberately missed it because he's a lying sack of shit whose only goal is to tell ignorant YECs like you want they want to hear.

I can provide hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific research papers that show how dishonest and deluded Baumgardner's asinine claims really are.  Should I start?  Or will you just "miss" the damning evidence in them too?

BTW, I noticed that you're posting at the Christian Fundie retard farm < evolutionfairytale > as AFJ, where you went to inform everyone how you're < whipping those mean evos at ATBC >. How's that working out for you?  Posting at an intellectual circle-jerk of a site that has banned virtually every scientifically competent person who has come by, including devout Christians?  Listening to blustering ignoramuses like Ron, and Adam, and Ikester hand wave away all the actual scientific data as "time wasting" and tell themselves what wonderful 'scientific' refutations they have?  I notice your pleas to have them post over here and help you by presenting their evidence have fallen on deaf ears.  Does that tell you anything about the level of technical competence and/or cowardice of the rabid Fundies posting there?  It should.

BTW, for the record - you're being treated like an arrogant prick here because you came in acting like an arrogant prick.  Come in politely, ask polite questions, don't try to bullshit your way through stuff you don't know, and you will be treated most fairly and politely in return.  The Golden Rule works for all of us here too, regardless of religious beliefs.  I for one am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and have civil scientific discussions if you start over with the above caveats.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2009,03:24

Heh, that link's a hoot, OA.

Seems ol' Clownshoes has been telling tales over there and ...he's 47 freakin' years old. I could have sworn he was a teenager. Damn. I recall that Adam goober over at FRDB, too.

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

Hell, Clownshoes, if you wanted a one-on-one ass-whippin' in terms of debating the details of your YEC, you could have simply asked. You've seen references here to the "Floyd Lee thread"...that could have been a one-on-one if HE wanted it.

You can have a dedicated thread for virtually anyone here to teach you the errors of your ways. OR, even better, you can invite your buddies over and have folks  here slap the smirk off of all of you at once. It's not like it's difficult or anything.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 18 2009,03:50

When a couple of years ago a creationist claimed Baumgardner was "the world's number 1 expert on plate tectonics", I started this < Baumgardner > thread to get some answers. The interview link in the last entry so far on the thread is most revealing.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 18 2009,03:58

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 17 2009,22:02)
pH.D.s do not grant one infallibility... of course neither does being a Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor do these grant honesty, which may be more relevant here.

Scienthuse: Since the very amusing link posted Occam's Aftershave suggests that you think your position actually has some merit, I'll offer you an honest suggestion.

If you want to have a serious discussion, pick a specific piece of evidence you believe supports your position. Lay out your evidence, and why you believe it is compelling. If someone posts a counter argument, address that argument directly.

Your past behavior of copy/pasting a bunch of crap on a different subject, or saying "well it's in the past so we just can't know!" do not constitute actual debate. You should not be surprised that the response to this tactic is insults and mockery, as you have made it clear that serious responses will be ignored in any case.

I also suggest checking talkorigins < index of common creationist claims > before you post. If your claim is listed, be sure you are prepared to address the objections found there.
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Oct. 18 2009,08:32

I was going to post another thread on this one, but Wesley will probably close it and decide it belongs here.

From yet another poster on premier's discussion forum. This time, some bizaar comments on Hutton's unconformity at Siccar point in Scotland:

< http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum....t273783 >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WHAT !!?? Isn't 'peer review' something you keep on bleeting about when it comes to YEC research and publications, as Martin has pointed out ????

If it didn't appear in any peer reviewed journal, then who else repeated his work in order to verify it ??

Also, it looks as if Hutton just looked at a pile of rocks - his unconformity - and devised a theory that became widely accepted.

Is this what happened ??? please help me out here Peter, I'm trying to understand.

Berthault, on the other hand, did repeatable, verifiable experiments and published his work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So all Hutton did was look at a pile of rocks and devise a theory that became widely accepted. Hmmmm seems like we're going to have to rewrite geology !
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 18 2009,09:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, I noticed that you're posting at the Christian Fundie retard farm evolutionfairytale as AFJ, where you went to inform everyone how you're whipping those mean evos at ATBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



bwahahahahahahahahaha

jesus clownshoes you are stupider than i thought.  ok no mister nice guy to the n00b tard



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Post #1
AFJ
Junior Member




Joined: Aug 9th, 2009
Posts: 95

Group: Advanced member
Age: 47
Christian
Young Earth Creationist
Baton Rouge, LA



Hi guys,

I know I've been gone for a while on Panda's Thumb. I was wondering if any creation people here have ever gone over there. I think one guy can't even make a mark by sheer numbers of opposition. They ask so many questions, and if you do not answer them quickly enough they start the name calling. If you try to present evidence, they accuse you of goalposts shifts. If you cut and paste (which they do) then you don't think or you are "parroting." If you don't cut and paste then you're not referencing. ANd God forbid if you misstate a fact, or give wrong data, or if you don't know all of science in every field! Then you are a total tard. Oh yes and you are not supposed to use any evidence from Stevc Austin or you are a creobot. I need a rest!

Any thoughts on this?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here is a thought on this clownshoes.  You say a ton of stupid shit that is demonstrably wrong and you misrepresent things you don't even understand and you cite a fucking fraud.  

Yup, that makes you a total tard!  Fortunately that is something that you can fix (see Glenn Morton for example) but you are probably neither that honest nor bright enough to see your way out of the bag.  

lolololol  it keeps on going .

clownshoes needs a tissue



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't consider it a loss. They don't win by evidence as much as they "win" by a system of tactics. The are first of all easy on the trigger as far as insult. They try to draw you away from the evidence you want to present and into answering a multitude of their questions. They a want a working model basically to attack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i know that it's hard, for someone who posts pictures of a fucking calcified hat as proof of Duh Flud, to understand just how stupid they are.  But if you don't have a model you don't have jack shit.  and, uh, you don't.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Instead of listening to pieces of evidence of a potential model, they want a jump to conclusion creationist ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah instead of letting you yammer on about a bunch of related crap therefore yahweh the big meanies call bullshit.  THOSE BASTARDS



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also if you give a hurried cut and paste answer for sake of reference and quotation from authority they condemn you because you don't think. But if you give a general unreferenced response based on your personal knowledge of the subject, someone will eventually demand a 10 page technical journal response which might require knowledge in fields (such as for me--physics) in which you don't have much of a clue. Overall you might be going against people in 8 different science fields, and because you ignore some (for lack of time) you are a coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



lessee here people call you stupid when you make ridiculous claims with debunked sources and they call you stupid when you make ridiculous claims without any documentation just waving hands.  god those people who demand honesty in a discussion are so mean.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also they can change the subject--they did twice on me without ever telling me why. But if I brought up something off the subject--it was a goalpost shift.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hey clownshoes i'll be nice here and say maybe you have a point.  i dunno it's kinda vague.  the bigger point here is that you are wrong on so many levels and on so many different fields that it really doesn't matter where the discussion goes.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But most of all, if you say one fact that is wrong--even if you admit it and correct it-- it will plastered on the next 50 posts--of course if they do it--it is ignored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



well, hyperbole thy name is clownshoes, the larger point here is again that if you make stupidly ridiculous claims that don't stand up to inspection we think you will make more.  you already pissed away your credibility.  you did it, asshole, so waaaaaaaaaaah



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have to go as a team in my opinion or it is basically a lynching.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



why don't you try going and doing some scientific research and actually do something productive for your field?  i'll tell you why, because you know deep down that you are full of shit and facts don't matter all that matters is the cross and the babble and all that crap.  this is just another branch of your ministry?

stick around luv it's nice to have a pivot man.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 18 2009,10:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
pH.D.s do not grant one infallibility
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What???  Now you tell me!!

However, not to be picky but you made a basic mistake in your acidic remark regarding pH.D.s but I'm actually neutral about such things.

I won't concentrate on it or log a negative comment.  It will stand as a litmus test in the end.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 18 2009,11:18

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 18 2009,11:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
pH.D.s do not grant one infallibility
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What???  Now you tell me!!

However, not to be picky but you made a basic mistake in your acidic remark regarding pH.D.s but I'm actually neutral about such things.

I won't concentrate on it or log a negative comment.  It will stand as a litmus test in the end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You could have been decent enough to leave a pun for the rest of us...

:angry:
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 18 2009,11:22

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 18 2009,01:59)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2009,16:56)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,19:54)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 17 2009,16:49)
I think we have a loki troll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hadn't occurred to me, but now that you mention it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's so hard to tell anymore, though, because no matter how fucking insane you make the parody, it's still not as insane as the real deal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oddly, this applies to metal bands as well as creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey!  :angry:
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 18 2009,11:51

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 18 2009,01:09)
BTW, I noticed that you're posting at the Christian Fundie retard farm < evolutionfairytale >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Bat Shit, Kimosabe!

Fred Williams, liar for Jeezus is still at it. Wow.

I remember Fred, as will Scott and others, from the "Organization of Creationist Websites" which he and Walter ReMine tried to highjack from the owner. What a pair of slime-balls.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 18 2009,11:55

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 18 2009,08:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
pH.D.s do not grant one infallibility
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What???  Now you tell me!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am sure that we got infallibility along with the secret handshake, and keys to the universe.

BTW, Has anybody seen my keys around? I know I had them at the last EAC human sacrifice and drinking contest.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 18 2009,12:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, Has anybody seen my keys around? I know I had them at the last EAC human sacrifice and drinking contest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think they're under Noah's hat.
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 18 2009,12:48

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 18 2009,11:55)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 18 2009,08:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
pH.D.s do not grant one infallibility
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What???  Now you tell me!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am sure that we got infallibility along with the secret handshake, and keys to the universe.

BTW, Has anybody seen my keys around? I know I had them at the last EAC human sacrifice and drinking contest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't you drop them - I think they "fossilized" and were found by someone...
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 18 2009,13:38

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 18 2009,11:51)
         
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 18 2009,01:09)
BTW, I noticed that you're posting at the Christian Fundie retard farm < evolutionfairytale >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Bat Shit, Kimosabe!

Fred Williams, liar for Jeezus is still at it. Wow.

I remember Fred, as will Scott and others, from the "Organization of Creationist Websites" which he and Walter ReMine tried to highjack from the owner. What a pair of slime-balls.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That whole place is one stop shop for Creationist arrogance, stupidity, and censorship - a bottomless pit of Grade A tard.  They have their own definition for evolution ("something came from nothing and produced everything!"), and if you point out how that has nothing do do with the actual ToE you are "equivocating" and get banned.  If you link to scientific research papers, you are a "time waster" and get banned.  The main two mods there (Ikester and Adam) are also major posters, and if you point out the errors in their anti-science dreck you are "violating rules by arguing with a moderator" and get banned.  Posting anything from TalkOrigins is a ban - it's actually spelled out in the rules.  No matter how politely you behave, if you disagree with the party line you get banned.

It's a fun experiment to sign up there and see how long until posting polite but accurate scientific information gets you shit-canned.  I was a nice as can be and only lasted a few weeks.  I've seen others banned after just a few posts.  Over/under seems to be about 10 days for pro-science people.

The regular posters are some of the biggest abject cowards I've ever run across.  The sit in their little cubbyhole and tell each other how the evos are all liars, and Satan's tools, and crow about how no one can refute them all the while censoring and banning those who do.  A few of them ventured over to FRDB a while back to post PRATT horseshit where they promptly got their asses handed to them.  After just a few posts they realized that in a place where they couldn't control content they were hopelessly overmatched.  They all slunk back to the EFT retard farm where of course they told each other about their great victory over evil.   :D  :D  :D


Posted by: creeky belly on Oct. 18 2009,14:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also if you give a hurried cut and paste answer for sake of reference and quotation from authority they condemn you because you don't think. But if you give a general unreferenced response based on your personal knowledge of the subject, someone will eventually demand a 10 page technical journal response which might require knowledge in fields (such as for me--physics) in which you don't have much of a clue. Overall you might be going against people in 8 different science fields, and because you ignore some (for lack of time) you are a coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, but the following passage is not an example of a trivial mistake, it tells me that you haven't actually cracked open even an intro book to physics:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is off the subject of the flood. During the formation of the earth why did the rocks and asteroids in open space defy Newton's third law?    

If I take a bat and hit a ball it rebounds from the bat in reaction--I understand we are talking about very large objects. i understand this is based on Einstein's theory--gravitational attraction pulls the objects together. But meteorites come to us from our asteroid belt regularly as a result of collisions.  Newton's third law is empirical in nature and in space.

No.1 This VIDEO does not teach that they were pulled gently into each other, they were "violent" collisions.  

No2. Either way--gentle or violent--I tend to think Newton's law is going to work.  They are going to bounce off of each other--otherwise why should we ever have to worry about any asteroids from our asteroid belt?  I realize that other asteroids come in from other places--but some of them come from the AB--some of them no doubt resulting from collisions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't need journal articles to show that you don't have a clue here. Or how about the cooling of the earth:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you calculate all the water in the oceans and where that came from--water vapor wasn't it--I believe the Archaen era--not looking--may be wrong.  Water vapor, methane, nitrogen, CO2 all from volcanoes--and the earth cooled how again?  Where did all the greenhouse gases go--the CO2 and water vapor?  How did the earth cool so that the water vapor could form an ocean.  That's alot of water vapor--it expands 1600 times the volume of liquid water.  

So you have the same problem accounting for water--only you have no God in your equations--no creator who might be catalyst for some phenomena.  

Again as I said no one knows the height of any mountains 4000 years ago. Your math is without variables when it is based on today's data.

It might be more pertinent to know something of thermal runaway in silicate and other minerals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some of the first attempts at calculating the age of the earth were done with simple, albeit crude, thermodynamic models (Thomson, in 1862, calculated 20 million years assuming a molten ball of iron which cooled). For me, the interesting part is what followed: rather than sitting back and saying "Well that's good enough.", scientists actually tried to verify a number of assumptions. This is covered by a great article (American Scientist 95.4 (July-August 2007): p342(8))

I suppose my point is this, when you look at creationist "calculations", they look much like Thomson's (assume a linear model an extrapolate), but rather than revising their model in the face of contradictory evidence, they just ignore it. Which brings us back to you: your intuition is demonstrably incorrect in many branches of science. This leaves you a couple of choices. You can:

A) Crack open some books and LEARN, I would recommend an introduction to Thermal Physics and Geophysics. Heck, there may even be some online material.

OR

B) Get picked apart (and rightly so) when you can't justify the cut+paste job. You're not a coward, you're just ignorant. That's fine, ignorance can be corrected (see A). But if you're not scrupulous with the, well, let's just call is tosh that you c+p, then you don't deserve to be treated as honest person.

The educator in me wants to see A), but I have to admit B) is much more fun to watch.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 18 2009,18:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doc Bill, posted 10/18/09 9:56 AM


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

pH.D.s do not grant one infallibility

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What???  Now you tell me!!

However, not to be picky but you made a basic mistake in your acidic remark regarding pH.D.s but I'm actually neutral about such things.

I won't concentrate on it or log a negative comment.  It will stand as a litmus test in the end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's just basic logic, from the theory of intelligent infalling.

Henry
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 18 2009,22:53

Quote (creeky belly @ Oct. 18 2009,12:11)
A) Crack open some books and LEARN, I would recommend an introduction to Thermal Physics and Geophysics. Heck, there may even be some online material.

OR

B) Get picked apart (and rightly so) when you can't justify the cut+paste job. You're not a coward, you're just ignorant. That's fine, ignorance can be corrected (see A). But if you're not scrupulous with the, well, let's just call is tosh that you c+p, then you don't deserve to be treated as honest person.

The educator in me wants to see A), but I have to admit B) is much more fun to watch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Two books that will save time for people interested in the age of the earth, or universe are;

Dalrymple, G. Brent
1991 "The Age of the Earth"  Stanford University Press

Dalrymple, G. Brent
2005 “Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The age of the earth and its cosmic surroundings” Berkley: University of California Press

Personally,  I liked the earlier book better. But, if you have not read "The Age of the Earth" buy the latter (unless you find a good deal on a used book).

I recommended these because they do not really require any college level chemistry or physics.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 19 2009,04:13

I'd recommand he tries something easier to grasp at first:

< Geology >
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 19 2009,07:03

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,23:07)
Did you calculate all the water in the oceans and where that came from--water vapor wasn't it--I believe the Archaen era--not looking--may be wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This sentence is very confused. And confusing. Could you translate it from the original English into something I can understand?
[quoteWater vapor, methane, nitrogen, CO2 all from volcanoes--and the earth cooled how again?[/quote]In the usual way -- 'excess' heat radiates away into space. Why wouldn't it? I mean, what's gonna stop it, you know?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where did all the greenhouse gases go--the CO2 and water vapor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Those gases were there all along (and good on you for recognizing this), just in different quantities than we see nowadays. The current fuss over global warning isn't about the mere fact that any greenhouse gases are present in Earth's atmosphere; rather, the current fuss is over the question of whether or not human actions are pumping enough extra greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere, that the resulting rise in temperature might have some side-effects we wouldn't like.
Fun fact: It's possible to calculate what the Earth's temperature would be if there were no greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere... and if you do that calculation, it turns out that the Earth's
temperature would be about -25° Celsius, which is the same as -13° Fahrenheit. If you're interested, you could do worse than start out at the Wikipedia page on the scientific concept of a "< black body >".


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did the earth cool so that the water vapor could form an ocean.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, as real science says it is, there's been far more than enough time for the Earth to have cooled. "How did it cool off?" is only a problem for you YECs because you insist on cramming billions of years' worth of heat-generating events into a timespan of a few thousand years. Those Creationists who accept what real science has to say about the Earth's age (people like Hugh Ross, of Reasons to Believe) would agree with me on this point, if none other, and they'd also agree with me that you YECists are full of baloney when it comes to the Earth's age.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's alot of water vapor--it expands 1600 times the volume of liquid water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, it is. What of it?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you have the same problem accounting for water--only you have no God in your equations--no creator who might be catalyst for some phenomena.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You're going to have to walk me thru your thought processes here. Why is the putative lack of God a problem for people who accept real science?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again as I said no one knows the height of any mountains 4000 years ago. Your math is without variables when it is based on today's data
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your argument here is based on the implied premise that Things Coulda Changed RADICALLY Between Now And Then. Fine -- but if that implied premise is true, how come things aren't changing like that right now? How do you know that the height of mountains today has anything at all to do with the height of mountains three weeks ago?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It might be more pertinent to know something of thermal runaway in silicate and other minerals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If "thermal runaway" is a (somewhat garbled) reference to Baumgartner's "runaway subduction" conjecture, I do know about "thermal runaway". I also know, as you apparently do not, that Baumgartner's "runaway subduction" conjecture is based on some work he did with his TIERRA mathematical model of the Earth's plate tectonics, and that his "runaway subduction" conjecture doesn't work unless God performs at least three distinct miracles to make it happen. Miracle #1, heat mysteriously builds up inside the Earth over a period of about 20 million years; miracle #2, severe and mysterious adjustments to the thermal properties of the stuff from which Earth's crust is made; miracle #3, keeping Noah & co. from frying to death on account of all the heat that was generated as a result of the first two miracles.
At this point, you may be thinking, "Well, duh -- of course it requires miracles! The Floode was a miracle, so what's the problem?"
The problem is, how do you test the idea that such-and-such a miracle occured? There are people who argue that Noah's Floode didn't inundate all of the Earth, but, rather, only that part of the Earth which was known to the Bible's authors at that time; this "limited Floode" scenario still requires a miracle or three -- but it requires different miracles than what Baumgartner's "runaway subduction" conjecture needs. So you have a problem: On what grounds can you safely argue that God performed the particular set of miracles you like, rather than the different set of miracles preferred by advocates of a "limited Floode" scenario?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 19 2009,11:07

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,21:07)
So you have the same problem accounting for water--only you have no God in your equations--no creator who might be catalyst for some phenomena.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As other posters have discussed, science can "account for water" perfectly well.  As you have conceded here, your "account for water" requires *poof* as the mechanism.

It's time for you to leave science to the grown-ups.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 19 2009,11:54

i think you guys gnawed the battery out of that doll
Posted by: OWKtree on Oct. 19 2009,14:30

So this thread has essentially morphed into "deny the geology and the evolution will follow"?

And it looks like it's close to cycling back to a C&P attack on radiometric dating.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 19 2009,15:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No2. Either way--gentle or violent--I tend to think Newton's law is going to work.  They are going to bounce off of each other--
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When did one of newton's laws require that things bounce off each other? Conversation of momentum doesn't require that.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 19 2009,16:02

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 19 2009,13:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No2. Either way--gentle or violent--I tend to think Newton's law is going to work.  They are going to bounce off of each other--
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When did one of newton's laws require that things bounce off each other? Conversation of momentum doesn't require that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the First Law of Creationist Obfuscation* requires that.


*if in doubt, quote a law of science.  Don't worry about whether it applies - most of your audience has no idea what it means, and the ones who do understand it think you're a moron already.
Posted by: David Holland on Oct. 19 2009,16:10

Scienthuse,
If you ever come back, I have some advise that I think you should take. Go to www.talkorigins.org and type louann miller into the search function and read everything she wrote. She has some good advise for someone in your position. She was writing about the talk origins usenet group but it applies here just as well. I think you'll find it useful.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 24 2009,10:34

lololol clownshoes ain't coming back

but if you read the rest of the evolution fairy tale forum where he was discussing his efforts on this board..... < TARD >... you'll find some interesting reading.  what a bunch of idiots.

ummm  "some guy" (i'm watching you!!!! lololol) goes over there to be nice and say Hey you know what it's nothing personal but when you say stupid shit to people who know better than you do and act smarmy about it you are going to get pwned with vengeance.

and the tards go wild about moon dust.

and some other person shows up (looking at YOU TOO) and smacks all that around and includes some choice bits about most YEC science is garbage via Kurt Wise lololol

and the tards go wild about getting doubleteamed and dream up conspiracy theories

jesus what a bunch of morons.  no wonder clownshoes ain't coming back.  he is too stupid to find the thread.  so i thought i'd bump it!
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 24 2009,12:21

That was a classic example of creationists in action. What dishonest assholes.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 24 2009,13:53

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 24 2009,10:34)
but if you read the rest of the evolution fairy tale forum where he was discussing his efforts on this board..... < TARD >... you'll find some interesting reading.  what a bunch of idiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Ikester7579" who's the main mod at that site has to be one of the biggest dickheads in the entire YEC internet circus, and that's saying something.

He bragged he could show YEC supporting evidence, and when called on his bluff ("so show it") he locked the thread and threatened the asker with banning.  That'll learn those mean old evos!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2009,15:20

I see that Clownshoes has been posting over there as recently as today.

Could it be that he's actually trying to learn something *first,* then he'll be back to crush modern science in the iron fist of his inescapable logic?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 25 2009,00:59

good god read the stupid here

< http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum....99&st=0 >

yup
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 25 2009,08:51

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 24 2009,22:59)
good god read the stupid here

< http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum....99&st=0 >

yup
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Helen Setterfield! They have Helen!

I hope they keep her.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 25 2009,22:22

Holy fuck, but I just had to share < this one > from the EFT retard farm.

Clownshoes (AKA poster AFJ) is using the discovery of Chinese Cambrian age fossils to argue against evolution.  He quotes this from a Chinese paleonology site < here. >  So far so good, OK?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Chengjiang fauna is basically a benthic (bottom-living) one in which most taxa lived directly on the soft,level seafloor. Few animals that lived above the seafloor were preserved, perhaps because they were able to flee from the periodic storm-induced turbidity flows that are presumed to have resulted in the preservation seen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note that last word in the above quote:

Now check out the argument:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AFJ:  Careful reading here will show this was a bunch of marine animals on the "soft, level seafloor..." Notice "...Few animals that lived above the seafloor were preserved." So here they are on the bottom. My question is WHY do they use the term "...periodic storm-induced turbidity flows that are presumed to have resulted in the preservation [scene]...?"

It does not say "preservation scenes" plural, but singular "preservation scene." A preservation scene on the "soft, level seafloor." This points to a one time burial event--not "..periodic storm-induced turbidity flows." These animals were covered simultaneously and quickly on the seafloor by a one time "turbidity flow."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:O  :O  :O

Careful reading indeed.  Words fail me.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 25 2009,22:51

Clownshoes:  It does not say "preservation scenes" plural, but singular "preservation scene." A preservation scene on the "soft, level seafloor." This points to a one time burial event--not "..periodic storm-induced turbidity flows." These animals were covered simultaneously and quickly on the seafloor by a one time "turbidity flow."

Occam's:  That would be seen, not scene.

Clownshoes:  Nevermind.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 25 2009,23:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These animals were covered simultaneously and quickly on the seafloor by a one time "turbidity flow."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Er, to ask a silly question, but does he expect the same group of animals to have been buried multiple times? That's what the quoted paragraph appears to be saying.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 26 2009,00:20

bwaaahahahaha

i'm sure the best use for this thread would be a hall of testament to the stupid things that clownshoes, alone, has said on that forum.

if you make a particular thread for those morons we may get more of them over here.  maybe in a "team" like they said somewhere on the PT thread at EFT.  what do you a call a team of tards?

hooooooooooly sheepshit there is dumb stuff over there

check out
< this idiot >

by the way which one of y'all is "numbers".  fess up now!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 26 2009,01:22

alcatraz

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Surely this must create a paradox for the Creationist point of view. As the speed of light is measuarble and imperical, how then can one hold the view that the Universe is only a tad over 6,000 years old?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



clownshoes

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ahh yes and this is where it gets touchy,because modern science can not use anything metaphysical or supernatural, considering it irrelevant. But PEOPLE can consider on a personal level other things besides science.

It is interesting that, according to Genesis, the first thing God created WAS light. SO according to scripture light pre-existed everything, besides of course the Creator. It was always hard for me to understand this, and I can not be dogmatic of course, but it would seem obvious that light would not have been traveling from sources until God created the stars on day three or four.

I have always asked "Did he create light already filling the universe?" or "Was He the light?" Was light in a precursor form until the stars were formed?" Limited minds we have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey you said it, moron, I just bolded it.


< TARD >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 26 2009,03:26

Fred Williams had a thread there that started with him posting an image of a table of cytochrome-c proteins where he had removed the names of the species, saying that without knowing which ones to put together, no evolutionist could make a tree from the data. Someone came along and noted which numbered entries were more closely related, which Fred jumped on as being at odds with how the actual species were related. It turned out, though, that Fred had the usual misconceptions about relatedness and was handed his behind. Not, of course, that he would admit that. A branching diagram was produced based on the cyt-c data, and Fred added a green cloud covering all the interior nodes, adding a handy "fairytale" label. And near the end, a tree done with Phylip was produced, rather neatly puncturing Fred's original claim. One of the other mods went several rounds, perpetuating folk taxonomy in the face of being told that pinnipeds and cetaceans are not closely related, despite both being marine mammals. Eventually the thread was closed and the fellow who did the Phylip analysis was banned.

Apparently, when they ban someone over there, they may take a moment to change the signature line for the account to something that encapsulates their sense of frustration. For the fellow who did the Phylip tree, who was unfailingly polite under provocation, it included such awful things as wasting a mod's time. I suppose if you put things in front of people that they are obliged to either learn from or deny, that is a sure-fire timewaster.
Posted by: rhmc on Oct. 26 2009,06:58

i appreciated spongle's banning as being:

Implying that most members here were to stupid to get it.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 26 2009,07:29

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 24 2009,13:53)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 24 2009,10:34)
but if you read the rest of the evolution fairy tale forum where he was discussing his efforts on this board..... < TARD >... you'll find some interesting reading.  what a bunch of idiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Ikester7579" who's the main mod at that site has to be one of the biggest dickheads in the entire YEC internet circus, and that's saying something.

He bragged he could show YEC supporting evidence, and when called on his bluff ("so show it") he locked the thread and threatened the asker with banning.  That'll learn those mean old evos!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now it can be told!

I probably should have known better but I did go there with the idea of trying to engage Clownshoes in a direct debate – addressing facts and real issues. I have to admit I was quite a bit put off by seeing some of the idiotic rules in effect but I did my best, starting wit a post about what I thought was sound advice about being careful about using reliable sources and backing up claims with proper references.

When ikester – whom I suspect is a paranoid sociopath – butted in I didn’t see any reason why I should waste time and effort on addressing all of his off-topic verbiage, and thought we all might be better served by addressing his opening gambit:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can show by google search examples where you guys cannot even decide the DNA percentage we are different from chimps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I actually was quite confident that he was wrong; that I could find evidence that he was just a snotty, misinformed and ignorant jerk. Without being a scientist, it nevertheless so happens that I have been reading a bit just about that subject. I guess he knew I’d got him, and he just closed the thread.

It is clear that those guys are not interested in debate, the forum is only a sanctuary for massage and comfort for their inflated egos.

When at last I decided to check out the details of the forum’s rules, topping that with uncle Fred’s “Warning to Christians”, I knew the bells were tolling for me. I just finished my time there with a goodbye post, based on Fred’s quote of “If Jesus is not the topic it is off topic.”

That was last night, when this morning I went over there just to verify the quote for this account of the incident, I found I am not even allowed to read the forum! I even included some words attributed to Jesus in my farewell note,
 
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.”

I completed that with a couple of lines of 21th century wisdom with advice to “silence and ban your adversaries.”

And that was that. Am I relieved, being done with them.

But before that, I thought that ikester had been a little too quick on the trigger and complained about that.

The guy who pm’d me with a reply that I’ll quote below here may feel betrayed because I make it public, but I am so horrified by uncle Fred’s site in addition to having been subjected to such idiotic abuse by ikester that I have lost whatever respect I might have had for everyone of them. They are bad company indeed; Jesus would have had them cast out of the temple along with the moneychangers.

I read a post made by a poor 19 years old boy there too, I really felt sorry for him, appearing like brainwashed and home schooled.

But here’s the promised quote:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, he usually bans people for doing that. My guess is that because he saw that you were basically new, he gave you another chance. He just got finished doing a suspension trial to try and stop so much banning. But found out it was more trouble than it was worth because most people did not change after coming back.

ikester7579 is actually a mod with admin powers. He displays mod position because that is what Fred (the owner) wanted for some reason or another. He has total confidence from Fred in running this forum. He is actually in control when Fred is not here because he has been doing it for so long. He even built part of this forum, and often adds the new sections that you see.

He trains all new mods and promotes them to admin status when ready. So you would have to pm Fred because Fred overrides him. He does listen to us on things and we vote lots of times on whether to ban a member. But he often does things on his own because he has that power to do so.

I just talked to him about the situation. He said that the main problem is that you started a thread asking a question that you were not interested in hearing answers for. He considers those time wasting threads and usually closes them.

Just be happy that he did not boot you. And speak to Fred if you have anymore problems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BWAHAHAHA.

Me having problems? That’s nothing compared to what they have…

I just hope they will take Clownshoes advice and come over here as ‘a team’. What fun that would be! We are here for the entertainment, are we not?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 26 2009,08:10

I'll raise one for another sadly fallen sockpupett, Quack!

As for their "team", bring it on! That would be just great. *imagines the tardmy against the evilusionists. Hell maybe even FTK will be back!*
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 26 2009,14:38

aha Wes I linked to that discussion above.

Fred Williams has "pinned" it to the top of the forum queue as an example of something that demonstrates something very different from what he intends.

absolutely great tard reading.

i even tried to link to the image of  the green cloud "FAIRY TALE" cloud with monkey face he drew over the neighbor joining tree, but it's a .gif and it wasn't worth the bother.  what a maroon!

"you can't even draw the trunk of such a tree"  "Watch Me, Asshole"
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 26 2009,15:12

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 26 2009,14:38)
aha Wes I linked to that discussion above.

Fred Williams has "pinned" it to the top of the forum queue as an example of something that demonstrates something very different from what he intends.

absolutely great tard reading.

i even tried to link to the image of  the green cloud "FAIRY TALE" cloud with monkey face he drew over the neighbor joining tree, but it's a .gif and it wasn't worth the bother.  what a maroon!

"you can't even draw the trunk of such a tree"  "Watch Me, Asshole"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here ya go


Posted by: Quack on Oct. 26 2009,17:27

It may be okay to go there if you crave for a whiff of tard but I really think we should not honor them with the offering of comments there.

They've chosen what company to keep, it is well deserved!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 26 2009,18:17

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 26 2009,18:27)
It may be okay to go there if you crave for a whiff of tard but I really think we should not honor them with the offering of comments there.

They've chosen what company to keep, it is well deserved!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


they won't last long anyway.  comments, that is.  maybe they'll send a merry band of tards out of their bubble and come over here and try to beat our boots to shreds with their faces but i doubt it.  you lot that are in there already, make it happen!!
Posted by: creeky belly on Oct. 26 2009,20:45

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 26 2009,17:27)
It may be okay to go there if you crave for a whiff of tard but I really think we should not honor them with the offering of comments there.

They've chosen what company to keep, it is well deserved!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I debated whether or not to comment on the general relativity thread, it seemed like genuine interest on the part of the guy starting the thread. I had recently watched some BBC production called Einstein and Eddington, so I thought I'd share some of the history of the photograph of the eclipse, but another commenter (CTD) decided to crap all over the thread.

When you read stuff like:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Of the null result from the Michelson-Morley interferometer) I do understand outright lies. Your mention of apparatus indicates you're not just repeating the textbook lie either; you want to sound like you know some of the history. I do know the history, as will anyone who follows my link and investigates. You just made my ignore list. Be not seeing you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Get real. Attempts have been made to measure the speed of gravity, and it leaves light standing still. Newton may yet be vindicated, although I know quite well who'll never admit it. If you had repeated it the way they did it, you would've obtained the same results. Others have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's not enough HEAD-ON in the world to get through it.

Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 26 2009,23:00

gravitrons?  no way am i dipping my toe in that pool of tard.  i am still gasping from my last trip.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 26 2009,23:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Get real. Attempts have been made to measure the speed of gravity, and it leaves light standing still.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand it, though, that just means that objects being accelerated by gravity are pulled toward the current location of the other object, whereas light has a noticible time lag over astronomical distances.

As far as I can tell, that doesn't necessarily imply that any objects are moving faster than light.

Henry
Posted by: creeky belly on Oct. 27 2009,01:03

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 26 2009,23:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Get real. Attempts have been made to measure the speed of gravity, and it leaves light standing still.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand it, though, that just means that objects being accelerated by gravity are pulled toward the current location of the other object, whereas light has a noticible time lag over astronomical distances.

As far as I can tell, that doesn't necessarily imply that any objects are moving faster than light.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, from what I've read, measurements made on pulsar 1913+16 show that gravity propagates within 1% of the speed of light (in GR). This isn't quite a direct method, but considering the success of GR, its probably not a coincidence.
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Nov. 03 2009,18:30

According to AiG, there are a growing number of geologists who reject evolution:

< http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....e-point >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interestingly, Dr. Mortenson has a PhD in the history of geology and is thus aware that there are a growing number of geologists who reject evolution (e.g., Dr. Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 03 2009,19:08

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Nov. 03 2009,18:30)
According to AiG, there are a growing number of geologists who reject evolution:

< http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....e-point >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interestingly, Dr. Mortenson has a PhD in the history of geology and is thus aware that there are a growing number of geologists who reject evolution (e.g., Dr. Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


2
2
2
2
2
2


This growing number was brought to you by Truth in Creationism, an AiG company.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2009,22:09

Ah, so their claim is true for large values of 2?

Henry
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Nov. 04 2009,12:48

Could AiG's atatement be tantamount to telling lies ?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 05 2009,04:30

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Nov. 04 2009,12:48)
Could AiG's atatement be tantamount to telling lies ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First time biblical creationist posting here. (there seems little traffic??)
AIG is a Christian forum of famous merit. They would not lie as opponents would take the lie to great lenghts and Christians would be very disappointed as we see ourselves as the moral and intellectual good guys on planet earth.

The growing number could mean just three more then before. Geologists are not that many, relative, in North america and so even a few is notable change.
Still the whole matter rests on the merits of the issues and not the quanity or quality of those behind any particular position.
I see geology as a good friend to Genesis and I do wish more kids became interested in it. Geology does tell a story of the past. Yet it must be figured out like at a crime scence.
Yet like in the Sherlock Holmes stories it matters who is Sherlock and who is scotland yard detectives. Both sincere seekers of the truth but one is wrong.
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2009,05:14

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,04:30)
They would not lie as opponents would take the lie to great lenghts and Christians would be very disappointed as we see ourselves as the moral and intellectual good guys on planet earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, would you agree with AIG that dinosaurs and humans shared the planet at the same time?
Posted by: ppb on Nov. 05 2009,05:34

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,05:30)
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting analogy.  How come I don't see much of Sherlock at the crime scene?  It seems the majority of geologists for quite some time have not been YECs.  They are the ones out in the field and in the lab doing research, trying to answer the questions.  What have these YEC geologists been doing?  Could you point me to any actual research?  It would seem that the bulk of the scientists doing the real science would disagree with you.  Why is that?
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 05 2009,06:42

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,04:30)
Yet like in the Sherlock Holmes stories it matters who is Sherlock and who is scotland yard detectives. Both sincere seekers of the truth but one is wrong.
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Golly. < I knew I'd heard that name recently >.

But there are some undeniable similarities: Holmes was a notorious fiddler and came back from the dead thanks to the power of fiction.

A question for you, Robert: as a YEC, how do you distinguish between evidence for historical events and  evidence for miraculous ones?
Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 05 2009,06:56

Quote (ppb @ Nov. 05 2009,05:34)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,05:30)
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting analogy.  How come I don't see much of Sherlock at the crime scene?  It seems the majority of geologists for quite some time have not been YECs.  They are the ones out in the field and in the lab doing research, trying to answer the questions.  What have these YEC geologists been doing?  Could you point me to any actual research?  It would seem that the bulk of the scientists doing the real science would disagree with you.  Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I can see how YEC is Sherlock Holmes - a fictional character written by someone who believes in fairies (ie-magical beings who are not real).
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 05 2009,08:23

Isn't Robert the marsupials loon from IIDB/TalkRat?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 05 2009,21:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2009,05:14)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,04:30)
They would not lie as opponents would take the lie to great lenghts and Christians would be very disappointed as we see ourselves as the moral and intellectual good guys on planet earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, would you agree with AIG that dinosaurs and humans shared the planet at the same time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Dinos and man lived at the same time. In fact all dino fossils ever found were from the biblical flood actions within one year.
I don't believe people lived with dinos as the bible says only after the flood was there a need for special protection from animals. So the fear of man put in creatures. Today still all creatures have a fear of man that they don'y have for other animals regardless of size.
Perhaps the numbers of people before the flood kept creatures away but i think there was a important segregation in living areas.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,22:06

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,21:58)
Yes. Dinos and man lived at the same time. In fact all dino fossils ever found were from the biblical flood actions within one year.
I don't believe people lived with dinos as the bible says only after the flood was there a need for special protection from animals. So the fear of man put in creatures. Today still all creatures have a fear of man that they don'y have for other animals regardless of size.
Perhaps the numbers of people before the flood kept creatures away but i think there was a important segregation in living areas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bull cookies.  Here's a nice article on the tigers of Sundarbans.  They kill an average of 50 men a year... why, because the men are easy prey.  Seems like the tigers aren't too good at staying in the areas where they are protected.

< http://bigcatnews.blogspot.com/2009....ns.html >

The rest of it isn't worth the energy it would take to type it up.

BTW: You can believe whatever you want, I don't care.  However, do not think you can get that crap into my school.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 05 2009,22:11

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 05 2009,08:23)
Isn't Robert the marsupials loon from IIDB/TalkRat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep. The Raelians hosted a copy of his weird transmogrification stuff where 'possums "thought" themselves into being: < http://www.rae.org/marsupials.html >

He's also a little racist who believes he and his fellow White-Canadians to be superior to "non-whites"
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 05 2009,22:28

Quote (ppb @ Nov. 05 2009,05:34)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,05:30)
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting analogy.  How come I don't see much of Sherlock at the crime scene?  It seems the majority of geologists for quite some time have not been YECs.  They are the ones out in the field and in the lab doing research, trying to answer the questions.  What have these YEC geologists been doing?  Could you point me to any actual research?  It would seem that the bulk of the scientists doing the real science would disagree with you.  Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again geology is a small field. YEC would not become geologists except for the same private reasons anyone does. In fact geology only touches on origins and mostly deals with practical present needs of man.
It all comes down to the merits of the case. for example most geologists didn't believe in moving continents. Only a few. Now everyone.
In like manner can YEC geologists correct modern geology where it needs it. YEC is criticizing some details of modern geology and if we succeed we will of done the most important thing in geology.
By the way it was bible believing Scotsmen who first studied geology and from a genesis presumption.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,22:31

I dare you to find me one published paper in any Geology journal that does not support moving continents.

And, for Hera's sake, work on the grammar.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 05 2009,22:31

Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 05 2009,06:42)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,04:30)
Yet like in the Sherlock Holmes stories it matters who is Sherlock and who is scotland yard detectives. Both sincere seekers of the truth but one is wrong.
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Golly. < I knew I'd heard that name recently >.

But there are some undeniable similarities: Holmes was a notorious fiddler and came back from the dead thanks to the power of fiction.

A question for you, Robert: as a YEC, how do you distinguish between evidence for historical events and  evidence for miraculous ones?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unrelated to the criticisms made by evolution etc against the accuracy of the bible. Its your side saying you have evidence of this or that that shows the bible wrong. Thats all we take on. We just are forced to give answers to explain things but really we are just in defense and not trying to prove the bible. it just works out that way.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 05 2009,22:32

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 05 2009,08:23)
Isn't Robert the marsupials loon from IIDB/TalkRat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 05 2009,22:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way it was bible believing Scotsmen who first studied geology and from a genesis presumption.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So all that stuff written by da Vinci was in response to a Buddhist perspective?

< http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html >
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 05 2009,22:37

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2009,22:06)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,21:58)
Yes. Dinos and man lived at the same time. In fact all dino fossils ever found were from the biblical flood actions within one year.
I don't believe people lived with dinos as the bible says only after the flood was there a need for special protection from animals. So the fear of man put in creatures. Today still all creatures have a fear of man that they don'y have for other animals regardless of size.
Perhaps the numbers of people before the flood kept creatures away but i think there was a important segregation in living areas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bull cookies.  Here's a nice article on the tigers of Sundarbans.  They kill an average of 50 men a year... why, because the men are easy prey.  Seems like the tigers aren't too good at staying in the areas where they are protected.

< http://bigcatnews.blogspot.com/2009....ns.html >

The rest of it isn't worth the energy it would take to type it up.

BTW: You can believe whatever you want, I don't care.  However, do not think you can get that crap into my school.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If big cats killed without fear then the number in history would of been tremendous and cats would of been exterminated. In reality big cats run from people save on a few occasions where need forces them to strike despite fear. Alwaus in nature shows and readings i find that those close to nature insist big creatures are afraid of people and one can protect oneself by merely making noise.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,22:39

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,22:31)
Unrelated to the criticisms made by evolution etc against the accuracy of the bible. Its your side saying you have evidence of this or that that shows the bible wrong. Thats all we take on. We just are forced to give answers to explain things but really we are just in defense and not trying to prove the bible. it just works out that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you're confusing evolution with atheism.  

Atheists don't believe in god and think that the Bible is a poorly edited book of myths that has little to no relevance in the modern world and has created a variety of religions that are responsible for most of the wars and human caused catastrophes throughout the last 2000 years.

Evolution says that the allele frequency of populations of organisms changes over time.

Get it?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 05 2009,22:40

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,05:30)
AIG is a Christian forum of famous merit. They would not lie as opponents would take the lie to great lenghts and Christians would be very disappointed as we see ourselves as the moral and intellectual good guys on planet earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm... < interesting >.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 05 2009,22:42

More stuff from Byers:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Originally Posted by Robert Byers at IIDB (now Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board)

"It seems to me also that medical science is sluggish compared to other things. Yes the body is more complicated but still I'm blind in one eye. I think its a wonderful age compared to others.

Still I suspect the best thinkers do not get involved in medical science. It is presented that the greatest intellectual achuevments are about the atomic stuff of the universe and not healing MS. Stephen Hawkins heal thyself and not black holes.

I also notice that because the medical field is prestigius still that it is interfered with by ethnic and sexual agendas. In short too many Jews, Asians and women motivated by a title and not by a passion for some progress in this or that. Likewise ethnic groups like blacks, mexicans don't contribute what they should.
Identity passions are stopping the better people from getting into the oppourtunities at entry level. Just like in broadway plays. A skewed demagraphic is disturbing natural achievment.

Robert Byers
Toronto,Ontario "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2009,22:46

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,22:37)
If big cats killed without fear then the number in history would of been tremendous and cats would of been exterminated. In reality big cats run from people save on a few occasions where need forces them to strike despite fear. Alwaus in nature shows and readings i find that those close to nature insist big creatures are afraid of people and one can protect oneself by merely making noise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fantastic.  I'll take you with me to India when we go.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 05 2009,22:52

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2009,22:46)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,22:37)
If big cats killed without fear then the number in history would of been tremendous and cats would of been exterminated. In reality big cats run from people save on a few occasions where need forces them to strike despite fear. Alwaus in nature shows and readings i find that those close to nature insist big creatures are afraid of people and one can protect oneself by merely making noise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fantastic.  I'll take you with me to India when we go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he should try running towards a sow grizzly with cubs, yelling.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 05 2009,22:52

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 05 2009,23:42)
More stuff from Byers:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Originally Posted by Robert Byers at IIDB (now Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board)

"It seems to me also that medical science is sluggish compared to other things. Yes the body is more complicated but still I'm blind in one eye. I think its a wonderful age compared to others.

Still I suspect the best thinkers do not get involved in medical science. It is presented that the greatest intellectual achuevments are about the atomic stuff of the universe and not healing MS. Stephen Hawkins heal thyself and not black holes.

I also notice that because the medical field is prestigius still that it is interfered with by ethnic and sexual agendas. In short too many Jews, Asians and women motivated by a title and not by a passion for some progress in this or that. Likewise ethnic groups like blacks, mexicans don't contribute what they should.
Identity passions are stopping the better people from getting into the oppourtunities at entry level. Just like in broadway plays. A skewed demagraphic is disturbing natural achievment.

Robert Byers
Toronto,Ontario "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just anecdotally speaking, there does seem to be a rather high correlation between the most vocal creationists and the scum of the earth.

Has anyone done a study yet, or is that still an option for my PhD thesis?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 05 2009,23:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheists don't believe in god and think that the Bible is a poorly edited book of myths that has little to no relevance in the modern world and has created a variety of religions [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some non-Christian theists might agree with portions of that statement, too.

Henry
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 05 2009,23:10

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,22:52)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 05 2009,23:42)
More stuff from Byers:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Originally Posted by Robert Byers at IIDB (now Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board)

"It seems to me also that medical science is sluggish compared to other things. Yes the body is more complicated but still I'm blind in one eye. I think its a wonderful age compared to others.

Still I suspect the best thinkers do not get involved in medical science. It is presented that the greatest intellectual achuevments are about the atomic stuff of the universe and not healing MS. Stephen Hawkins heal thyself and not black holes.

I also notice that because the medical field is prestigius still that it is interfered with by ethnic and sexual agendas. In short too many Jews, Asians and women motivated by a title and not by a passion for some progress in this or that. Likewise ethnic groups like blacks, mexicans don't contribute what they should.
Identity passions are stopping the better people from getting into the oppourtunities at entry level. Just like in broadway plays. A skewed demagraphic is disturbing natural achievment.

Robert Byers
Toronto,Ontario "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just anecdotally speaking, there does seem to be a rather high correlation between the most vocal creationists and the scum of the earth.

Has anyone done a study yet, or is that still an option for my PhD thesis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know there's been studies correlating extreme fundamentalist religiosity and scummy behavior like  spousal and child abuse (sexual, physical, emotional):

"A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes. (Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990)..."

Cited in: "Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches", by Carolyn Holderread Heggen, Herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993, p. 73 (my emphasis)


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

In the book, "The Battered Child", physician Ray E. Helfer cites, "the assault rate on children of parents who subscribe to the christian fundamentalist belief in male dominance, is 136% percent higher than for parents who do not have this belief system."
Cited here, p.49: < http://lostvegas.us/data/Fundamentals_of_Extremism-Ebook.pdf >
------------------------------------

See also:
< http://www.robinsharpe.ca/essay-fund-abuse.htm >
< http://www.atoday.com/magazin....t.shtml >

and:
Philip R. Shaver, Gall S. Goodman, Jiangjin Qin (1995) In the Name of God: A Profile of Religion-related Child Abuse. Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 51:2
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 05 2009,23:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way it was bible believing Scotsmen who first studied geology and from a genesis presumption.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard that geologists in or before the early 19th century were indeed looking for confirmation of Biblical accounts. They didn't find it, and subsequently changed their minds regarding literal accuracy of those stories.

Henry
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 05 2009,23:55

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,19:58)
Today still all creatures have a fear of man that they don'y have for other animals regardless of size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, good thing too.  Imagine what would've happened to the poor Dodo without that fear. Oh, wait....
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 06 2009,00:22

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,22:31)
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 05 2009,06:42)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,04:30)
Yet like in the Sherlock Holmes stories it matters who is Sherlock and who is scotland yard detectives. Both sincere seekers of the truth but one is wrong.
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Golly. < I knew I'd heard that name recently >.

But there are some undeniable similarities: Holmes was a notorious fiddler and came back from the dead thanks to the power of fiction.

A question for you, Robert: as a YEC, how do you distinguish between evidence for historical events and  evidence for miraculous ones?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unrelated to the criticisms made by evolution etc against the accuracy of the bible. Its your side saying you have evidence of this or that that shows the bible wrong. Thats all we take on. We just are forced to give answers to explain things but really we are just in defense and not trying to prove the bible. it just works out that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh, no. There is the whole concerted effort to get religious antievolution taught as if it were science in K-12 public school classes. The movement you are a part of, if even unwittingly, is causing damage to education, science, and (IMHO) faith.

If people in particular denominations want to deny reality and believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, that in itself neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If they band together and want that nonsense treated credulously as if it were science in the public schools, that causes real damage and I will be working hard to make sure the effort comes to nothing. So as I see it, the situation is just about the polar opposite of how you've chosen to present it.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 06 2009,00:31

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2009,23:55)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,19:58)
Today still all creatures have a fear of man that they don'y have for other animals regardless of size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, good thing too.  Imagine what would've happened to the poor Dodo without that fear. Oh, wait....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whales and the Steller's "Sea Cow" are the most extreme examples I can think of, along with Antarctic, Arctic & Galapagos seals of various species. Emperor penguins, too.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2009,00:34

oh goody goody goody.  there's too many of you asian jew-women in medicine! hey, black mexicans get to contributing!

looking forward to more of that!  venn diagrams and all that
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 06 2009,00:36

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 06 2009,00:31)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2009,23:55)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,19:58)
Today still all creatures have a fear of man that they don'y have for other animals regardless of size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, good thing too.  Imagine what would've happened to the poor Dodo without that fear. Oh, wait....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whales and the Steller's "Sea Cow" are the most extreme examples I can think of, along with Antarctic, Arctic & Galapagos seals of various species. Emperor penguins, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the striking features of various species in the Galapagos was a lack of fear of man. This was a standard item reported by naturalists visiting the islands.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 06 2009,00:44

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,22:36)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 06 2009,00:31)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2009,23:55)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,19:58)
Today still all creatures have a fear of man that they don'y have for other animals regardless of size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, good thing too.  Imagine what would've happened to the poor Dodo without that fear. Oh, wait....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whales and the Steller's "Sea Cow" are the most extreme examples I can think of, along with Antarctic, Arctic & Galapagos seals of various species. Emperor penguins, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the striking features of various species in the Galapagos was a lack of fear of man. This was a standard item reported by naturalists visiting the islands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's common in many environments where humanity is either unknown or no threat.  A couple of weeks ago I was talking with a ranger at Mount Rainier National Park about this.  The deer within the park, where there has been no hunting for a century, are completely relaxed around people.  A mother and two young were about fifteen feet away from us while we were talking.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 06 2009,02:23

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2009,22:44)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,22:36)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 06 2009,00:31)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2009,23:55)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,19:58)
Today still all creatures have a fear of man that they don'y have for other animals regardless of size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, good thing too.  Imagine what would've happened to the poor Dodo without that fear. Oh, wait....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whales and the Steller's "Sea Cow" are the most extreme examples I can think of, along with Antarctic, Arctic & Galapagos seals of various species. Emperor penguins, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the striking features of various species in the Galapagos was a lack of fear of man. This was a standard item reported by naturalists visiting the islands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's common in many environments where humanity is either unknown or no threat.  A couple of weeks ago I was talking with a ranger at Mount Rainier National Park about this.  The deer within the park, where there has been no hunting for a century, are completely relaxed around people.  A mother and two young were about fifteen feet away from us while we were talking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can add various bear populations to the list.  I know it's been a huge problem in Yellowstone over the years, and when I was a kid in the Lake Tahoe area, you'd hear about them casually strolling through neighborhoods looking for stuff to eat at least once or twice every year.  Not exactly commonplace, but nobody was ever particularly surprised by it either.  I've also noticed that raccoons, while fairly cautious, often aren't the least bit frightened of people.   When I was living in San Jose, one walked right into the living room through the sliding glass door, took a leisurely look around, and while heading to the kitchen, noticed me, clearly thought about its options for a couple seconds, and then calmly turned around and walked back out.  Back in high school, we had one that made repeated break-in attempts over the course of a few months.  It only gave up after my dog managed to get the jump on it one night out in the garage and almost killed it.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 06 2009,05:01

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,23:31)
Unrelated to the criticisms made by evolution etc against the accuracy of the bible. Its your side saying you have evidence of this or that that shows the bible wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By "criticisms made by evolution etc against the accuracy of the bible" and "evidence of this or that that shows the bible wrong", I presume you are talking about this kind of stuff?:

"Bats are not birds."

"Rabbits do not chew their cud."

"There are not, nor is there any evidence that there have ever been, any such animals as unicorns."

You mean like that? That's a fair cop.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 06 2009,05:30

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,04:30)
 
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Nov. 04 2009,12:48)
Could AiG's atatement be tantamount to telling lies ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First time biblical creationist posting here. (there seems little traffic??)
AIG is a Christian forum of famous merit. They would not lie as opponents would take the lie to great lenghts and Christians would be very disappointed as we see ourselves as the moral and intellectual good guys on planet earth.

The growing number could mean just three more then before. Geologists are not that many, relative, in North america and so even a few is notable change.
Still the whole matter rests on the merits of the issues and not the quanity or quality of those behind any particular position.
I see geology as a good friend to Genesis and I do wish more kids became interested in it. Geology does tell a story of the past. Yet it must be figured out like at a crime scence.
Yet like in the Sherlock Holmes stories it matters who is Sherlock and who is scotland yard detectives. Both sincere seekers of the truth but one is wrong.
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Robert.

What is your agenda? I think it would be a good thing if you had some specific issues you wanted to discuss. You will find that you get good answers here, but you have got to show what you are talking about. Bla bla about Sherlock Holmes, Asian doctors and I don't know what won't get you anywhere.

But if you really, truly want to know and to learn, you will get help here. Except you will find it also require of you that you invest time and effort to do some study on your own before asking questions or making claims.

It is not possible to ask intelligent questions without some knowledge beforehand! The talkorigins archive is a fountain of knowledge. And a simple Google search or Wikipedia also may help you get some background for whatever questions you may have.

You should not expect to be successful at proselytizing or teaching scientists how the world works. I am not a scientist myself, but I have experience enough to respect science and scientists. They are not quite the idiots that creationists often seem to think.
Posted by: ppb on Nov. 06 2009,08:20

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,23:28)
By the way it was bible believing Scotsmen who first studied geology and from a genesis presumption.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, but as the data accumulated, the proportion of geologists approaching the subject from a genesis presumption has gotten rather small.

That's the point.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 06 2009,08:23

Hmmmm.  Not enough exclamation marks.  Almost whole, coherent sentences.

Whiff of sardonic wit.

I call Poe on RB.

Poe in Training.  Here are some tips for being a really good Poe, Robert.  First, don't work the room too quickly.  Never announce right off the bat that you're a YEC or OEC or Freaking Lunatic (FL).  That should come scores of pages later in a spluttering, incoherent burst of self-destructive rage.

Ask a few simple questions to get the evolutionists to waste their time writing out for the 100th time Evolution 101.  Then after a couple of weeks of cat and mouse, slip in a code word like macroevolution or academic freedom or stasis.  That sets the hook.

Once set and the room is ready you can take us all on a tour of Kreationist Krazy Town until even the cattiest of us tires of batting you around.

Then and only then do you exit with a Flounce claiming to do more research, be back soon, going on vacation, just took up a new hobby or, hopefully, something more creative and don't neglect to insult everybody for being mean, vindictive, patronizing, crude, rude and sinful, and let us know you'll pray for us.

That's just an outline to get you started.  This is a great place to hone your skills.  All it takes is a little work and dedication on your part.  Good luck and may the farce be with you.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 06 2009,09:12

Quote (ppb @ Nov. 06 2009,08:20)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,23:28)
By the way it was bible believing Scotsmen who first studied geology and from a genesis presumption.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, but as the data accumulated, the proportion of geologists approaching the subject from a genesis presumption has gotten rather small.

That's the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe the statement concerning the Scotsman should be reversed. It was a Scotsman (Hutton) who gets credit for discovering deep time. Prior to Hutton, most geologists viewed the earth from a Genesis perspective.

Prior to Hutton, others, like daVinci, argued against a Flood interpretation for fossils on mountain tops.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 06 2009,09:25

A good book that reviews both the geology of ~1780 to ~1860 is

Young, Davis A.
1995 “The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church’s Response to extrabiblical evidence” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press

Prior to Hutton, all geology was presented as the result of the "Flood." Even after Hutton's publication on unconformnities, various flood interpretations were circulated. It was following Lyle's "Principles of Geology" that the majority of Christians accomodated to an old earth, and regional Genesis Flood.

Except the Millerite sect now known as the "Seventh Day Adventists." Their following of the prophetic trances of Ellen White, sustained the 6 day, 6,000 years ago creation myth. Review of the later rebirth of creationism is in

Numbers, Ronald L.
2006 "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism"  Berkeley: University of California Press


Posted by: Quack on Nov. 06 2009,10:00

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 06 2009,08:23)
Hmmmm.  Not enough exclamation marks.  Almost whole, coherent sentences.

Whiff of sardonic wit.

I call Poe on RB.

Poe in Training.  Here are some tips for being a really good Poe, Robert.  First, don't work the room too quickly.  Never announce right off the bat that you're a YEC or OEC or Freaking Lunatic (FL).  That should come scores of pages later in a spluttering, incoherent burst of self-destructive rage.

Ask a few simple questions to get the evolutionists to waste their time writing out for the 100th time Evolution 101.  Then after a couple of weeks of cat and mouse, slip in a code word like macroevolution or academic freedom or stasis.  That sets the hook.

Once set and the room is ready you can take us all on a tour of Kreationist Krazy Town until even the cattiest of us tires of batting you around.

Then and only then do you exit with a Flounce claiming to do more research, be back soon, going on vacation, just took up a new hobby or, hopefully, something more creative and don't neglect to insult everybody for being mean, vindictive, patronizing, crude, rude and sinful, and let us know you'll pray for us.

That's just an outline to get you started.  This is a great place to hone your skills.  All it takes is a little work and dedication on your part.  Good luck and may the farce be with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Let the show begin!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 06 2009,10:20

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 06 2009,08:23)
(snip)

Then and only then do you exit with a Flounce claiming to do more research, be back soon, going on vacation, just took up a new hobby or, hopefully, something more creative and don't neglect to insult everybody for being mean, vindictive, patronizing, crude, rude and sinful, and let us know you'll pray for us.

(snip)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and let us know you'll pray for us even though we shall burn in hell.

Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 06 2009,13:13

... having made it clear that, despite our despicable behaviour, you easily saw off our blinkered and bigoted arguments.
Posted by: khan on Nov. 06 2009,13:18

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 05 2009,23:42)
More stuff from Byers:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Originally Posted by Robert Byers at IIDB (now Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board)

"It seems to me also that medical science is sluggish compared to other things. Yes the body is more complicated but still I'm blind in one eye. I think its a wonderful age compared to others.

Still I suspect the best thinkers do not get involved in medical science. It is presented that the greatest intellectual achuevments are about the atomic stuff of the universe and not healing MS. Stephen Hawkins heal thyself and not black holes.

I also notice that because the medical field is prestigius still that it is interfered with by ethnic and sexual agendas. In short too many Jews, Asians and women motivated by a title and not by a passion for some progress in this or that. Likewise ethnic groups like blacks, mexicans don't contribute what they should.
Identity passions are stopping the better people from getting into the oppourtunities at entry level. Just like in broadway plays. A skewed demagraphic is disturbing natural achievment.

Robert Byers
Toronto,Ontario "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.  Good to know how god belief influences morality.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 06 2009,13:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In short too many Jews, Asians and women motivated by a title and not by a passion for some progress in this or that. Likewise ethnic groups like blacks, mexicans don't contribute what they should.
Identity passions are stopping the better people from getting into the oppourtunities at entry level. Just like in broadway plays. A skewed demagraphic is disturbing natural achievment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That is some seriously psychotic shit.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 06 2009,13:37

Pretty standard mix of racism and far right antiscience.

Some recommendations;

Blumenthal, Max
2009  "Republican Gomorrah: Inside The Movement That Shattered The Party" (2009 New York: Nation Books).

Hedges, Chris
2008 "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America” New York: Free Press.

Phillips, Kevin
2006  American Theocracy New York: Viking Press

Mooney, Chris
2005  The Republican War on Science New York: Basic Press

Sharlet, Jeff
2008 "The Family: The secret fundamentalism at the heart of American power" New York: Harper Collins
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 07 2009,03:25

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 05 2009,23:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way it was bible believing Scotsmen who first studied geology and from a genesis presumption.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard that geologists in or before the early 19th century were indeed looking for confirmation of Biblical accounts. They didn't find it, and subsequently changed their minds regarding literal accuracy of those stories.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. Of the few doing geology then I understand as many stayed confident in the bible as were swayed away. Nevertheless it started with bible believing peoples and not sceptical people just living in a religious Presbyterian country. In fact i would argue modern science, the result of the general rise in intelligence, is from the Puritan/Evangelical Protestant people. So modern YEC folks are actually the father of modern science.
The early geologists were intellectually on our side and only later a few strayed and then modern geology followed.
Just to keep the history accurate here.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 07 2009,03:37

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2009,00:22)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,22:31)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 05 2009,06:42)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,04:30)
Yet like in the Sherlock Holmes stories it matters who is Sherlock and who is scotland yard detectives. Both sincere seekers of the truth but one is wrong.
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Golly. < I knew I'd heard that name recently >.

But there are some undeniable similarities: Holmes was a notorious fiddler and came back from the dead thanks to the power of fiction.

A question for you, Robert: as a YEC, how do you distinguish between evidence for historical events and  evidence for miraculous ones?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unrelated to the criticisms made by evolution etc against the accuracy of the bible. Its your side saying you have evidence of this or that that shows the bible wrong. Thats all we take on. We just are forced to give answers to explain things but really we are just in defense and not trying to prove the bible. it just works out that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh, no. There is the whole concerted effort to get religious antievolution taught as if it were science in K-12 public school classes. The movement you are a part of, if even unwittingly, is causing damage to education, science, and (IMHO) faith.

If people in particular denominations want to deny reality and believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, that in itself neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If they band together and want that nonsense treated credulously as if it were science in the public schools, that causes real damage and I will be working hard to make sure the effort comes to nothing. So as I see it, the situation is just about the polar opposite of how you've chosen to present it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I'm Canadian however America is a free nation and so the people have the right to have their kids taught what they believe is the truth. if there is a contention then both sides must be allowed unless the public schools are making a official opinion on who is right.
I'm confident that the present censorship against God and Genesis will come tumbling down in our time. if you are confident in your sides ability to prevail then let the gates of freedom open.
The present opposition to even I.D God creator stuff is ruining the credibility of old school evolutionism right quick.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 07 2009,03:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So modern YEC folks are actually the father of modern science.
The early geologists were intellectually on our side and only later a few strayed and then modern geology followed.
Just to keep the history accurate here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just as the Pagans are the fathers of modern religion.

Ergo, you stick to YECism, I stick to Paganism.

And that has how much with the theory of evolution to do?

Please tell.

Phew, "Intellectually on our side", what !*%$:(¤%!
And now we have all strayed except for the elect, intellectually true few. Phew.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 07 2009,03:47

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2009,00:36)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 06 2009,00:31)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2009,23:55)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,19:58)
Today still all creatures have a fear of man that they don'y have for other animals regardless of size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, good thing too.  Imagine what would've happened to the poor Dodo without that fear. Oh, wait....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whales and the Steller's "Sea Cow" are the most extreme examples I can think of, along with Antarctic, Arctic & Galapagos seals of various species. Emperor penguins, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the striking features of various species in the Galapagos was a lack of fear of man. This was a standard item reported by naturalists visiting the islands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm very aware of the tameness of creatures where man is not around.
I enjoyed the story of Berings Island and its discovery by the excellent Mr Steller.

Yet these are by definition not dangerous creatures. The fear of man must be triggered by some innate thing when the creature would otherwise attack man for food or any reason.
I repeat its a myth that hikers everywhere are being hunted by big critters. They are fine as long as big predators know they are there. The predators are naturally afraid of man. Lions in africa or bears in Canada.
it couldn't be more wrong to see that big animals will attack small humans after merely seeing them. Possibly just one person allows corage in these creatures but two or more and I insist they run for the hills.
The bible idea that creatures have fear of man was a observation when the bible was written and still stands today.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 07 2009,04:06

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 06 2009,05:30)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,04:30)
 
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Nov. 04 2009,12:48)
Could AiG's atatement be tantamount to telling lies ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First time biblical creationist posting here. (there seems little traffic??)
AIG is a Christian forum of famous merit. They would not lie as opponents would take the lie to great lenghts and Christians would be very disappointed as we see ourselves as the moral and intellectual good guys on planet earth.

The growing number could mean just three more then before. Geologists are not that many, relative, in North america and so even a few is notable change.
Still the whole matter rests on the merits of the issues and not the quanity or quality of those behind any particular position.
I see geology as a good friend to Genesis and I do wish more kids became interested in it. Geology does tell a story of the past. Yet it must be figured out like at a crime scence.
Yet like in the Sherlock Holmes stories it matters who is Sherlock and who is scotland yard detectives. Both sincere seekers of the truth but one is wrong.
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Robert.

What is your agenda? I think it would be a good thing if you had some specific issues you wanted to discuss. You will find that you get good answers here, but you have got to show what you are talking about. Bla bla about Sherlock Holmes, Asian doctors and I don't know what won't get you anywhere.

But if you really, truly want to know and to learn, you will get help here. Except you will find it also require of you that you invest time and effort to do some study on your own before asking questions or making claims.

It is not possible to ask intelligent questions without some knowledge beforehand! The talkorigins archive is a fountain of knowledge. And a simple Google search or Wikipedia also may help you get some background for whatever questions you may have.

You should not expect to be successful at proselytizing or teaching scientists how the world works. I am not a scientist myself, but I have experience enough to respect science and scientists. They are not quite the idiots that creationists often seem to think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My agenda.
A banner here says BRING THEM ON.
So it seems evolution thumpers here are confident. Usually i find they are scared and don't welcome close scrunity of evolution. not always.
I simply mean to bring my ability , what it is, to defeat evolution here and in mankind in as quick a time period as possible.
I go on the internet and am dosapponited at the lack of interest in the great debate.
Even here it seems few are making threads for people to comment on.
just after the bar thing.

Origin subjects have nothing or little to do with science.
If scientists think origin subjects are science then theres something wrong indeed.

I can't start threads as I'm new.
Anyone got the guts here to 'educate" yec Canadians.?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 07 2009,04:12

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 06 2009,09:12)
Quote (ppb @ Nov. 06 2009,08:20)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,23:28)
By the way it was bible believing Scotsmen who first studied geology and from a genesis presumption.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, but as the data accumulated, the proportion of geologists approaching the subject from a genesis presumption has gotten rather small.

That's the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe the statement concerning the Scotsman should be reversed. It was a Scotsman (Hutton) who gets credit for discovering deep time. Prior to Hutton, most geologists viewed the earth from a Genesis perspective.

Prior to Hutton, others, like daVinci, argued against a Flood interpretation for fossils on mountain tops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No reversing. Scot YEC'ers started the modern science of geology of any note. They insisted on a genesis origin for geology. A few later had other ideas that appealed to non believers.
Hutton was wrong in not seeing rock formations as fitting fine with the bible because of lack of creative imagination.
He just knew nothing about moving continents and the great pressure from this affecting water and sediment.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2009,04:20

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,03:37)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2009,00:22)
Uh, no. There is the whole concerted effort to get religious antievolution taught as if it were science in K-12 public school classes. The movement you are a part of, if even unwittingly, is causing damage to education, science, and (IMHO) faith.

If people in particular denominations want to deny reality and believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, that in itself neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If they band together and want that nonsense treated credulously as if it were science in the public schools, that causes real damage and I will be working hard to make sure the effort comes to nothing. So as I see it, the situation is just about the polar opposite of how you've chosen to present it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I'm Canadian however America is a free nation and so the people have the right to have their kids taught what they believe is the truth.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are limits to the "anything goes" interpretation of free speech, such as given in our First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of religion. Religious antievolutionists are not welcome to use K-12 public school science classes as pulpits for their narrow sectarian doctrines. Our founding fathers had full knowledge of the warfare and strife generated when religion was wielded by the faction in power to the exclusion of the beliefs of others, and they wanted our country not to have to go through the same. I agree with them.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

if there is a contention then both sides must be allowed unless the public schools are making a official opinion on who is right.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure thing, bubba. Once you folks get some science done that actually convinces the scientific community that you've got a point, then it will be just peachy to teach as science in K-12 public school science classrooms. Until then, you don't have even a "contention". Until then, preach it in your churches, but leave off the premature push to preach it in the public schools.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm confident that the present censorship against God and Genesis will come tumbling down in our time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Requiring that the science curriculum be comprised of science and not, say, religion, is not censorship. That word, it does not mean what you think it means. Nor is there general "censoring" going on. I can walk into any bookstore and find religious antievolution dreck for sale right in the regular aisles. It gets regular notice in op-ed and letters in our newspapers. When one broadens the scope to saying that God is somehow being censored, that's just crazy-talk.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

if you are confident in your sides ability to prevail then let the gates of freedom open.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They are open, bubba. Do your research, write it up, and submit it to a journal. If you want the research taken seriously, though, the journal you pick for publication should be one that isn't run by and for religious antievolution whackjobs. Of course, those other journals have things called "standards" that may be conceptually unfamiliar.

That last may be unfair. Lately, the journals for IDC in-house output seem to have really, really high standards, given that they haven't published anything in several years.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The present opposition to even I.D God creator stuff is ruining the credibility of old school evolutionism right quick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong. When people find out what "intelligent design" creationism means so far as what gets taught to their kids, they have rejected it. It happened in Darby, Montana in 2003-2004, where they voted out the school board pushing that spew. It happened in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2005, where they voted out 8/9ths of the school board pushing IDC in one go. Kansans have cyclically done the same with their state board, though they keep getting surprised when they fail to pay attention and elect religious zealots to the posts that the zealots then pursue zealotry. If you are going to invoke the voice of the people in argument, it helps to know what they've said. Science's credibility was confirmed there, not diminished.

I notice, though, that this whole thing was a digression away from the point I was making: the reality is that science did not come after you [as religious antievolutionists]; you went after science. That people rose up and defended the integrity of science is unsurprising in light of the fact that it was and is under consistent attack by the religious antievolution movement. Your rationalization is unfounded.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 07 2009,04:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

First time biblical creationist posting here. (there seems little traffic??)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I just grabbed the page showing the most recent set of threads in this one forum and put it in Excel. The number of replies to opening comments in topics is 28,878. The number of views of the threads is 1,457,995. And that's only the set of most recently viewed threads.

What, then, qualifies as medium and high traffic?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 07 2009,05:44

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:06)
So it seems evolution thumpers here...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Typical bible thumper projection, amounting to "nuh-uh, you are".

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:06)
are confident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, a couple of centuries of research that all points to the fact that you're pretty much completely wrong, pig-ignorant, and wallowing happily in your sty of willful ignorance will do that.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:06)
Usually i find they are scared and don't welcome close scrunity of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Idiot. Close scrutiny of evolution is what biologists do for a living.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:06)
not always.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you want to see a place that doesn't welcome dissent, try any creobot website, blog, speaking engagement, or church.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:06)
I simply mean to bring my ability , what it is, to defeat evolution here and in mankind in as quick a time period as possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good luck with that. A word of advice, though: Never challenge a gunslinger to pistols at dawn when you come unarmed.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:06)
I go on the internet and am dosapponited at the lack of interest in the great debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now see, here you and I have something in common. I go on the internet and am disappointed that the number of people in the world who are ignorant enough to buy into your idiocy is greater than zero.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:06)
Even here it seems few are making threads for people to comment on.
just after the bar thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What the hell is your first language, dude? For a Canadian, your ability to put together a coherent thought blows dogs. Did you go to the same school as GrannyTard?

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:06)
Origin subjects have nothing or little to do with science.
If scientists think origin subjects are science then theres something wrong indeed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Right. Because investigation of reality should confined to the reading of Genesis by your surrogate brain-in-a-pulpit. Do you even understand what science is?

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:06)
I can't start threads as I'm new.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Correct. That's an anti-spam measure to keep spammers from shitting up a perfectly good place to heckle morons like you.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:06)
Anyone got the guts here to 'educate" yec Canadians.?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's not a matter of guts, firstly. It's a matter of futility, to which your incompetent use of scare quotes speaks volumes.

This thread is perfectly appropriate for your discussion (such as it is) of geology. I hope you brought some lube.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 07 2009,06:01

Robert,
In all seriousness, could you explain something to me?

How does the bible explain varves?
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At present, the Swedish varve chronology is based on thousands of sites, and covers 13,200 varve years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm all ears. Might want to have a read here before you answer however
< http://www.answersincreation.org/varves.htm >

Not that you will answer.

So given that, here's what Dr Morris had to say
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creationists haven't solved all the problems associated with this classic site, but research is continuing. We can be certain it won't be solved by the sterile uniformitarian thinking of the past. However, reasoning from the standpoint of the great Flood of Noah's day and its aftermath holds promise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3475/272/ >

So despite the Creationist view being unsupported by evidence Dr Morris (and no doubt you Robert) will cling to it anyway in the hope that the "sterile thinking" of scientists will be proven wrong. Except with no actual research or field work there is little chance of that.

Or do you know better Robert?

edited for understandability
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 07 2009,07:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He just knew nothing about moving continents and the great pressure from this affecting water and sediment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You really know about moving continents? You know that's a real scientific subject? Care to discuss it? I am certain there are lots of people here waiting for you to address science. Maybe you want to tell us we need to read Baumgardner like that guy from evolutionfairytale did?

Frankly, I think that site will be more to your liking and I am certain you'll be most welcome. Say hello to ikester and uncle Fred for me. The gates of freedom are quite narrow over there though.

Know what? You come barging in here with the expressed intent to overthrow science and the theory of evolution in a short time. Is there no limit to your hubris? Darwin published Origins 150 years ago and the theory stands more firm than ever. What makes you think you singlehanded, with zero knowledge about what you are babbling about, can falsify not only the ToE but lots of heavy science far beyond your grasp?

What about a modicum of humility?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 07 2009,07:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
America is a free nation and so the people have the right to have their kids taught what they believe is the truth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In your mind, how many deluded bible-bangers would have to "believe" that pi = 3 before schools should be required to teach that as "truth"?  Are you willing to fly in an airplane designed by engineers who "believe" that pi = 3 is "truth"?  Would you take antibiotics manufactured by chemists who "believe" that "truth?"
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2009,08:25

ahahahahaha bubba

according to Bubba, either he is going to be educated or he is going to defeat evolution here and in the world in his lifetime.

i am waiting see which he wants to do.  they can't both be true.  but then again that sort of dissonance is par for the course.  

<popcorn>
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 07 2009,08:31

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 07 2009,09:25)
according to Bubba, either he is going to be educated or he is going to defeat evolution here and in the world in his lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've got ten bucks on "Neither".
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 07 2009,08:43

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 07 2009,09:31)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 07 2009,09:25)
according to Bubba, either he is going to be educated or he is going to defeat evolution here and in the world in his lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've got ten bucks on "Neither".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe as a consolation prize someone could fill him in on the basics of how to form proper paragraphs.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Nov. 07 2009,08:53

I have been reading this forum for four years, I think, and seen smarter, better equipped creationists than this one go down in flames. This won't be pretty, I think.  :O
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 07 2009,09:51

Robert,  Let's establish something here.  There is no 'contention' on the fact of evolution (or geology) for that matter.  There may be some intense discussion on how much a role selection vs. mutation plays in various populations, but that's not what you mean.

Tell you what, call the Biology department at your local university and ask each Biologist there what their views on the fact of evolution is.  That ought to give you pretty good sample.

It also seems that you really don't understand a lot about what you're talking about so I'd like you to define a few things for us.  So we can all be on the same page.

Evolution

Natural Selection

A hypothesis of Intelligent Design

While you're at it, what's your definition of 'hypothesis'?

So answer those and I would be very appreciative.
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 07 2009,11:20

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2009,09:51)
Tell you what, call the Biology department at your local university and ask each Biologist there what their views on the fact of evolution is.  That ought to give you pretty good sample.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As a further exercise, ask them what their views on the theory of evolution are. Chances are, for every N biologists, you'll get N+1 opinions.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 07 2009,12:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Origin subjects have nothing or little to do with science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Origin subjects? Evolution is the explanation for matching nested hierarchies whether constructed from anatomy, chemistry, DNA sequences, or fossils. It's also the explanation for geographic nesting of related species. Calling it "origin subjects" doesn't change the fact that it is the scientific explanation for those patterns.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The predators are naturally afraid of man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I expect that's because the ones that weren't have been largely killed off over the last several tens of thousands of years. (Except in areas where people haven't been around as much, such as polar bear country.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He just knew nothing about moving continents and the great pressure from this affecting water and sediment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People back then probably did have trouble understanding fossil marine life on mountain tops, or the similarity of species in Africa and South America a few hundred million years ago. (Not to mention the similar shapes of their coastlines.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope. Of the few doing geology then I understand as many stayed confident in the bible as were swayed away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you're saying that some of them decided to ignore the evidence and go with the viewpoint they'd started with? Well, given the number of people today that insist on ignoring evidence, I suppose it's possible that people 2 or 3 centuries ago may have had that same problem.

Henry
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 08 2009,05:17

Have Robert and other YEC's got any idea about the number of scientists they have to convince that the Earth is only 6k years old? Just look at the number of people engaged in just the study of < the Mjølnir Impact crater >, in Earth perspective an almost negligible piece of evidence - evidence that according to YEC geology should not exist?

Robert, scroll down and look at the list of peer-reviewed papers for just this piece of evidence. Read the article, then convince us that you know better, and why.
Posted by: JLT on Nov. 08 2009,07:57

I've always wondered how YECs explain things like this:



That is a simplified version of the layers of rocks in the Lulworth region (Dorset, UK). If you just look at the part with the tree trunks in it (Purbeck formation). Below it is a layer build from oolitic limestone. Oolites are small (around 1mm) calcite spheres, which are formed in tidal areas:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oolites form today in warm, supersaturated, shallow, highly aggitated marine water. [...]
The mechanism of formation is to begin with a seed of some sort, perhaps a shell fragment. The strong currents wash this seed around on the bottom where it accumulates a layer of chemically precipitated calcite from the supersaturated water. [...]
The concentric layers is formed as the oolites are alternately exposed to pick up a concentric layer, and then buried to set the layer. The next exposure then adds another layer.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Source >
So, we know how and where they form and how long it takes to form it. This layer alone took much longer to build than 6000 years.
But after it formed, trees grew on it. Which means that it wasn't a tidal area at that time. This is an example of an < eroded tree trunk > from this tree layer:



The tree trunk itself is gone but the surrounding thrombolite is still there. You know what < thrombolites > are?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thrombolites are clotted accretionary structures formed in shallow water by the trapping, binding, and cementation of sedimentary grains by biofilms of microorganisms, especially cyanobacteria (commonly known as blue-green algae).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They build very slow and they are only build in tidal areas.
So, at one point this area was in a tidal area, then it was elevated long enough for trees to grow, and then it was again under water. The layer on top of it is limestone:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Limestone is a very common sedimentary rock of biochemical origin. It is composed mostly of the mineral calcite. Sometimes it is almost pure calcite, but most limestones are filled with lots of other minerals and sand and they are called dirty limestones. The calcite is derived mostly from the remains of organisms such as clams, brachiopods, bryozoa, crinoids and corals. These animals live on the bottom of the sea and when they die their shells accumulate into piles of shelly debris. This debris can then form beds of limestone. Some limestones may have been derived from non-biogenic calcite formation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, during the formation of this layer the area must have been well below the water line.
And this is how the tree layer looks today:



It's again high above the water line.
So, even if you ignored all the other layers on top or below and looked only at these three layers (under the tree layer, the tree layer, and the one above it) you've got a succession of under water, above water, under water, and above water (today).

How do you explain a formation like that in a 6000 year time frame?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 08 2009,08:15

BTW, this tree is older than creatonists would allow:

< http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_re....ng_tree >
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 10 2009,04:34

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2009,04:20)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,03:37)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2009,00:22)
Uh, no. There is the whole concerted effort to get religious antievolution taught as if it were science in K-12 public school classes. The movement you are a part of, if even unwittingly, is causing damage to education, science, and (IMHO) faith.

If people in particular denominations want to deny reality and believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, that in itself neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If they band together and want that nonsense treated credulously as if it were science in the public schools, that causes real damage and I will be working hard to make sure the effort comes to nothing. So as I see it, the situation is just about the polar opposite of how you've chosen to present it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I'm Canadian however America is a free nation and so the people have the right to have their kids taught what they believe is the truth.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are limits to the "anything goes" interpretation of free speech, such as given in our First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of religion. Religious antievolutionists are not welcome to use K-12 public school science classes as pulpits for their narrow sectarian doctrines. Our founding fathers had full knowledge of the warfare and strife generated when religion was wielded by the faction in power to the exclusion of the beliefs of others, and they wanted our country not to have to go through the same. I agree with them.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

if there is a contention then both sides must be allowed unless the public schools are making a official opinion on who is right.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure thing, bubba. Once you folks get some science done that actually convinces the scientific community that you've got a point, then it will be just peachy to teach as science in K-12 public school science classrooms. Until then, you don't have even a "contention". Until then, preach it in your churches, but leave off the premature push to preach it in the public schools.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm confident that the present censorship against God and Genesis will come tumbling down in our time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Requiring that the science curriculum be comprised of science and not, say, religion, is not censorship. That word, it does not mean what you think it means. Nor is there general "censoring" going on. I can walk into any bookstore and find religious antievolution dreck for sale right in the regular aisles. It gets regular notice in op-ed and letters in our newspapers. When one broadens the scope to saying that God is somehow being censored, that's just crazy-talk.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

if you are confident in your sides ability to prevail then let the gates of freedom open.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They are open, bubba. Do your research, write it up, and submit it to a journal. If you want the research taken seriously, though, the journal you pick for publication should be one that isn't run by and for religious antievolution whackjobs. Of course, those other journals have things called "standards" that may be conceptually unfamiliar.

That last may be unfair. Lately, the journals for IDC in-house output seem to have really, really high standards, given that they haven't published anything in several years.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The present opposition to even I.D God creator stuff is ruining the credibility of old school evolutionism right quick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong. When people find out what "intelligent design" creationism means so far as what gets taught to their kids, they have rejected it. It happened in Darby, Montana in 2003-2004, where they voted out the school board pushing that spew. It happened in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2005, where they voted out 8/9ths of the school board pushing IDC in one go. Kansans have cyclically done the same with their state board, though they keep getting surprised when they fail to pay attention and elect religious zealots to the posts that the zealots then pursue zealotry. If you are going to invoke the voice of the people in argument, it helps to know what they've said. Science's credibility was confirmed there, not diminished.

I notice, though, that this whole thing was a digression away from the point I was making: the reality is that science did not come after you [as religious antievolutionists]; you went after science. That people rose up and defended the integrity of science is unsurprising in light of the fact that it was and is under consistent attack by the religious antievolution movement. Your rationalization is unfounded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seemed to me the only forum is this OPEN BAR thing!? The other forumns seem unused!

I'm confident completly the founders of America by people or elites did not put anything in the constitution or any thing at all that could be deemed censoring the truth or option of god/genesis in origin subjects.
This was only "discovered' in the '60's.
Creationism is a common opinion and most Americans would agree with it being taught equally aside evolution etc.
The point is that if science class is teaching God/genesis is not true, by teaching the opposite, then the schools are teaching religion in certain areas for many is false.
Its impossible to censor one side without it being a expressed opinion of that power that someone is right and someone is wrong.

By censorship i mean the government in public institutions.
Origin subjects are not science. Their conclusions can be equaly challenged by organized creationism with the same simple methods of weighing evidence. there is no scientific method involved in origin issues and so  it being in science class is already questionable.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 10 2009,04:57

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2009,06:01)
Robert,
In all seriousness, could you explain something to me?

How does the bible explain varves?
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At present, the Swedish varve chronology is based on thousands of sites, and covers 13,200 varve years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm all ears. Might want to have a read here before you answer however
< http://www.answersincreation.org/varves.htm >

Not that you will answer.

So given that, here's what Dr Morris had to say
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creationists haven't solved all the problems associated with this classic site, but research is continuing. We can be certain it won't be solved by the sterile uniformitarian thinking of the past. However, reasoning from the standpoint of the great Flood of Noah's day and its aftermath holds promise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3475/272/ >

So despite the Creationist view being unsupported by evidence Dr Morris (and no doubt you Robert) will cling to it anyway in the hope that the "sterile thinking" of scientists will be proven wrong. Except with no actual research or field work there is little chance of that.

Or do you know better Robert?

edited for understandability
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have discussed on other forums about varves.
The angle i came from was the discovery in iceland that pulses in mega floods was the origin for rythmites (sp) in sediment created in hours/days.
So by this example there is room to investigate, what could only be anyways for creationism, that varves have other options for recipes for their creation. i don't know what.
In fact I recently discovered the concept of turbidites (sp0 by the Luis alvarez where they made a shocking discovery that moving water was the origin for sand etc divisions in deep water or where once deep water was.
This shows how the old ideas are replaced by new ones not suspected coming.
This shows how sediment origins can have different origins then before though.
Big subject.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 10 2009,05:05

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2009,09:51)
Robert,  Let's establish something here.  There is no 'contention' on the fact of evolution (or geology) for that matter.  There may be some intense discussion on how much a role selection vs. mutation plays in various populations, but that's not what you mean.

Tell you what, call the Biology department at your local university and ask each Biologist there what their views on the fact of evolution is.  That ought to give you pretty good sample.

It also seems that you really don't understand a lot about what you're talking about so I'd like you to define a few things for us.  So we can all be on the same page.

Evolution

Natural Selection

A hypothesis of Intelligent Design

While you're at it, what's your definition of 'hypothesis'?

So answer those and I would be very appreciative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes there is a contention on evolution.
Great numbers of North americans say it isn't true while others say it is.
Smaller numbers of serious thinking people say evolution is false while other serious thinking people say its true.
In the specific areas of study tiny numbers of people who deal with it accept it while even smaller numbers called creationists study it and show its not well evidenced.
Biology only deals a little with evolution. its easily accepted by biologists because it makes no difference to practical biology. Very little overlap.
Evolution is under attack on the merits. Saying these people or that think its true will not work. Evolution must, and increasingly, make its case on the merits and not mere authority.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 10 2009,05:13

Quote (JLT @ Nov. 08 2009,07:57)
I've always wondered how YECs explain things like this:



That is a simplified version of the layers of rocks in the Lulworth region (Dorset, UK). If you just look at the part with the tree trunks in it (Purbeck formation). Below it is a layer build from oolitic limestone. Oolites are small (around 1mm) calcite spheres, which are formed in tidal areas:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oolites form today in warm, supersaturated, shallow, highly aggitated marine water. [...]
The mechanism of formation is to begin with a seed of some sort, perhaps a shell fragment. The strong currents wash this seed around on the bottom where it accumulates a layer of chemically precipitated calcite from the supersaturated water. [...]
The concentric layers is formed as the oolites are alternately exposed to pick up a concentric layer, and then buried to set the layer. The next exposure then adds another layer.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Source >
So, we know how and where they form and how long it takes to form it. This layer alone took much longer to build than 6000 years.
But after it formed, trees grew on it. Which means that it wasn't a tidal area at that time. This is an example of an < eroded tree trunk > from this tree layer:



The tree trunk itself is gone but the surrounding thrombolite is still there. You know what < thrombolites > are?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thrombolites are clotted accretionary structures formed in shallow water by the trapping, binding, and cementation of sedimentary grains by biofilms of microorganisms, especially cyanobacteria (commonly known as blue-green algae).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They build very slow and they are only build in tidal areas.
So, at one point this area was in a tidal area, then it was elevated long enough for trees to grow, and then it was again under water. The layer on top of it is limestone:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Limestone is a very common sedimentary rock of biochemical origin. It is composed mostly of the mineral calcite. Sometimes it is almost pure calcite, but most limestones are filled with lots of other minerals and sand and they are called dirty limestones. The calcite is derived mostly from the remains of organisms such as clams, brachiopods, bryozoa, crinoids and corals. These animals live on the bottom of the sea and when they die their shells accumulate into piles of shelly debris. This debris can then form beds of limestone. Some limestones may have been derived from non-biogenic calcite formation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, during the formation of this layer the area must have been well below the water line.
And this is how the tree layer looks today:



It's again high above the water line.
So, even if you ignored all the other layers on top or below and looked only at these three layers (under the tree layer, the tree layer, and the one above it) you've got a succession of under water, above water, under water, and above water (today).

How do you explain a formation like that in a 6000 year time frame?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This creationist sees the k-t line as the biblical flood line.
so if all these layers are below this line then they were all fossilized during the flood year.
I understand your looking at sequence but probably the trees and the other sediments were just collected and sorted en masse and has nothing to do with original living arrangements.
different layers just indicates to us different flow events within the flood year.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 10 2009,06:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It seemed to me the only forum is this OPEN BAR thing!? The other forumns seem unused!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That doesn't have anything to do with a claim concerning quantity of traffic. You made that claim; it appears that you have abandoned it.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 10 2009,06:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Origin subjects are not science.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All of science has to look to evidence laid down in the past. Some of it is more recent is all that differs, and that is a quantitative, not qualitative attribute. I'm afraid that the consensus of philosophers of science is that Geisler and others making this claim are making it up as they go.

Besides which, even if you simply ignored the evidence for evolutionary science that dealt with fossils (as you seem to want to do), that still leaves phylogenetic methods that strongly support common descent, biogeography, evidence of recent and current speciation, experiments on acquisition of novel metabolic pathways, experiments on natural selection and genetic drift in populations, and plenty more that even Norm Geisler would have to admit falls within his category of "operations science". The "origins science" dodge merely means that you don't know enough about the topic to realize that the rhetorical argument you've chosen would hardly make a dent in in the time that evolutionary science deserves in the public school science classroom, and none at all in the conclusions.

But we don't have to disallow scientific work on evidence that comes from long ago, any more than a criminal forensics team would simply give up if no witness to a crime is available to testify. And geology finds that claims of an earth that is no more than 20,000 years old is no more tenable than if some fringe professors of history asserted that the American Revolution took place four and a half hours ago. In astronomy, one doesn't have to use anything but trigonometry to get to deep time, as SN1987a demonstrates with ease that the universe is at least 168,000 years old.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM107 >
Posted by: lkeithlu on Nov. 10 2009,06:28

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:05)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2009,09:51)
Robert,  Let's establish something here.  There is no 'contention' on the fact of evolution (or geology) for that matter.  There may be some intense discussion on how much a role selection vs. mutation plays in various populations, but that's not what you mean.

Tell you what, call the Biology department at your local university and ask each Biologist there what their views on the fact of evolution is.  That ought to give you pretty good sample.

It also seems that you really don't understand a lot about what you're talking about so I'd like you to define a few things for us.  So we can all be on the same page.

Evolution

Natural Selection

A hypothesis of Intelligent Design

While you're at it, what's your definition of 'hypothesis'?

So answer those and I would be very appreciative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes there is a contention on evolution.
Great numbers of North americans say it isn't true while others say it is.
Smaller numbers of serious thinking people say evolution is false while other serious thinking people say its true.
In the specific areas of study tiny numbers of people who deal with it accept it while even smaller numbers called creationists study it and show its not well evidenced.
Biology only deals a little with evolution. its easily accepted by biologists because it makes no difference to practical biology. Very little overlap.
Evolution is under attack on the merits. Saying these people or that think its true will not work. Evolution must, and increasingly, make its case on the merits and not mere authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great numbers of people in North America believe all kinds of crazy things. Like ghosts. Alien Abduction. Fairies. Demons. That Obama is a foreign-born muslim (30% of the people in my state believe this) That Jon and Kate Gosselin matter. That prayer ended the drought in Georgia.

People choose not to understand evolution because they don't want to bother. The state of science education in this nation is deplorable, so the average citizen in this country has no idea what science is, beyond pocket protectors. Because they don't know what science is, they don't know how to judge sources of information for validity. Add to that the religious notion that the Bible must be interpreted literally (most Christians accept an old earth-only fundamentalists reject all the evidence that points to it) and you have a population that are afraid to learn anything that might undermine their narrow faith.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 10 2009,06:38

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:05)
Biology only deals a little with evolution. its easily accepted by biologists because it makes no difference to practical biology. Very little overlap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sentence alone marks you as an ignoramus.

Are you a biologist? How many professional biologists do you know?

There are several on this board, including me, and I'd be really interested in any evidence you can provide for this assertion.

But evidence is not really your strong suit, is it?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2009,06:58

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:13)
This creationist sees the k-t line as the biblical flood line.
so if all these layers are below this line then they were all fossilized during the flood year.
I understand your looking at sequence but probably the trees and the other sediments were just collected and sorted en masse and has nothing to do with original living arrangements.
different layers just indicates to us different flow events within the flood year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Everything after the cretaceous is post-fludde? LOL. How did ye olde fludde separate out Paleocene and Miocene early mammals from Plio-Pleistocene mammals of the same size?

Why are there no modern mammals in the Paleocene layers? If the fludde happened at the K-T boundary, we should logically find modern mammals in the Cretaceous layers, since Noah had to collect them...why are there no elephants or moose in those layers?

How many "flow events" took place in a year-long fludde? How do you know?

I realize evidence isn't your strong suit, Booby, but play along and show your data.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 10 2009,10:27

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2009,07:38)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:05)
Biology only deals a little with evolution. its easily accepted by biologists because it makes no difference to practical biology. Very little overlap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sentence alone marks you as an ignoramus.

Are you a biologist? How many professional biologists do you know?

There are several on this board, including me, and I'd be really interested in any evidence you can provide for this assertion.

But evidence is not really your strong suit, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i think the best thing about Bubba is that if you poke him just a little bit he will keep saying this kinda stuff.  I can't imagine how boring it would be to ask him to actually argue a claim.  He's much more entertaining as a windup doll
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2009,12:45

I can barely read Robert's stuff.  At least Floyd was articulate.
Posted by: RDK on Nov. 10 2009,13:31

Robbie, time to get off mommy's computer and let the adults talk.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 10 2009,13:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the average citizen in this country has no idea what science is, beyond pocket protectors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sig worthy?
Posted by: JLT on Nov. 10 2009,13:52

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,11:13)
   
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 08 2009,07:57)
I've always wondered how YECs explain things like this:



That is a simplified version of the layers of rocks in the Lulworth region (Dorset, UK). If you just look at the part with the tree trunks in it (Purbeck formation). Below it is a layer build from oolitic limestone. Oolites are small (around 1mm) calcite spheres, which are formed in tidal areas:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oolites form today in warm, supersaturated, shallow, highly aggitated marine water. [...]
The mechanism of formation is to begin with a seed of some sort, perhaps a shell fragment. The strong currents wash this seed around on the bottom where it accumulates a layer of chemically precipitated calcite from the supersaturated water. [...]
The concentric layers is formed as the oolites are alternately exposed to pick up a concentric layer, and then buried to set the layer. The next exposure then adds another layer.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Source >
So, we know how and where they form and how long it takes to form it. This layer alone took much longer to build than 6000 years.
But after it formed, trees grew on it. Which means that it wasn't a tidal area at that time. This is an example of an < eroded tree trunk > from this tree layer:



The tree trunk itself is gone but the surrounding thrombolite is still there. You know what < thrombolites > are?
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thrombolites are clotted accretionary structures formed in shallow water by the trapping, binding, and cementation of sedimentary grains by biofilms of microorganisms, especially cyanobacteria (commonly known as blue-green algae).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They build very slow and they are only build in tidal areas.
So, at one point this area was in a tidal area, then it was elevated long enough for trees to grow, and then it was again under water. The layer on top of it is limestone:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Limestone is a very common sedimentary rock of biochemical origin. It is composed mostly of the mineral calcite. Sometimes it is almost pure calcite, but most limestones are filled with lots of other minerals and sand and they are called dirty limestones. The calcite is derived mostly from the remains of organisms such as clams, brachiopods, bryozoa, crinoids and corals. These animals live on the bottom of the sea and when they die their shells accumulate into piles of shelly debris. This debris can then form beds of limestone. Some limestones may have been derived from non-biogenic calcite formation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, during the formation of this layer the area must have been well below the water line.
And this is how the tree layer looks today:



It's again high above the water line.
So, even if you ignored all the other layers on top or below and looked only at these three layers (under the tree layer, the tree layer, and the one above it) you've got a succession of under water, above water, under water, and above water (today).

How do you explain a formation like that in a 6000 year time frame?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This creationist sees the k-t line as the biblical flood line.
so if all these layers are below this line then they were all fossilized during the flood year.
I understand your looking at sequence but probably the trees and the other sediments were just collected and sorted en masse and has nothing to do with original living arrangements.
different layers just indicates to us different flow events within the flood year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You really honestly believe it possible that trees (which were btw mostly in the upright position in that area, i. e. most likely in an in situ position) would settle down sooner than all that other stuff on top of it? Trees, made from wood? Wood, that stuff that floats? If you know what I'm hinting at...

We know how long it takes e.g. for thrombolites or oolites to form. They're still formed today! They don't settle down, they grow in the place where they are found (e.g. around tree trunks...). There's no reaction mechanism that could build tons of thrombolites all at once.



Edited: moar bettar English (hopefully)
Posted by: JLT on Nov. 10 2009,13:56

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 10 2009,19:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the average citizen in this country has no idea what science is, beyond pocket protectors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sig worthy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Definitely.

Although I've never seen a pocket protector in real life. Maybe I should get one. THIS one:



AND the glasses.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 10 2009,14:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This creationist sees the k-t line as the biblical flood line.
so if all these layers are below this line then they were all fossilized during the flood year.
I understand your looking at sequence but probably the trees and the other sediments were just collected and sorted en masse and has nothing to do with original living arrangements.
different layers just indicates to us different flow events within the flood year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, (although Bubba is very fitting) posting at a forum run by scientists you are not at risk of being banned or censored, so you need not save what you post here like I have to do when making an occasional posting to a creationist forum; you'll be able to retrieve it from the archive if and when you have grown up to some degree of maturity. Then, and not before, if you're lucky you you may perhaps be able to appreciate the silliness of the claims you are making now. But that is quite a few years hence.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 10 2009,20:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The point is that if science class is teaching God/genesis is not true, by teaching the opposite, then the schools are teaching religion in certain areas for many is false.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Science is not "the opposite". Between 30 and 40% of all Christians see no problem in accepting evolutionary science and their faith; c.f. the Clergy Letter Project.

The 1968 Supreme Court decision in Epperson v. Arkansas held that instruction in science could not be withheld to privilege a particular religious doctrine. Science doesn't "teach" that God or Genesis are false; science doesn't have the metaphysical reach to touch upon God, for one thing. But science does discomfit a particular modern doctrine of an interpretation of Genesis, just as it discomfited church doctrines previously regarding geocentrism and the mechanism of planetary motion. Do you have issues with heliocentrism? With Newtonian celestial mechanics? With equipping church steeples with lightning rods? These are all things upon which certain believers have insisted that science had it wrong and needed to be either suppressed or ignored concerning. We in the 30 to 40% of Christians in the USA who have made our peace with science are not complacent about allowing the group that wants to pit faith against science to have a pulpit in the classroom. You are not arguing solely against atheists when you propose to instruct the next generation in what is plainly ignorance.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 10 2009,20:52

I notice Robert hasn't touched upon this in my previous comments:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I notice, though, that this whole thing was a digression away from the point I was making: the reality is that science did not come after you [as religious antievolutionists]; you went after science. That people rose up and defended the integrity of science is unsurprising in light of the fact that it was and is under consistent attack by the religious antievolution movement. Your rationalization is unfounded.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 10 2009,21:23

1. As a Canadian, Bubba Byers embarasses the hell out of me.  (Shouldn't you be in Alabama, Bubba?)

2. Maybe he's "George".
Posted by: George on Nov. 11 2009,01:20

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2009,21:23)
1. As a Canadian, Bubba Byers embarasses the hell out of me.  (Shouldn't you be in Alabama, Bubba?)

2. Maybe he's "George".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  I'm Bubba from Tennessee.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 11 2009,03:04

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2009,06:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It seemed to me the only forum is this OPEN BAR thing!? The other forumns seem unused!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That doesn't have anything to do with a claim concerning quantity of traffic. You made that claim; it appears that you have abandoned it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure i retract it if true. I want great discussion with millions of people on these issues. I have no idea on traffic except what forums are open.
I wish this forum well. Discussion on origin issues is important, progressive for thinking, and always a gain for biblical or other creationisms.
All the best.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 11 2009,03:49

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2009,06:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Origin subjects are not science.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All of science has to look to evidence laid down in the past. Some of it is more recent is all that differs, and that is a quantitative, not qualitative attribute. I'm afraid that the consensus of philosophers of science is that Geisler and others making this claim are making it up as they go.

Besides which, even if you simply ignored the evidence for evolutionary science that dealt with fossils (as you seem to want to do), that still leaves phylogenetic methods that strongly support common descent, biogeography, evidence of recent and current speciation, experiments on acquisition of novel metabolic pathways, experiments on natural selection and genetic drift in populations, and plenty more that even Norm Geisler would have to admit falls within his category of "operations science". The "origins science" dodge merely means that you don't know enough about the topic to realize that the rhetorical argument you've chosen would hardly make a dent in in the time that evolutionary science deserves in the public school science classroom, and none at all in the conclusions.

But we don't have to disallow scientific work on evidence that comes from long ago, any more than a criminal forensics team would simply give up if no witness to a crime is available to testify. And geology finds that claims of an earth that is no more than 20,000 years old is no more tenable than if some fringe professors of history asserted that the American Revolution took place four and a half hours ago. In astronomy, one doesn't have to use anything but trigonometry to get to deep time, as SN1987a demonstrates with ease that the universe is at least 168,000 years old.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM107 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't know Geisler. Its a common opinion in YEC to say origin subjects are like HISTORY. They deal with evidence, insight but unlike science they can not test their ideas before they have declared a conclusion.

Science is simply about being very sure about conclusions. so the hypothesis must be testable and not merely reasonable until a better idea comes along.

Creationists would insist its not done, indeed impossible mostly, to test past and gone actions to justify conclusions of what did happen. Its not happening today.

Actual science produces repeatable tests or results that only exist because of the accuracy of the hypothesis.
Therefore origin subjects are not science ones. Science requires the scientific method in order for some idea to claim the prestige of science.
Otherwise its something short of that.

Evidence that origin subjects are not science is that it seems each graduating class overthrows or hopes too some tenet or conclusion in its field.
One minute fixity of continents and then alls moving. One minute gradual extinction and then a impact bringing instant extinction and then volcanoes replacing the impact as sole cause.
Right or wrong these are not scientific subjects. They have the same problems as historical investigations.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 11 2009,03:55

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2009,06:38)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:05)
Biology only deals a little with evolution. its easily accepted by biologists because it makes no difference to practical biology. Very little overlap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sentence alone marks you as an ignoramus.

Are you a biologist? How many professional biologists do you know?

There are several on this board, including me, and I'd be really interested in any evidence you can provide for this assertion.

But evidence is not really your strong suit, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its my knowledge and observation that biologist deal with biologists deal with biology or life systems. The word is life.
Evolutionary biology deals with ideas on past life systems but not actually watching.
Biology is a study where test tubes and getting ones fingers sticky is the order of the day.
Biology is not a study where the tools are pick axes and dynamite.
Biology deals very little with evolution except as a mandatory introdution paragraph.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 11 2009,04:05

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 10 2009,06:58)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:13)
This creationist sees the k-t line as the biblical flood line.
so if all these layers are below this line then they were all fossilized during the flood year.
I understand your looking at sequence but probably the trees and the other sediments were just collected and sorted en masse and has nothing to do with original living arrangements.
different layers just indicates to us different flow events within the flood year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Everything after the cretaceous is post-fludde? LOL. How did ye olde fludde separate out Paleocene and Miocene early mammals from Plio-Pleistocene mammals of the same size?

Why are there no modern mammals in the Paleocene layers? If the fludde happened at the K-T boundary, we should logically find modern mammals in the Cretaceous layers, since Noah had to collect them...why are there no elephants or moose in those layers?

How many "flow events" took place in a year-long fludde? How do you know?

I realize evidence isn't your strong suit, Booby, but play along and show your data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The k-t line (or p-t/line) works well for this creationist.
Creatures above the line are very like the ones today save for extinction.
There is only difference because of weather change.

All kinds of creatures were on the ark. However before the flood it was a unclean world and after a clean dominance. Noah took 14:2 clean/unclean.
Before the flood creatures would be more segregated in areas they lived.
one will never find a t-rex with a horse. i don't want too. its impossible.

By flow events i just mean the chaos of moving water. The moving continents would of created great pressure and from this comes the great sediment collection that is now called rock stratas.
Different strata are just different times of the day or month during the flood year.
Rock strata are just what they look like. collected sediment in different collections from different flow dynamics.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 11 2009,04:08

Robert Byers:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Don't know Geisler.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's quite common that I know more about religious antievolution than the usual religious antievolutionist.

By the way, pretty much nothing else that you said is anything other than sheer ignorance, too. I provided a list of ongoing processes that evolutionary science investigates in the here and now; somehow you missed that in declaring that no such thing exists.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 11 2009,04:09

JLT
I know trees don't sprout up in hours. i'm saying these situations can be seen as simple collections from different flow events.
So first there is a sand layer and then from hundreds of miles away or so a great flow bringing sediment areas with trees in them lands it on top.
Like the discovery of turbite origins it just needs the right recipe.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 11 2009,04:16

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2009,21:23)
1. As a Canadian, Bubba Byers embarasses the hell out of me.  (Shouldn't you be in Alabama, Bubba?)

2. Maybe he's "George".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It would be warmer. They are fine people there and the different identities there are intelligent relative to numbers and location from mainstream America. By the way remember as evolutionist selection pressures.
Anyone with ability above or even average is likely to leave after high school and seek high fortune elsewhere. so this takes away that important element in a population. So only average/less folks remain for others to define the state by. In fact alabama kids are as sharp or more then any kids anywhere.
Demographics are everything. Motivations even bigger.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 11 2009,04:24

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,04:09)
JLT
I know trees don't sprout up in hours. i'm saying these situations can be seen as simple collections from different flow events.
So first there is a sand layer and then from hundreds of miles away or so a great flow bringing sediment areas with trees in them lands it on top.
Like the discovery of turbite origins it just needs the right recipe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are pulling ideas out of your a**.

If not, I presume you have evidence for your claims? please show!

Like evidence for those "flow events" with "sediment areas with trees in them." Geology knows nothing about them, where does your knowledge about them come from? Sources, citations, please! Evidence! Studies! Facts! Documentation!

You understand that you cannot just present your own unclear, unfounded, unscientific, meaningless ideas here and ask we take them seriously? You may take personal pride in and enjoy your own ideas as much as you like, but they should stay with you until you had something substantial to show.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2009,04:24

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,04:05)
The k-t line (or p-t/line) works well for this creationist.
Creatures above the line are very like the ones today save for extinction.
There is only difference because of weather change.

All kinds of creatures were on the ark. However before the flood it was a unclean world and after a clean dominance. Noah took 14:2 clean/unclean.
Before the flood creatures would be more segregated in areas they lived.
one will never find a t-rex with a horse. i don't want too. its impossible.

By flow events i just mean the chaos of moving water. The moving continents would of created great pressure and from this comes the great sediment collection that is now called rock stratas.
Different strata are just different times of the day or month during the flood year.
Rock strata are just what they look like. collected sediment in different collections from different flow dynamics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The reason modern horses have never been found in Permian or Cretaceous layers (or anything that old) is because they simply don't exist in those layers, Robert.

It's not that they were "segregated" it's that they simply don't occur in strata that old, period. No one has ever found a fossil (modern) horse that old, but if your fludde date were correct -- we would expect to find at least ONE MODERN MAMMAL in those layers...and this has never happened. Never. Why is that?

Does your majick fludde also cause the remains of drowned animals to disappear completely??

Explain your flow dynamics and segregation using the fossil record, Bobby. Show some scientific evidence for any of your fantasy, not just your bland and vapid opinions/conjectures/delusions

Oh, and you still haven't answered < my question > about whether or not you've ever had some sort of head/brain trauma, Bobby -- This would at least give you an excuse for your rambling delusional claims and language deficits.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 11 2009,04:28

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2009,20:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The point is that if science class is teaching God/genesis is not true, by teaching the opposite, then the schools are teaching religion in certain areas for many is false.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Science is not "the opposite". Between 30 and 40% of all Christians see no problem in accepting evolutionary science and their faith; c.f. the Clergy Letter Project.

The 1968 Supreme Court decision in Epperson v. Arkansas held that instruction in science could not be withheld to privilege a particular religious doctrine. Science doesn't "teach" that God or Genesis are false; science doesn't have the metaphysical reach to touch upon God, for one thing. But science does discomfit a particular modern doctrine of an interpretation of Genesis, just as it discomfited church doctrines previously regarding geocentrism and the mechanism of planetary motion. Do you have issues with heliocentrism? With Newtonian celestial mechanics? With equipping church steeples with lightning rods? These are all things upon which certain believers have insisted that science had it wrong and needed to be either suppressed or ignored concerning. We in the 30 to 40% of Christians in the USA who have made our peace with science are not complacent about allowing the group that wants to pit faith against science to have a pulpit in the classroom. You are not arguing solely against atheists when you propose to instruct the next generation in what is plainly ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was liberal use of evolution which attacked Christianity in its doctrines for many.
Evolution fired first. the schools began to teach the bible was not true on main points and when attempts to stop this or give rebuttal were made the establishment invented concepts for censorship.
We were here first.

Its fine that science not be withheld to avoid favoring some faith group. yet it goes further then this.
It bans anyone from teaching God/genesis is the truth. on the principal of the separation concept.
then it teaches God/genesis is not true.
The law is the law.
Either neither side can teach the kids about origins or both must have equal access.
The courts in these few cases are incompetent or have agendas.
It comes down to the right of a free people to seek and yeach the truth on origins.
right now this is being denied to the people.
The state or church should not interfere with each other. So in origin subjects it must be a free forum.
Banning from science class a forum like we are on now is just tyranny.
creationism will get back the science class where it touches or origin issues. (which aren't science anyways).
I prophesy.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2009,04:35

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,04:28)

It was liberal use of evolution which attacked Christianity in its doctrines for many.
Evolution fired first. the schools began to teach the bible was not true on main points and when attempts to stop this or give rebuttal were made the establishment invented concepts for censorship.
We were here first.

Its fine that science not be withheld to avoid favoring some faith group. yet it goes further then this.
It bans anyone from teaching God/genesis is the truth. on the principal of the separation concept.
then it teaches God/genesis is not true.
The law is the law.
Either neither side can teach the kids about origins or both must have equal access.
The courts in these few cases are incompetent or have agendas.
It comes down to the right of a free people to seek and yeach the truth on origins.
right now this is being denied to the people.
The state or church should not interfere with each other. So in origin subjects it must be a free forum.
Banning from science class a forum like we are on now is just tyranny.
creationism will get back the science class where it touches or origin issues. (which aren't science anyways).
I prophesy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The concept of separation of church and state affairs goes back further than evolution (1859) Boobly...and you are free to teach your truth, just not in state-funded schools. Anyone can always choose to remove their children from free, state-sponsored education, too. The real tyranny is attempting to impose purely Christian religious views on others who may not BE Christians, in a state-funded school system.

Creationism won't ever be in a science class regarding "origin"  topics that you just admitted aren't science, doofus.  If it ain't science why would it be in a science class?

Have you ever had head/brain trauma, Robert?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 11 2009,04:36

You seem to have missed the point and avoided the questions, Robert. Doctrine says... the earth is the center of the universe. Science says otherwise. Is that a problem, or not? Doctrine says... God and his angels move the planets in their courses. Science says that gravity and the laws of motion account for planetary movement. Is that a problem, or not? Doctrine says... God directs where the lightning goes, and it is impious for man to alter that. Science says buildings with lightning rods are set on fire by lightning less often than those without. Is it a problem to put a lightning rod on a church steeple, or not?

Does your strategy of argument by unrelenting repetition work well for you?
Posted by: Reed on Nov. 11 2009,04:58

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,01:49)
Creationists would insist its not done, indeed impossible mostly, to test past and gone actions to justify conclusions of what did happen. Its not happening today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, let's say we find someone who has been shot. We find the gun they were shot with. We find fingerprints on the gun. We find tracks at the scene. We find the person the fingerprints belong to, and find that their shoes match the tracks, they have powder residue and traces of the victims blood on their clothes, and they were seen in the area near the time of the murder.

But the murder is a "past and gone action" right ? So according to you, we simply cannot justify any conclusion of what happened, right ?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 11 2009,06:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Either neither side can teach the kids about origins or both must have equal access
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What, exactly, are those two sides?  Let me guess, science, and your specific religious beliefs.  It's obvious from this choice of words is that your goal is not scientific balance, but state promotion of your religious dogma.  You're not interested in science, you're a theocrat.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Nov. 11 2009,06:30

I am getting the impression, from Robert's use of language and syntax, that he speaks English as a second language and may be from a Pacific Rim country such as China, Japan,or Korea. The use of language and the type of errors made look familiar, as I teach students from these countries. Of course, the name doesn't fit, but hey, you guys don't know my real name either!

There is a strong creationist connection with Christianity that has been introduced to these countries, especially the followers of Moon.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 11 2009,15:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Biology deals very little with evolution except as a mandatory introdution paragraph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why does the nested hierarchy classification scheme work?
Why does the nested hierarchy implied by DNA match the one implied by anatomy?
Why do bat wings resemble mammal forelimbs more than they do bird wings?
Why don't bats have feathers?
Why to penguin flippers resemble bird wings more than they do fish fins?
Why do penguins have feathers rather than fur?
Why do whales and dolphins breath air?
Why do cave fish resemble nearby river or lake fish much more than they do more distant cave fish?
Why do pathogens sometimes migrate from one host to another?
Why do all mammals have the same eyeball design, different than that used by octopuses and squids?
Why does the human spine resemble a suspension bridge turned on end?
Why do some species appear in only a limited range of layers in the geologic record?
Why are early representatives of phyla not as different from each other as are the later members of those phyla?
Why do the ear bones of mammals resemble some of the jaw bones of reptiles?

It took me only a few minutes to think up those questions, and I'm not even a biologist.

Biology deals with all of those questions and many more, and the answers to them come from evolution. Introductory paragraph my hind foot.

Henry
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 11 2009,16:40

See, the "Book of Pure Reason" guy posting as "george" on the <i>other</i> bathroom wall has the same incomprehensible style.

George F. Thomson has an address in Surrey, B.C.

Maybe they were home-schooled together.

An yeah, probably both fake anglicized names.
Posted by: someotherguy on Nov. 11 2009,16:50

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,03:55)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2009,06:38)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:05)
Biology only deals a little with evolution. its easily accepted by biologists because it makes no difference to practical biology. Very little overlap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sentence alone marks you as an ignoramus.

Are you a biologist? How many professional biologists do you know?

There are several on this board, including me, and I'd be really interested in any evidence you can provide for this assertion.

But evidence is not really your strong suit, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its my knowledge and observation that biologist deal with biologists deal with biology or life systems. The word is life.
Evolutionary biology deals with ideas on past life systems but not actually watching.
Biology is a study where test tubes and getting ones fingers sticky is the order of the day.
Biology is not a study where the tools are pick axes and dynamite.
Biology deals very little with evolution except as a mandatory introdution paragraph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As Faulkner said and biologists everywhere know, "The past isn't dead.  It isn't even past."
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 11 2009,21:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh yes there is a contention on evolution.
Great numbers of North americans say it isn't true while others say it is.
Smaller numbers of serious thinking people say evolution is false while other serious thinking people say its true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Contention among people who haven't studied the subject is not evidence against it.

When considering validity of a conclusion, it's contention among the experts that would matter.

When it comes to evolution, there is such contention only about the details, not about the overall pattern.

Henry
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 12 2009,03:13

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 11 2009,04:24)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,04:09)
JLT
I know trees don't sprout up in hours. i'm saying these situations can be seen as simple collections from different flow events.
So first there is a sand layer and then from hundreds of miles away or so a great flow bringing sediment areas with trees in them lands it on top.
Like the discovery of turbite origins it just needs the right recipe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are pulling ideas out of your a**.

If not, I presume you have evidence for your claims? please show!

Like evidence for those "flow events" with "sediment areas with trees in them." Geology knows nothing about them, where does your knowledge about them come from? Sources, citations, please! Evidence! Studies! Facts! Documentation!

You understand that you cannot just present your own unclear, unfounded, unscientific, meaningless ideas here and ask we take them seriously? You may take personal pride in and enjoy your own ideas as much as you like, but they should stay with you until you had something substantial to show.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first source is the bible. Then from this we can infer conclusions based on evidence in the field.
Strata levels are clearly from collected sediment turned to stone.
Your side dreams up this slow and very segregated episodes. My side sees simple flows within the same episode.
So since the strata levels here and  there are hugh. Then we can infer great chunks of areas were moved and deposited all about. A few areas therefore include trees in that sediment and placed on top of other sediment laid a few hours earlier.
There is no reason to see collected materials as anything other then collected materials. The great force collecting just kept doing it from other areas with other flow power.
I'm just saying there are options to deal with your questions.
Investigation, Sherlock Holmes, can lead to different conclusions that existing schools of thought. In geology this happens a lot.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 12 2009,03:20

Wow! That's prime-choice tard. Highly entertaining...
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 12 2009,03:28

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 11 2009,04:24)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,04:05)
The k-t line (or p-t/line) works well for this creationist.
Creatures above the line are very like the ones today save for extinction.
There is only difference because of weather change.

All kinds of creatures were on the ark. However before the flood it was a unclean world and after a clean dominance. Noah took 14:2 clean/unclean.
Before the flood creatures would be more segregated in areas they lived.
one will never find a t-rex with a horse. i don't want too. its impossible.

By flow events i just mean the chaos of moving water. The moving continents would of created great pressure and from this comes the great sediment collection that is now called rock stratas.
Different strata are just different times of the day or month during the flood year.
Rock strata are just what they look like. collected sediment in different collections from different flow dynamics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The reason modern horses have never been found in Permian or Cretaceous layers (or anything that old) is because they simply don't exist in those layers, Robert.

It's not that they were "segregated" it's that they simply don't occur in strata that old, period. No one has ever found a fossil (modern) horse that old, but if your fludde date were correct -- we would expect to find at least ONE MODERN MAMMAL in those layers...and this has never happened. Never. Why is that?

Does your majick fludde also cause the remains of drowned animals to disappear completely??

Explain your flow dynamics and segregation using the fossil record, Bobby. Show some scientific evidence for any of your fantasy, not just your bland and vapid opinions/conjectures/delusions

Oh, and you still haven't answered < my question > about whether or not you've ever had some sort of head/brain trauma, Bobby -- This would at least give you an excuse for your rambling delusional claims and language deficits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't ex[ect or want to find 'mammals" of size with the dinos.
It was a different dominance of creatures in many areas pre-flood.
What is fossilized are these areas. Its impossible for horses to be with t-rex. The bible clearly states there was a clean/unclean ratio and therefore post flood fauna change. The dinos(unclean) were replaced by other creatures(clean).
I would add what kinds the present mammal world came from would be few. indeed i don't know if a HORSE was on the ark but rather some original type from which horses, tapirs, etc may of come from.
The fossil record of strata lower then the k-t line is fine for creationist biogeography. Insects etc will be everywhere but not the big animals.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 12 2009,03:36

Quote (Reed @ Nov. 11 2009,04:58)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,01:49)
Creationists would insist its not done, indeed impossible mostly, to test past and gone actions to justify conclusions of what did happen. Its not happening today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, let's say we find someone who has been shot. We find the gun they were shot with. We find fingerprints on the gun. We find tracks at the scene. We find the person the fingerprints belong to, and find that their shoes match the tracks, they have powder residue and traces of the victims blood on their clothes, and they were seen in the area near the time of the murder.

But the murder is a "past and gone action" right ? So according to you, we simply cannot justify any conclusion of what happened, right ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes you can as you did. yet this is simple accumulation of data. its not science. its not hypothesis where testing must take place to give it credibility as a theory.
The quality of evidence for any matter is a common human doing in all law systems. yet they are not doing science. They don't need to.
Science must be done as a special process for making conclusions that are not obvious.
Science claims to be a special process for drawing conclusions. not ordinary  weighing of evidence.
Evolution just weighs evidence but does not test nor can its conclusions. This is why its founded on credibility of its proponents and not on equations like in math.
Evolution thumpers always stress scientists, scientists, say this , say this.
Actual science just gives the equation or the method of how it drew its conclusions.
Evolution can't because its wrong and based on past and not working today actions.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 12 2009,03:50

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2009,15:08)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Biology deals very little with evolution except as a mandatory introdution paragraph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why does the nested hierarchy classification scheme work?
Why does the nested hierarchy implied by DNA match the one implied by anatomy?
Why do bat wings resemble mammal forelimbs more than they do bird wings?
Why don't bats have feathers?
Why to penguin flippers resemble bird wings more than they do fish fins?
Why do penguins have feathers rather than fur?
Why do whales and dolphins breath air?
Why do cave fish resemble nearby river or lake fish much more than they do more distant cave fish?
Why do pathogens sometimes migrate from one host to another?
Why do all mammals have the same eyeball design, different than that used by octopuses and squids?
Why does the human spine resemble a suspension bridge turned on end?
Why do some species appear in only a limited range of layers in the geologic record?
Why are early representatives of phyla not as different from each other as are the later members of those phyla?
Why do the ear bones of mammals resemble some of the jaw bones of reptiles?

It took me only a few minutes to think up those questions, and I'm not even a biologist.

Biology deals with all of those questions and many more, and the answers to them come from evolution. Introductory paragraph my hind foot.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most of these questions are not dealing with biology.
Biology is about life. Further ideas of origins of actual biological life is a different subject needing different tools.
its a false claim of evolutionists to say biologists prestige in their abilities can be added to evolution credibility.
They have nothing to do with the study of evolution. Save a tiny percentage who cross fertilize with it of fewer who actually get paid to study evolutionary concepts.
Biology has precious little to do with evolution. They just repeat and believe basic introduction concepts not much different then gym class.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 12 2009,03:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your side dreams up this slow and very segregated episodes. My side sees simple flows within the same episode
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Science observes the evidence, generates hypotheses to explain it, then rigorously tests those hypotheses over and over again, discovering new data and generating new hypotheses to better conform the theory to reality.  Your side "sees simple flows within the same episode", whatever that means, then demands special creation and a 6000-year old earth be taught as fact in public schools without ever showing the slightest interest in doing any research, and with an utter refusal and inability to ever change the underlying conclusions in any way--because the conclusions came first.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 12 2009,04:00

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2009,21:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh yes there is a contention on evolution.
Great numbers of North americans say it isn't true while others say it is.
Smaller numbers of serious thinking people say evolution is false while other serious thinking people say its true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Contention among people who haven't studied the subject is not evidence against it.

When considering validity of a conclusion, it's contention among the experts that would matter.

When it comes to evolution, there is such contention only about the details, not about the overall pattern.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well yes it is those who study a issue that matter most or only.
Yet the evolution crowd does use the bigger group of 'scientists" and so on to make its case against criticism.
its not experts but simply people who seriously apply their minds. The experts just do ito.
Creationists have applied our minds regardless of professions and take on evolution on its merits.
We are experts now too and show any audience the lack of merit in evolution in its great or minor claims.
few get paid to do evolution and those that tend to go into it already accept its foundations. its not after they get degrees that they come to have conviction in it. they don't question presumptions anymore then any kids going into any subject.
Its on the merits and not the "experts".
If the experts can't defend the merits then they are not very good. We already discovered this.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 12 2009,04:02

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 12 2009,03:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your side dreams up this slow and very segregated episodes. My side sees simple flows within the same episode
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Science observes the evidence, generates hypotheses to explain it, then rigorously tests those hypotheses over and over again, discovering new data and generating new hypotheses to better conform the theory to reality.  Your side "sees simple flows within the same episode", whatever that means, then demands special creation and a 6000-year old earth be taught as fact in public schools without ever showing the slightest interest in doing any research, and with an utter refusal and inability to ever change the underlying conclusions in any way--because the conclusions came first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I say your side in origin issues doesn't test hypothesis because they can't.
We were here first with our conclusions on origins and we have the freedom and law to back us up. even if at the moment incomptent judges are frustrating things. Stay tuned folks.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 12 2009,04:14

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 12 2009,04:00)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2009,21:23)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh yes there is a contention on evolution.
Great numbers of North americans say it isn't true while others say it is.
Smaller numbers of serious thinking people say evolution is false while other serious thinking people say its true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Contention among people who haven't studied the subject is not evidence against it.

When considering validity of a conclusion, it's contention among the experts that would matter.

When it comes to evolution, there is such contention only about the details, not about the overall pattern.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well yes it is those who study a issue that matter most or only.
Yet the evolution crowd does use the bigger group of 'scientists" and so on to make its case against criticism.
its not experts but simply people who seriously apply their minds. The experts just do ito.
Creationists have applied our minds regardless of professions and take on evolution on its merits.
We are experts now too and show any audience the lack of merit in evolution in its great or minor claims.
few get paid to do evolution and those that tend to go into it already accept its foundations. its not after they get degrees that they come to have conviction in it. they don't question presumptions anymore then any kids going into any subject.
Its on the merits and not the "experts".
If the experts can't defend the merits then they are not very good. We already discovered this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only thing you're an expert in is babbling, Blobby.

You're asked to support your claims and all you have are excuses as to why NO modern mammals of any size are found below the K-T boundary.

If you believe that Noah took pairs of animals on board an ark just before the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary,  then logically there should be modern mammals or doves or modern olive trees/leaves/seeds (at least) found in Cretaceous strata.

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 12 2009,03:28)
The fossil record of strata lower then the k-t line is fine for creationist biogeography. Insects etc will be everywhere but not the big animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But there are no big, medium-sized or small modern mammals below the K-T boundary. No modern birds, either. None. Zero

Why don't we find any?

There are none. All you have is babbling and no evidence

Also, by your logic, there should be no dinosaurs found above the K-T line, because if they are found there, you just said a few posts ago that Noah didn't take them on the ark, and the flood was supposed to kill everything else, according to the Bible.

Are some dino fossils found above the K-T boundary, Bobby? Have you ever suffered severe head trauma?


My conclusion is that you are a long-running troll that has been trolling for years or you have had major brain damage in the past, Bobby.

If you can't back your claims about science with science, then leave.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 12 2009,04:17

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 12 2009,04:02)
I say your side in origin issues doesn't test hypothesis because they can't.
We were here first with our conclusions on origins and we have the freedom and law to back us up. even if at the moment incomptent judges are frustrating things. Stay tuned folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gave you several tests for your claim, Bobbly...and you avoided them. I asked about horses and you say that they couldn't co-exist near big dinos...okay, so show me ANY modern mammal, small, medium or big in Cretaceous strata.

They don't exist, nor doves like noah was supposed to have on the ark, nor olives, nor any grape vines.

You don't have anything in science, and you're either brain-damaged or a troll, or perhaps both. Don't go to science fora without being able to back your claims, Bobbly. Just go away. Go play your weird games elsewhere. Shoo.
Posted by: Reed on Nov. 12 2009,04:24

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 12 2009,01:36)
 Yes you can as you did. yet this is simple accumulation of data. its not science. its not hypothesis where testing must take place to give it credibility as a theory.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are many problems with this statement. However, lets start with the good bit: You agree that "accumulation of evidence" can result in valid conclusions concerning the most probable course of past events. Great. If you actually understood the evidence for an old earth, common descent and evolution, we'd be done, because there is a truly monumental accumulation. Far more than there is for my little murder mystery above!

Of course, the "obvious" conclusion from my story above is not simply based on an "accumulation of evidence". The conclusion is reached by starting with certain assumptions about the nature of the universe, and using them, combined with reason and evidence to confirm or deny certain hypotheses about past events. In other words, exactly the same things geology and paleontology do.

The assumptions are far to numerous to list, but one I would like to point out is that it completely disregards the possibility of supernatural intervention. If "a miracle happened, because my book says so" is a valid argument, then that should be sufficient to get our defendant off the hook, right ?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 12 2009,04:42

Robert Byers:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We were here first with our conclusions on origins and we have the freedom and law to back us up. even if at the moment incomptent judges are frustrating things.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If the law backs YEC, why have the religious antievolutionists lost every case after Tennessee v. Scopes in 1925 having to do with inserting their narrow religious doctrines into science classes? Every single judge was incompetent? That hardly seems plausible. I think that it is far more likely that it is you who is incompetent on top of being ignorant.

Want to prove me wrong? Start with just one specific example of how a judge in one of the relevant cases demonstrates "incompetence", and support your assertion.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 12 2009,04:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say your side in origin issues doesn't test hypothesis because they can't.
We were here first with our conclusions on origins and we have the freedom and law to back us up. even if at the moment incomptent judges are frustrating things. Stay tuned folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope, pagans were here before you, and before them animists, and before them cavemen who believed in the Great Mother, and before them, who knows...

You are just the result of a almost 2000 years-old social experiment. In this experiment you will mostly find three types of people:

1) people in search of spirituality who find answers and guidance in some holy writings.

2) idiots who will follow whatever their priests tell them.

3) smart, power-hungry maniacs who will bank on above-mentioned idiots to achieve their political and financial goals.

You are a number 2, and no mistake...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2009,07:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't ex[ect or want to find 'mammals" of size with the dinos.
It was a different dominance of creatures in many areas pre-flood.
What is fossilized are these areas. Its impossible for horses to be with t-rex. The bible clearly states there was a clean/unclean ratio and therefore post flood fauna change. The dinos(unclean) were replaced by other creatures(clean).
I would add what kinds the present mammal world came from would be few. indeed i don't know if a HORSE was on the ark but rather some original type from which horses, tapirs, etc may of come from.
The fossil record of strata lower then the k-t line is fine for creationist biogeography. Insects etc will be everywhere but not the big animals
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




lolollololololololololoololol

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2009,08:46

Hey bobb,

In the other thread you said that the bible was the only tool creationism has and needed.

Please show me how we can predict the antibiotic resitance of bacteria using the bible.  Please show me how we can use the bible to show the advantages of sickle cell anemia.

Do you believe that the Bible is only 'against' biology or does it also include other sciences?

Do you realize that most of modern society couldn't exist without evolutionary theory?  From the wheat that makes your bread to the milk in your chocolate shake... it all depends on evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 12 2009,09:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creationists have applied our minds regardless of professions and take on evolution on its merits.
We are experts now too and show any audience the lack of merit in evolution in its great or minor claims.
[snip]...

If the experts can't defend the merits then they are not very good. We already discovered this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, regardless of professions, 'you' are experts?
How come you fail miserably in showing lack of merit? You make claims without supporting evidence.

Your 'experts' are not very good; they aren't even bad - they are completely useless as we already know.

Please disappear, you have yet to make sense, you are just wasting our time. How old are you? Why is that a secret? Have you got anything to show that you are not just grossly ignorant?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2009,09:42

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2009,10:19)

Please disappear, you have yet to make sense, you are just wasting our time. How old are you? Why is that a secret? Have you got anything to show that you are not just grossly ignorant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


um quack please don't run him off.  i need my daily dose of FSTDT without actually going there.

I think that you can't really tell the difference between Bubba, a bot, and a english as third language born again missionary.  that is entertaining, but you don't have to take it seriously. for all reasonable purposes it is a bot.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 12 2009,10:45

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 12 2009,15:42)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2009,10:19)

Please disappear, you have yet to make sense, you are just wasting our time. How old are you? Why is that a secret? Have you got anything to show that you are not just grossly ignorant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


um quack please don't run him off.  i need my daily dose of FSTDT without actually going there.

I think that you can't really tell the difference between Bubba, a bot, and a english as third language born again missionary.  that is entertaining, but you don't have to take it seriously. for all reasonable purposes it is a bot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ditto
Posted by: someotherguy on Nov. 12 2009,11:39

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 12 2009,09:42)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2009,10:19)

Please disappear, you have yet to make sense, you are just wasting our time. How old are you? Why is that a secret? Have you got anything to show that you are not just grossly ignorant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


um quack please don't run him off.  i need my daily dose of FSTDT without actually going there.

I think that you can't really tell the difference between Bubba, a bot, and a english as third language born again missionary.  that is entertaining, but you don't have to take it seriously. for all reasonable purposes it is a bot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nobody will ever compare to AFDave, though.  As far as I'm concerned, he is the Hope Diamond of internet creationist tards.  Let's bring him back here!   :p
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 12 2009,12:14

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 12 2009,02:50)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2009,15:08)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Biology deals very little with evolution except as a mandatory introdution paragraph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why does the nested hierarchy classification scheme work?
Why does the nested hierarchy implied by DNA match the one implied by anatomy?
Why do bat wings resemble mammal forelimbs more than they do bird wings?
Why don't bats have feathers?
Why to penguin flippers resemble bird wings more than they do fish fins?
Why do penguins have feathers rather than fur?
Why do whales and dolphins breath air?
Why do cave fish resemble nearby river or lake fish much more than they do more distant cave fish?
Why do pathogens sometimes migrate from one host to another?
Why do all mammals have the same eyeball design, different than that used by octopuses and squids?
Why does the human spine resemble a suspension bridge turned on end?
Why do some species appear in only a limited range of layers in the geologic record?
Why are early representatives of phyla not as different from each other as are the later members of those phyla?
Why do the ear bones of mammals resemble some of the jaw bones of reptiles?

It took me only a few minutes to think up those questions, and I'm not even a biologist.

Biology deals with all of those questions and many more, and the answers to them come from evolution. Introductory paragraph my hind foot.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most of these questions are not dealing with biology.
Biology is about life. Further ideas of origins of actual biological life is a different subject needing different tools.
its a false claim of evolutionists to say biologists prestige in their abilities can be added to evolution credibility.
They have nothing to do with the study of evolution. Save a tiny percentage who cross fertilize with it of fewer who actually get paid to study evolutionary concepts.
Biology has precious little to do with evolution. They just repeat and believe basic introduction concepts not much different then gym class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eh?

The prefix "bio" means life.

The suffix "ology" means study of.

Therefore biology is study of life.

All of those questions were about forms of life.

Therefore all of those questions were about biology.

Evolution provides answers to all of them.

So basically, you just claimed that several questions about life forms were not questions about life forms.
Posted by: RDK on Nov. 12 2009,12:20

Robert, do you have any background in the biological sciences?  If so, what branch?  Are you a biology major or have you taken classes relevant to the field?  If so, what school do you currently attend?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2009,14:04

Is this a turing test?
Posted by: silverspoon on Nov. 12 2009,14:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most of these questions are not dealing with biology.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dare I ask Robert if he thinks insects are animals?

I’ve had more than one person tell me they weren’t.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2009,15:02

Quote (silverspoon @ Nov. 12 2009,15:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most of these questions are not dealing with biology.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dare I ask Robert if he thinks insects are animals?

I’ve had more than one person tell me they weren’t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


do it gently.  it appears to be an old bot that can't do the gallop very quickly.  I am afraid that "is this a turing test" may send it into infinite loop
Posted by: Rrr on Nov. 12 2009,15:05

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2009,09:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creationists have applied our minds regardless of professions and take on evolution on its merits.
We are experts now too and show any audience the lack of merit in evolution in its great or minor claims.
[snip]...

If the experts can't defend the merits then they are not very good. We already discovered this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, regardless of professions, 'you' are experts?
How come you fail miserably in showing lack of merit? You make claims without supporting evidence.

Your 'experts' are not very good; they aren't even bad - they are completely useless as we already know.

Please disappear, you have yet to make sense, you are just wasting our time. How old are you? Why is that a secret? Have you got anything to show that you are not just grossly ignorant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, Quack, but I must interject the opposite here.
Au contraire to "fail[ing] miserably in showing lack of merit", it appears to this casual, non-interfering observer that they instead ace every single test in that regard.
But that is the only point with which I have any quarrel.
Oh, except perhaps the concern of other commenters that the obviously insecure Booba might get scared away. Some might consider it rude, even, to demand he state his age; it might be similar to his IQ. [And I'm not referring to any of the OT heroes here :-]

Carry on, as you were, at ease, usw.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 12 2009,15:48

Quote (Rrr @ Nov. 12 2009,15:05)
 
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2009,09:19)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creationists have applied our minds regardless of professions and take on evolution on its merits.
We are experts now too and show any audience the lack of merit in evolution in its great or minor claims.
[snip]...

If the experts can't defend the merits then they are not very good. We already discovered this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, regardless of professions, 'you' are experts?
How come you fail miserably in showing lack of merit? You make claims without supporting evidence.

Your 'experts' are not very good; they aren't even bad - they are completely useless as we already know.

Please disappear, you have yet to make sense, you are just wasting our time. How old are you? Why is that a secret? Have you got anything to show that you are not just grossly ignorant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, Quack, but I must interject the opposite here.
Au contraire to "fail[ing] miserably in showing lack of merit", it appears to this casual, non-interfering observer that they instead ace every single test in that regard.
But that is the only point with which I have any quarrel.
Oh, except perhaps the concern of other commenters that the obviously insecure Booba might get scared away. Some might consider it rude, even, to demand he state his age; it might be similar to his IQ. [And I'm not referring to any of the OT heroes here :-]

Carry on, as you were, at ease, usw.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I may have a language problem and think I see your point. If my guess is right, I can only say but of course, you are right! Carry on usw...
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 12 2009,15:59

I haven't been my usual self lately; I've had some tough business on my mind but it seems things are clearing up again. Bubba has been a challenge too. It would be better if we could have a subject to debate, say like flood geology.

Hey Bubba, what about flood geology, care  (or dare?) to discuss that? Take marine fossils, chalk and limestone in the Himalayas, how is that compatible with YEC flood geology? Let us throw in some plate tectonics and continental drift too, and let us know where that water came from and where it went. You are the expert(s), surprise and overwhelm us with facts.
Posted by: David Holland on Nov. 12 2009,16:29

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,03:49)
Don't know Geisler. Its a common opinion in YEC to say origin subjects are like HISTORY. They deal with evidence, insight but unlike science they can not test their ideas before they have declared a conclusion.

Science is simply about being very sure about conclusions. so the hypothesis must be testable and not merely reasonable until a better idea comes along.

Creationists would insist its not done, indeed impossible mostly, to test past and gone actions to justify conclusions of what did happen. Its not happening today.

Actual science produces repeatable tests or results that only exist because of the accuracy of the hypothesis.
Therefore origin subjects are not science ones. Science requires the scientific method in order for some idea to claim the prestige of science.
Otherwise its something short of that.

Evidence that origin subjects are not science is that it seems each graduating class overthrows or hopes too some tenet or conclusion in its field.
One minute fixity of continents and then alls moving. One minute gradual extinction and then a impact bringing instant extinction and then volcanoes replacing the impact as sole cause.
Right or wrong these are not scientific subjects. They have the same problems as historical investigations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,03:49)

Science is simply about being very sure about conclusions. so the hypothesis must be testable and not merely reasonable until a better idea comes along.

Creationists would insist its not done, indeed impossible mostly, to test past and gone actions to justify conclusions of what did happen. Its not happening today.

Actual science produces repeatable tests or results that only exist because of the accuracy of the hypothesis.
Therefore origin subjects are not science ones. Science requires the scientific method in order for some idea to claim the prestige of science.
Otherwise its something short of that.

Evidence that origin subjects are not science is that it seems each graduating class overthrows or hopes too some tenet or conclusion in its field.
One minute fixity of continents and then alls moving. One minute gradual extinction and then a impact bringing instant extinction and then volcanoes replacing the impact as sole cause.
Right or wrong these are not scientific subjects. They have the same problems as historical investigations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First you say historical theories cannot be tested then you give examples of historical theories that were proven wrong and replaced. Do you see the contradiction there?
Posted by: David Holland on Nov. 12 2009,16:31

I mess up the formatting on that last post but I think the meaning still comes through.
Posted by: Rrr on Nov. 12 2009,16:36

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2009,15:59)
I haven't been my usual self lately; I've had some tough business on my mind but it seems things are clearing up again. Bubba has been a challenge too. It would be better if we could have a subject to debate, say like flood geology.

Hey Bubba, what about flood geology, care  (or dare?) to discuss that? Take marine fossils, chalk and limestone in the Himalayas, how is that compatible with YEC flood geology? Let us throw in some plate tectonics and continental drift too, and let us know where that water came from and where it went. You are the expert(s), surprise and overwhelm us with facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you do seem a bit pale around the gills. Hope you feel better soon; I know where you're coming from. Double negations ain't no two good. Only a plate o'tonics cures that! If you get my drift :-)

Nothing but p unintended.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 13 2009,03:38

Quote (Reed @ Nov. 12 2009,04:24)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 12 2009,01:36)
 Yes you can as you did. yet this is simple accumulation of data. its not science. its not hypothesis where testing must take place to give it credibility as a theory.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are many problems with this statement. However, lets start with the good bit: You agree that "accumulation of evidence" can result in valid conclusions concerning the most probable course of past events. Great. If you actually understood the evidence for an old earth, common descent and evolution, we'd be done, because there is a truly monumental accumulation. Far more than there is for my little murder mystery above!

Of course, the "obvious" conclusion from my story above is not simply based on an "accumulation of evidence". The conclusion is reached by starting with certain assumptions about the nature of the universe, and using them, combined with reason and evidence to confirm or deny certain hypotheses about past events. In other words, exactly the same things geology and paleontology do.

The assumptions are far to numerous to list, but one I would like to point out is that it completely disregards the possibility of supernatural intervention. If "a miracle happened, because my book says so" is a valid argument, then that should be sufficient to get our defendant off the hook, right ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes accumulation of data can lead to confident conclusions about the past. Yet this is not the scientific method. This is a point creationists keep having to make.
Then we address the data collected and deal with its quality and quantity. Very well these days of revolution in the public sphere on these issues.

We say your side says its makes hypothesis and then claims testing proves it when in fact there is no testing.
This is always a big point for us. We do not contend with the science that heals, flies, or brings fun. We do not contend with science.
We contend with historical studies in origins that wrongly claim to be scientific. Then we contend with their conclusions regardless of methodology.
Origin subjects by their very nature are not easily or at all brought under the scientific method.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 13 2009,03:49

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 12 2009,12:14)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 12 2009,02:50)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2009,15:08)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Biology deals very little with evolution except as a mandatory introdution paragraph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why does the nested hierarchy classification scheme work?
Why does the nested hierarchy implied by DNA match the one implied by anatomy?
Why do bat wings resemble mammal forelimbs more than they do bird wings?
Why don't bats have feathers?
Why to penguin flippers resemble bird wings more than they do fish fins?
Why do penguins have feathers rather than fur?
Why do whales and dolphins breath air?
Why do cave fish resemble nearby river or lake fish much more than they do more distant cave fish?
Why do pathogens sometimes migrate from one host to another?
Why do all mammals have the same eyeball design, different than that used by octopuses and squids?
Why does the human spine resemble a suspension bridge turned on end?
Why do some species appear in only a limited range of layers in the geologic record?
Why are early representatives of phyla not as different from each other as are the later members of those phyla?
Why do the ear bones of mammals resemble some of the jaw bones of reptiles?

It took me only a few minutes to think up those questions, and I'm not even a biologist.

Biology deals with all of those questions and many more, and the answers to them come from evolution. Introductory paragraph my hind foot.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most of these questions are not dealing with biology.
Biology is about life. Further ideas of origins of actual biological life is a different subject needing different tools.
its a false claim of evolutionists to say biologists prestige in their abilities can be added to evolution credibility.
They have nothing to do with the study of evolution. Save a tiny percentage who cross fertilize with it of fewer who actually get paid to study evolutionary concepts.
Biology has precious little to do with evolution. They just repeat and believe basic introduction concepts not much different then gym class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eh?

The prefix "bio" means life.

The suffix "ology" means study of.

Therefore biology is study of life.

All of those questions were about forms of life.

Therefore all of those questions were about biology.

Evolution provides answers to all of them.

So basically, you just claimed that several questions about life forms were not questions about life forms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.
Its speculation and most of evolutionary biology would make the same conclusions if it never saw anything move or squirm.
I say biology is about moving life and not just pictures of it. Not the same thinking or tools of actual biology.
So evolution can not claim the knowledge and prestige of modern biology to make its case. Same genus? but surely different non breeding species.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 13 2009,04:03

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 12 2009,04:42)
Robert Byers:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We were here first with our conclusions on origins and we have the freedom and law to back us up. even if at the moment incomptent judges are frustrating things.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If the law backs YEC, why have the religious antievolutionists lost every case after Tennessee v. Scopes in 1925 having to do with inserting their narrow religious doctrines into science classes? Every single judge was incompetent? That hardly seems plausible. I think that it is far more likely that it is you who is incompetent on top of being ignorant.

Want to prove me wrong? Start with just one specific example of how a judge in one of the relevant cases demonstrates "incompetence", and support your assertion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Case law is bothersome. I'm saying there have been little interst or cases in these things and a general lack of judicial competence.
This is why we are at present have state censorship on origins. The passion against christianity was already underway before WW11.

I mean the actual law backs creationism by not allowing state inference in religious doctrines including censoring them.
Schools right not are doing this so a absurd situation where the whole country contends on origins but schools must pretend there is no issue.
The state has an opinion.
The constitution is clear and only incompetent or biased judges could deny equal time for attacked religious doctrines when the attack itself is already a interference by the state.
The constitution was made by a freedom loving Protestant British people who would laugh to scorn claims they made the teaching of God/Genesis illegal in subjects dealing with origins.
Other motives are kicking about as to which lawyers get to be judges.
Posted by: snorkild on Nov. 13 2009,04:06

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,03:49)
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Lenskis bacteria are all dead?
< https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ >

Darwin and Wallace based their theory mainly on their study of modern species.

But you wouldn't know that, would you?

When you first made a fool of yourself on IIDB some years ago I assumed you was about twelve years old. You don't seem to have grown older since then.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 13 2009,04:10

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2009,15:59)
I haven't been my usual self lately; I've had some tough business on my mind but it seems things are clearing up again. Bubba has been a challenge too. It would be better if we could have a subject to debate, say like flood geology.

Hey Bubba, what about flood geology, care  (or dare?) to discuss that? Take marine fossils, chalk and limestone in the Himalayas, how is that compatible with YEC flood geology? Let us throw in some plate tectonics and continental drift too, and let us know where that water came from and where it went. You are the expert(s), surprise and overwhelm us with facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geology is a great friend to YEC. In fact the new ideas of continental drift has been one of the best things to come along for us. It not only explains why the lands are separated but is the origin for the great pressure produced water flows that collected and laid the sedimentary covering of the planet. Only areas on earth where volcanos were in action do not have solid sedimentary rock covering.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 13 2009,04:12

Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 12 2009,16:29)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,03:49)
Don't know Geisler. Its a common opinion in YEC to say origin subjects are like HISTORY. They deal with evidence, insight but unlike science they can not test their ideas before they have declared a conclusion.

Science is simply about being very sure about conclusions. so the hypothesis must be testable and not merely reasonable until a better idea comes along.

Creationists would insist its not done, indeed impossible mostly, to test past and gone actions to justify conclusions of what did happen. Its not happening today.

Actual science produces repeatable tests or results that only exist because of the accuracy of the hypothesis.
Therefore origin subjects are not science ones. Science requires the scientific method in order for some idea to claim the prestige of science.
Otherwise its something short of that.

Evidence that origin subjects are not science is that it seems each graduating class overthrows or hopes too some tenet or conclusion in its field.
One minute fixity of continents and then alls moving. One minute gradual extinction and then a impact bringing instant extinction and then volcanoes replacing the impact as sole cause.
Right or wrong these are not scientific subjects. They have the same problems as historical investigations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,03:49)

Science is simply about being very sure about conclusions. so the hypothesis must be testable and not merely reasonable until a better idea comes along.

Creationists would insist its not done, indeed impossible mostly, to test past and gone actions to justify conclusions of what did happen. Its not happening today.

Actual science produces repeatable tests or results that only exist because of the accuracy of the hypothesis.
Therefore origin subjects are not science ones. Science requires the scientific method in order for some idea to claim the prestige of science.
Otherwise its something short of that.

Evidence that origin subjects are not science is that it seems each graduating class overthrows or hopes too some tenet or conclusion in its field.
One minute fixity of continents and then alls moving. One minute gradual extinction and then a impact bringing instant extinction and then volcanoes replacing the impact as sole cause.
Right or wrong these are not scientific subjects. They have the same problems as historical investigations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First you say historical theories cannot be tested then you give examples of historical theories that were proven wrong and replaced. Do you see the contradiction there?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Historical subjects like origin issues can't be tested but their conclusions from other methods of investigation can be corrected by better investigation.
In geology etc this is common.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Nov. 13 2009,04:15

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,09:49)
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.
Its speculation and most of evolutionary biology would make the same conclusions if it never saw anything move or squirm.
I say biology is about moving life and not just pictures of it. Not the same thinking or tools of actual biology.
So evolution can not claim the knowledge and prestige of modern biology to make its case. Same genus? but surely different non breeding species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is blatantly false, and easily proven so.

Take for example < Lenski's E. coli experiment >.

Try again.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2009,04:36

Robert Byers:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Case law is bothersome. I'm saying there have been little interst or cases in these things and a general lack of judicial competence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In other words, you have no arguments, only unsupported assertions.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 13 2009,06:08

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,03:38)
We contend with historical studies in origins that wrongly claim to be scientific. Then we contend with their conclusions regardless of methodology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he admits that he only has conclusions.

Who needs arguments if you know that your conclusions are right?
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 13 2009,08:04

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,04:10)
 
Geology is a great friend to YEC. In fact the new ideas of continental drift has been one of the best things to come along for us. It not only explains why the lands are separated but is the origin for the great pressure produced water flows that collected and laid the sedimentary covering of the planet. Only areas on earth where volcanos were in action do not have solid sedimentary rock covering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I asked for facts. Please show them! Show us the facts. I am not interested in what you say. I believe you're not a geologist, so why should I take your word for anything? What, if any, scientific education/training do you have? What is your background? Why should we take your word for anything as long as you remain an anonymous, obscure web phantom?

Facts, show us the 'new ideas of continental drift'. Are they just creationist ideas, i.e. nonsense, or is there a consistent hypothesis or theory? Where and when has it been published, whose ideas are you talking about?

I want to read, with my own eyes, about why the lands are separated but is the origin for the great pressure produced water flows that collected and laid the sedimentary covering of the planet.

So far you have only made words, lots of, now is the time to deliver facts. If you don't have the facts, maybe you can point to other sources, where are the facts?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 13 2009,09:56

Careful, Quack, you read like you're getting infected with Byerslexia.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 13 2009,10:54

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 13 2009,09:56)
Careful, Quack, you read like you're getting infected with Byerslexia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess I better let him speak for himself then.
< Josephbenami >:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So good guys of Canada just keep talking out load. Its our country. Canadian, French Canadian, Ethnic citizen.
Robert Byers
Toronto,Ontario
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< edu.gov.on.ca >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert Byers, Project Manager – Database
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Robert on marsupials >
Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 13 2009,11:04

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 13 2009,10:54)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 13 2009,09:56)
Careful, Quack, you read like you're getting infected with Byerslexia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess I better let him speak for himself then.
< Josephbenami >:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So good guys of Canada just keep talking out load. Its our country. Canadian, French Canadian, Ethnic citizen.
Robert Byers
Toronto,Ontario
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< edu.gov.on.ca >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert Byers, Project Manager – Database
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Robert on marsupials >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh My God, where did this idiot come from?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2009,11:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The marsupial creatures are not related to each other because they are marsupial. (That’s irrelevant). That is just an adaptation or a continuation of some ancient adaptation due to the environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




bwahahahahahaha
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 13 2009,11:22

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,03:12)
No. Historical subjects like origin issues can't be tested but their conclusions from other methods of investigation can be corrected by better investigation.
In geology etc this is common.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution theory directly implies things about the interrelationship of living species, such as the matching nested hierarchies from anatomical and DNA comparisons, and geographical clustering of close relatives of species (which btw was one of the first clues for Darwin).

Those conclusions can be tested, and are tested every time a biologist uses them in research.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's paleontology that's the study of remains of species that are usually extinct (although, a long lived species may have produced fossils without going extinct in the meantime).

Evolutionary biology is the study of the change in hereditary traits over time, and how that affects the interrelationships of species. That most definitely does include living species.

Henry
Posted by: khan on Nov. 13 2009,11:37

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 13 2009,12:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The marsupial creatures are not related to each other because they are marsupial. (That’s irrelevant). That is just an adaptation or a continuation of some ancient adaptation due to the environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




bwahahahahahaha
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That part about the marsupials sounds familiar.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2009,15:07



Homer: " I call the big one 'Bitey!'"
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 13 2009,15:39

< http://tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040 > Shows the Marsupialia as a distinct branch in the clade that contains the placental mammals. The monotremes of course branch off before the other two - isn't that echidna cute?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 13 2009,18:54

(Cartoon headshake noise)

So.. kangaroos are...?? Deer that stood on their hind legs and grew pouches???

All the Australian animal "shapes" turned into marsupials because....?? Something in the water, maybe??

Mr. Byers, I strongly suggest you Google "Timecube" and read what the author has to say.  

That's what your writing looks like to us.
Posted by: JLT on Nov. 13 2009,19:16

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,09:49)
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.
Its speculation and most of evolutionary biology would make the same conclusions if it never saw anything move or squirm.
I say biology is about moving life and not just pictures of it. Not the same thinking or tools of actual biology.
So evolution can not claim the knowledge and prestige of modern biology to make its case. Same genus? but surely different non breeding species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaahhhhhhh.
That hurt.

Good grief, if you had the slightest idea what you're talking about ...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaahhhhhhh. It still hurts.
Have you ever heard about evo-devo? Molecular clock? All this molecular evolution stuff? Speciation in plants, natural selection, all the evidence that underlines the basic principles of evolutionary theory: All that was and is shown with (material form) living organisms!

Please, I can cope with < nonsensical remarks like this >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So since the strata levels here and  there are hugh. Then we can infer great chunks of areas were moved and deposited all about. A few areas therefore include trees in that sediment and placed on top of other sediment laid a few hours earlier.
There is no reason to see collected materials as anything other then collected materials. The great force collecting just kept doing it from other areas with other flow power.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


but this other stuff - that's just too much. There're people here who actually have brain cells that could get damamged.
My speciality is immunology and altough my research doesn't have anything to do with evolution I know some things about the evolution of the immune system. Do you know why? Because a lot of the articles that deal with functions of the immune system mention sharks and lampreys.
They've got a much simpler immune system than we do, but because we're related and we still have the simple immune system we inherited from our common ancestor with sharks (plus some more sophisticated parts), we can learn a lot about our immune system if we look a shark, lampreys et al.
We can understand our immune system better by looking at our (extant) family members and how their immune system works. We can understand the flaws of our immune system better by the succession in which new features arose through evolution. And we can only look at extant animals for this kind of research because you can't look for immune reactions in fossilised bones.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 13 2009,20:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My speciality is immunology and altough my research doesn't have anything to do with evolution I know some things about the evolution of the immune system. Do you know why? Because a lot of the articles that deal with functions of the immune system mention sharks and lampreys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention that part of the immune system uses a genetic algorithm, in order to actively match antibodies to intruders.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaahhhhhhh. It still hurts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take two aspirin, perhaps more if necessary. If that doesn't work, try rationing future exposure to this thread, to avoid unraveling. :p

Henry
Posted by: David Holland on Nov. 13 2009,21:46

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,04:12)
No. Historical subjects like origin issues can't be tested but their conclusions from other methods of investigation can be corrected by better investigation.
In geology etc this is common.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is testing. If there is a set of observations that will disprove your theory it is testable. You gave examples of that happening in geology.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 13 2009,22:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is testing. If there is a set of observations that will disprove your theory it is testable. You gave examples of that happening in geology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He keeps using words. I do not think they mean what he thinks they mean.

Henry
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 13 2009,22:35

Let me see if I understand.  This guy is a 'project manager' for a Canadian government department.  Maybe he normally speaks French?

I tell you what though.  Regardless of the language... he has the dumb.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 15 2009,04:18

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 13 2009,11:22)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,03:12)
No. Historical subjects like origin issues can't be tested but their conclusions from other methods of investigation can be corrected by better investigation.
In geology etc this is common.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution theory directly implies things about the interrelationship of living species, such as the matching nested hierarchies from anatomical and DNA comparisons, and geographical clustering of close relatives of species (which btw was one of the first clues for Darwin).

Those conclusions can be tested, and are tested every time a biologist uses them in research.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's paleontology that's the study of remains of species that are usually extinct (although, a long lived species may have produced fossils without going extinct in the meantime).

Evolutionary biology is the study of the change in hereditary traits over time, and how that affects the interrelationships of species. That most definitely does include living species.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Studying the change over time requires the object that is being studied to be in ones hand. The biological life of it. All that is studied is a cast of the outside of a creature. This is not biology. there is no life systems involved but mere pictures of details of a former life system.
So evolutionary biology is a subject of history. Fine with gathering data and making conclusions but not the same methods and tools of biology. It can't

Your testing of conclusions are each and everyone a untested presumption.
I say that all that is done is testing of accepted conclusions but not actual testing of these conclusions. New ideas just take them for granted.
To test one must make it repeatable and see it from start to finish.
We would not see past and gone events as testable. Simply conclusions are drawn and then these become the presumptions researchers 'think" they are testing new hypothesis.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 15 2009,04:28

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 13 2009,18:54)
(Cartoon headshake noise)

So.. kangaroos are...?? Deer that stood on their hind legs and grew pouches???

All the Australian animal "shapes" turned into marsupials because....?? Something in the water, maybe??

Mr. Byers, I strongly suggest you Google "Timecube" and read what the author has to say.  

That's what your writing looks like to us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I did write a essay called "Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained"
but its a big subject. I contend that same shaped creatures are the same despite minor details of sameness with other creatures iliving in certain areas. So a marsupial bear is just our bear and its marsupialism is a result of the area etc it lives in. I found further that there are many bear looking creatures likewise put in different catergories just because of likewise minor different details. In this way the seeming marsupial anomaly not likely from a common origin on the biblical flood is explained.
It does mean that traits like this must be from other and innate abilities in physical bodies. So it is.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 15 2009,04:38

Quote (JLT @ Nov. 13 2009,19:16)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,09:49)
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.
Its speculation and most of evolutionary biology would make the same conclusions if it never saw anything move or squirm.
I say biology is about moving life and not just pictures of it. Not the same thinking or tools of actual biology.
So evolution can not claim the knowledge and prestige of modern biology to make its case. Same genus? but surely different non breeding species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaahhhhhhh.
That hurt.

Good grief, if you had the slightest idea what you're talking about ...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionary biology does not study biology since anything its talking about is extinct and only a cast of it remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaahhhhhhh. It still hurts.
Have you ever heard about evo-devo? Molecular clock? All this molecular evolution stuff? Speciation in plants, natural selection, all the evidence that underlines the basic principles of evolutionary theory: All that was and is shown with (material form) living organisms!

Please, I can cope with < nonsensical remarks like this >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So since the strata levels here and  there are hugh. Then we can infer great chunks of areas were moved and deposited all about. A few areas therefore include trees in that sediment and placed on top of other sediment laid a few hours earlier.
There is no reason to see collected materials as anything other then collected materials. The great force collecting just kept doing it from other areas with other flow power.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


but this other stuff - that's just too much. There're people here who actually have brain cells that could get damamged.
My speciality is immunology and altough my research doesn't have anything to do with evolution I know some things about the evolution of the immune system. Do you know why? Because a lot of the articles that deal with functions of the immune system mention sharks and lampreys.
They've got a much simpler immune system than we do, but because we're related and we still have the simple immune system we inherited from our common ancestor with sharks (plus some more sophisticated parts), we can learn a lot about our immune system if we look a shark, lampreys et al.
We can understand our immune system better by looking at our (extant) family members and how their immune system works. We can understand the flaws of our immune system better by the succession in which new features arose through evolution. And we can only look at extant animals for this kind of research because you can't look for immune reactions in fossilised bones.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The shark etc is not related to a primitive form of ourselves but is simply showing a common blueprint with ourselves needing a bit more help.
Creationism would predict that all creatures have elements that can lead to insight with others. We are only different in certain ways but otherwise show a common idea behind all.

Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life.
Anyways it and plants etc are biological saubjects if the subject is a thing here and now within a living system.'
Yet fossilized casts of former life is not biology or open to the processes and tools of biology.  So evolutionary biology is not biology.
Its not doing it to its subject.
Its history analysis.
I don't see how past and gone life is open to the scientific method in making conclusions about its intimate biological relationships with other life before and after it.
Posted by: snorkild on Nov. 15 2009,04:39

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 15 2009,04:18)
Studying the change over time requires the object that is being studied to be in ones hand. The biological life of it. All that is studied is a cast of the outside of a creature. This is not biology. there is no life systems involved but mere pictures of details of a former life system.
So evolutionary biology is a subject of history. Fine with gathering data and making conclusions but not the same methods and tools of biology. It can't
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is lying OK in your religion, Robert?

Please address the fact that Darwin's and Wallace's theory was based mainly on the study of live animals.

Please address Lenski's study of evolution in populations of living E coli.

I'm certain that even if fossilization didn't happen, science would conclude that evolution and common descent were facts.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 15 2009,04:40

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 15 2009,04:18)
Studying the change over time requires the object that is being studied to be in ones hand. The biological life of it. All that is studied is a cast of the outside of a creature. This is not biology. there is no life systems involved but mere pictures of details of a former life system.
So evolutionary biology is a subject of history. Fine with gathering data and making conclusions but not the same methods and tools of biology. It can't

Your testing of conclusions are each and everyone a untested presumption.
I say that all that is done is testing of accepted conclusions but not actual testing of these conclusions. New ideas just take them for granted.
To test one must make it repeatable and see it from start to finish.
We would not see past and gone events as testable. Simply conclusions are drawn and then these become the presumptions researchers 'think" they are testing new hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False.

Biological evolution studies don't "require the object that is being studied to be in ones hand."

Horses are a perfect example, as are whales.

(1) We see vestiges of a hypothetical evolutionary past in existing forms (whale hindlimbs, horses walking on a single digit).
(2) We infer that their ancestors forms would more closely resemble quadrupedal, pentadactyl forms
(3) That is what we find in the fossil record

Similarly, Tiktaalik was inferred before it was found -- the fossil confirmed proposed evolutionary trajectory.  Others have already given you examples from biochem evo, etc. The fact that you don't recognize them as valid examples only speaks to your stupidity.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To test one must make it repeatable and see it from start to finish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False. No such requirement exists , save in your addled brain.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We would not see past and gone events as testable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False. As an archaeologist, my entire specialization depends on testing past, long-gone events -- so do many other fields.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Simply conclusions are drawn and then these become the presumptions researchers 'think" they are testing new hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn't know hypothesis-testing or science itself, if it came up and whacked you in your already-damaged head.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 15 2009,04:43

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 15 2009,04:38)
The shark etc is not related to a primitive form of ourselves but is simply showing a common blueprint with ourselves needing a bit more help.

Creationism would predict that all creatures have elements that can lead to insight with others. We are only different in certain ways but otherwise show a common idea behind all.

Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life.

Anyways it and plants etc are biological saubjects if the subject is a thing here and now within a living system.'
Yet fossilized casts of former life is not biology or open to the processes and tools of biology.  So evolutionary biology is not biology.

Its not doing it to its subject.
Its history analysis.
I don't see how past and gone life is open to the scientific method in making conclusions about its intimate biological relationships with other life before and after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol.

How long ago did you have that brain injury, Booby? This is a serious question.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 15 2009,05:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So a marsupial bear is just our bear and its marsupialism is a result of the area etc it lives in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, why have not the humans in Australia become marsupial too?

If we were to put some regular bears out in the wild in Australia, in a few generations they would become marsupial? Yes or No?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 15 2009,05:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sig-worthy!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 15 2009,06:52



(hypocrisy mode on)
"Leave him alone, he can't help it."
(hypocrisy mode off)
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 15 2009,07:14

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 15 2009,06:52)


(hypocrisy mode on)
"Leave him alone, he can't help it."
(hypocrisy mode off)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is all getting rather boring. It might be more meaningful to debate UFO's, crop circles and similar subjects. Unlike evolution, they can be studied in realtime.

Adamski, Roswell, Velikovsky, Yum-yum!

P.S. < Realtime study. > Haven't seen it before, waiting for darkness.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2009,08:38

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 15 2009,06:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sig-worthy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DAMMIT!

that is choice
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 15 2009,10:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P.S. Realtime study. Haven't seen it before, waiting for darkness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must be beautiful covered with snow, too.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 15 2009,10:51

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 15 2009,09:38)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 15 2009,06:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sig-worthy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DAMMIT!

that is choice
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my brain hurt every time I read it
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 15 2009,12:43

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 15 2009,06:52)
(hypocrisy mode on)
"Leave him alone, he can't help it."
(hypocrisy mode off)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Truthfully, I think he should be left alone or treated like a pesky insect, since he's unlikely to just go away on his own. He's been doing his act for years, and if anything, his posts have gotten more unintelligible, not less.

What I was hoping for has already happened ; you poke him and tard pours out like candy from a busted-up piñata, confirming (at least for me) that something is wrong with the boy.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2009,13:06

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 15 2009,13:43)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 15 2009,06:52)
(hypocrisy mode on)
"Leave him alone, he can't help it."
(hypocrisy mode off)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Truthfully, I think he should be left alone or treated like a pesky insect, since he's unlikely to just go away on his own. He's been doing his act for years, and if anything, his posts have gotten more unintelligible, not less.

What I was hoping for has already happened ; you poke him and tard pours out like candy from a busted-up piñata, confirming (at least for me) that something is wrong with the boy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh yeah.  

pokes, they are great.

engagements, hmm not so much.  like who really gives a god damn.  it's just fun to watch.  kinda like pouring beer on a possum so it gets all riled up which makes the dog snarl at it which makes the possum play dead which makes you pour more beer on it etc etc etc.  great fun.  

asking the possums opinion about science, yeah wtf cares
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 15 2009,13:22

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 15 2009,10:24)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P.S. Realtime study. Haven't seen it before, waiting for darkness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must be beautiful covered with snow, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A pity nothing supernatural has come out of it;-) Research activity seems to have come to a standstill. The lights are a fact, nobody knows what they are. Just saw what looked like a brief flash, was gone at next (2 sec) frame.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 15 2009,18:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Studying the change over time requires the object that is being studied to be in ones hand.
The biological life of it. All that is studied is a cast of the outside of a creature. This is not biology. there is no life systems involved but mere pictures of details of a former life system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False. For two reasons (at least). One is that study of fossils does contribute to biology. The other is that evolution can easily be studied by comparing living species (anatomy, biochemistry, and DNA).

Perhaps if you were to spend some of your time reading about the subject matter before talking about it?

Really, if your stuff can't get past an amateur like me, what do you think will happen when a real biologist wastes time reading it?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Geology is a great friend to YEC. In fact the new ideas of continental drift has been one of the best things to come along for us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It may seem that way to somebody who knows zip about geology, but to somebody who's actually been paying attention, not so much.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 15 2009,18:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we were to put some regular bears out in the wild in Australia, in a few generations they would become marsupial? Yes or No?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Never mind bears, ask that question about rabbits. Or dingos.

And after he's ignored or evaded that, ask why opossums are also marsupial, without having lived in Australia at all.

Henry
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 15 2009,20:33

I wonder if my sugar gliders (marsupials) breed here in the US, will the offspring not be marsupial?
Posted by: Reed on Nov. 15 2009,20:49

Wow that's some serious USDA* Grade AAA stupid.

Let me see if I got this. Robert Believes:
placental -> marsupial = micro-evolution (can happen in the 4000 or so years since Teh Flud, I suppose)
while
great ape -> human = nuh uh, no way no how, I ain't no kin to no dang nab monkey!!!!!!1111

* Uncommonly Stupid Design Argument
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 16 2009,09:10

Rob, you can now do some science:

Show how the marsupial 'bears' are more closely genetically related to the world's true placental 'bears' than to other marsupials.

Should be easy.  

"Well, they look the same" was science in 4000 BC.

These days, not so much.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 16 2009,11:20

Are all living marsupials in a single clade separate from all living placentals?
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 16 2009,11:26

Aahhh, Booby-B and marsupials...  Here is an  < Epic Thread > dealing with it.  It contains all the nutty goodness you'd expect from his excretions.

Good times!
Posted by: RDK on Nov. 16 2009,11:41

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 15 2009,05:18)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sig-worthy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy sweet Jesus that is some big-ass tard.

I have too much faith in humanity to believe that Robert Byers is not a troll.
Posted by: JLT on Nov. 17 2009,16:13

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 15 2009,10:38)
Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life.
Anyways it and plants etc are biological saubjects if the subject is a thing here and now within a living system.'
Yet fossilized casts of former life is not biology or open to the processes and tools of biology.  So evolutionary biology is not biology.
Its not doing it to its subject.
Its history analysis.
I don't see how past and gone life is open to the scientific method in making conclusions about its intimate biological relationships with other life before and after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beautiful. I was hoping for a tardiful reply but this really exceeds my expectations. Thank you so very much.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 18 2009,03:09

Quote (snorkild @ Nov. 15 2009,04:39)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 15 2009,04:18)
Studying the change over time requires the object that is being studied to be in ones hand. The biological life of it. All that is studied is a cast of the outside of a creature. This is not biology. there is no life systems involved but mere pictures of details of a former life system.
So evolutionary biology is a subject of history. Fine with gathering data and making conclusions but not the same methods and tools of biology. It can't
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is lying OK in your religion, Robert?

Please address the fact that Darwin's and Wallace's theory was based mainly on the study of live animals.

Please address Lenski's study of evolution in populations of living E coli.

I'm certain that even if fossilization didn't happen, science would conclude that evolution and common descent were facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not speaking out of deception. How so?
Darwin etc did not study the biology of ancient creatures but only thought up a idea to explain modern biological diversity.
They were looking at living life and making conclusions based on many points but not biology.  Patterns of results of biology but not actual living systems that a actual biologist must work on.
Did Darwin look inside of a body to determine its origin? .NO.
It was on minor patterns observed in nature.
Studying and doing biology does not help evolutionary 'biology".
For example Darwin insisted woman were biologically intellectually inferior to men. Yet was this on biology or looking in the thinking system of a womans brain?.NO. It was on patterns on the outside such as in acheivment or Darwins instinct and because his theory seemed to make it likely.
In both cases the error is that no biology is going on. Mere observation of realationships of living things. Yet not a study of living things in their essence.
It makes no difference to Darwin whether its alive or a cast of former life. He never was doing biology when doing evolution.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 18 2009,03:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He never was doing biology when doing evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then that makes him, you and AIG et al equal. None of you are "doing biology".

And why do you want to talk about Darwin anyway?

This is your real enemy, and there are many other similar journals: < Journal of Evolutionary Biology >
Why focus on Darwin himself? Nobody out there in the real scientific world is. It's just people like you.

You can disprove anything you like about Darwin, fact is it does not matter. His idea has been expanded on for generations. You can attempt to chop down the root but the tree will still grow.

Pathetic.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 18 2009,03:20

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 15 2009,04:40)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 15 2009,04:18)
Studying the change over time requires the object that is being studied to be in ones hand. The biological life of it. All that is studied is a cast of the outside of a creature. This is not biology. there is no life systems involved but mere pictures of details of a former life system.
So evolutionary biology is a subject of history. Fine with gathering data and making conclusions but not the same methods and tools of biology. It can't

Your testing of conclusions are each and everyone a untested presumption.
I say that all that is done is testing of accepted conclusions but not actual testing of these conclusions. New ideas just take them for granted.
To test one must make it repeatable and see it from start to finish.
We would not see past and gone events as testable. Simply conclusions are drawn and then these become the presumptions researchers 'think" they are testing new hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False.

Biological evolution studies don't "require the object that is being studied to be in ones hand."

Horses are a perfect example, as are whales.

(1) We see vestiges of a hypothetical evolutionary past in existing forms (whale hindlimbs, horses walking on a single digit).
(2) We infer that their ancestors forms would more closely resemble quadrupedal, pentadactyl forms
(3) That is what we find in the fossil record

Similarly, Tiktaalik was inferred before it was found -- the fossil confirmed proposed evolutionary trajectory.  Others have already given you examples from biochem evo, etc. The fact that you don't recognize them as valid examples only speaks to your stupidity.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To test one must make it repeatable and see it from start to finish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False. No such requirement exists , save in your addled brain.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We would not see past and gone events as testable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False. As an archaeologist, my entire specialization depends on testing past, long-gone events -- so do many other fields.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Simply conclusions are drawn and then these become the presumptions researchers 'think" they are testing new hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn't know hypothesis-testing or science itself, if it came up and whacked you in your already-damaged head.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


your example makes my case. I say this is not biology at all. Its mere observation of living and casts of the dead and concluding about great mechanism in living life. There is no testing of the mechanism but only a prediction from casual obervations.
In fact i would say a test would be about whether there is another option for these modern/ancient toes on horses. This before concluding there is this relationship.
Anyways you are still not testing the mechanism but only minor points about history.

I don't think archaeologists are scientists. I don't think they do science for their conclusions. they are more like detectives.
Data and reasoning but no scientific methodology.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 18 2009,03:30

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 15 2009,05:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So a marsupial bear is just our bear and its marsupialism is a result of the area etc it lives in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, why have not the humans in Australia become marsupial too?

If we were to put some regular bears out in the wild in Australia, in a few generations they would become marsupial? Yes or No?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My essay was on the reality of classification and not on mechanism.
I do speculate that different reproductive methods was a dramatic need to quickly fill the earth after the flood. Time issues. So the further they had to go the more quicker the need for offspring. so australia/S america.
This would be a innate trigger and not in operation today.
In other cases likewise some important need was adapted to by all the creatures entering a area and lead astray later classification systems based on the adapted change and not the great sameness of form.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 18 2009,03:35

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 15 2009,18:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we were to put some regular bears out in the wild in Australia, in a few generations they would become marsupial? Yes or No?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Never mind bears, ask that question about rabbits. Or dingos.

And after he's ignored or evaded that, ask why opossums are also marsupial, without having lived in Australia at all.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't avoid questions. Many questions from evolution opponents are difficult but i try.
Marsupials had as great a diversity in South america as australia once. A few remain and can live here as i see one by my fiends house every so often.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 18 2009,03:41

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 16 2009,09:10)
Rob, you can now do some science:

Show how the marsupial 'bears' are more closely genetically related to the world's true placental 'bears' than to other marsupials.

Should be easy.  

"Well, they look the same" was science in 4000 BC.

These days, not so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genetics is a new field full of presumptions.
I see genetics as just following other physical triggers in the body and not as a trail of origins.
If a creature changes instantly to a new reproductive style the dna must follow as its hand in glove.
The clear sameness of creatures is the evidence of relationship and genetics must bow to it.
Its only a special case where i am related to my father. This just because of no important changes occured. Yet if they do then so with the dna.
No reason not to see that it works that way especially when clearly a bear is a bear regardless of having a pouch or not.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 18 2009,05:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Data and reasoning but no scientific methodology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What method are you using to determine that marsupials are bears? That is not a difficult question. What method are you using to define species?

Please show that archaeology doesn't use < this > method.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 18 2009,06:49

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 18 2009,03:41)
If a creature changes instantly to a new reproductive style the dna must follow as its hand in glove.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you give an example of this please?
Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 18 2009,08:14

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 18 2009,03:41)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 16 2009,09:10)
Rob, you can now do some science:

Show how the marsupial 'bears' are more closely genetically related to the world's true placental 'bears' than to other marsupials.

Should be easy.  

"Well, they look the same" was science in 4000 BC.

These days, not so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genetics is a new field full of presumptions.
I see genetics as just following other physical triggers in the body and not as a trail of origins.
If a creature changes instantly to a new reproductive style the dna must follow as its hand in glove.
The clear sameness of creatures is the evidence of relationship and genetics must bow to it.
Its only a special case where i am related to my father. This just because of no important changes occured. Yet if they do then so with the dna.
No reason not to see that it works that way especially when clearly a bear is a bear regardless of having a pouch or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


a bear is a bear, of course, of course, unless it's not!

this is absolutely priceless.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 18 2009,08:38

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.
Posted by: jeffox on Nov. 18 2009,08:57

WIIIIILLLLLBUUUUURRRRR!!!

:)
Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 18 2009,09:32

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 18 2009,08:38)
A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thanks, i couldn't remember all of it.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 18 2009,09:43

Rob, do you really not understand that evolutionary theory is not based only in taxonomy?  Your marsupial example really describes this perfectly.

You base your observations on some photos you got off the internet (I'm assuming you've never ventured 'into the guts' of a kangaroo).

Real scientists are basing the claims they have made on
A) anatomy and physiology - not just the fur color and shape of the ears, but the location and size of holes in the skull, the shape and number of teeth, the shape and number of verterbrae, etc.
B) paleontology - i.e. the history of the organism.  What were it's closest fossil relatives, what were their closest fossil relatives, etc. until you get to the most recent common ancestor with another group (say opossums vs. possums)
C) Biochemical relatedness - how do the DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, proteins (especially cytochrome c), and the like match or not match between species, genus, families, etc
D) Geographical relatedness - i.e. is there a difference between the opossum and the possum?  What is it and why?

That is how we determine the relationships between organisms.  Linnaeus had a good idea, but his taxonomy has (IMO) harmed the study of relatedness between organisms.  For example, would Linnaeus have guessed that hippos are the closest living relative to whales?  Doubt it.  Instead, we found genetic evidence, then paleotological evidence, and therefore concluded that whales and hippos are very closely related.

Just a single train of evidence is OK, but multiple lines of evidence is much better and that is what we have with evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 18 2009,10:08

Maybe it should be pointed out to Rob that DNA is not only effective as evidence whether you are the son of your father & mother - or the father of children you might have; it is also a very effective tool in determining relationships between you and your other relatives, and your forebears. This extends throughout the entire animal kingdom, that
is why we determine species relationships by using DNA instead of just looking at the exterior of their bodies.

Just as we do not determine your relationships by finding people that most closely look like you.

Do you understand that finding a Frank Sinatra lookalike is not evidence that he is a close relative of Frank Sinatra? Using DNA, I am certain we may find people looking nothing like Frank Sinatra but still they would be more closely related.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 18 2009,10:16

This was mentioned on PT, but I'd like to add on a bit:

I find it telling that scientists over the last couple of thousand years have (in spite of having a bible) found that many things spoken about in the bible are not correct.

Would these scientists, without having a bible to read, have found any indication of intelligent design?
Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 18 2009,10:30

If the animals in Australia were transformed into marsupials, where are the marsupial humans?  I have yet to read the thread, but did he answer that?  Are there a secret race of marsupial humans living in Australia right now?  Do the Reptoids hide them?
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 18 2009,11:49

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 18 2009,03:09)
<snip>
Did Darwin look inside of a body to determine its origin? .NO.

<snip>

It makes no difference to Darwin whether its alive or a cast of former life. He never was doing biology when doing evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One word: Barnacles
< http://darwin-online.org.uk/Editori....ia.html >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 18 2009,12:03

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 18 2009,03:20)
I don't think archaeologists are scientists. I don't think they do science for their conclusions. they are more like detectives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I detect brain damage.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 18 2009,12:19

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 18 2009,12:03)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 18 2009,03:20)
I don't think archaeologists are scientists. I don't think they do science for their conclusions. they are more like detectives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I detect brain damage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But was it designed?
Posted by: khan on Nov. 18 2009,12:19

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 18 2009,13:03)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 18 2009,03:20)
I don't think archaeologists are scientists. I don't think they do science for their conclusions. they are more like detectives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I detect brain damage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At the very least.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 18 2009,12:31


Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 18 2009,13:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would these scientists, without having a bible to read, have found any indication of intelligent design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Animism is rather common, attributing causation to spirits. It's not just an Abrahamic thing.

It's something the Abrahamic religions inherited from earlier religions. They just consolidated many spirits into one plus a lot of angels and demiurges.

Looking for uniform principles of causation rather than capricious spirits is close to the definition of science.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 18 2009,15:53

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 18 2009,04:41)
Its only a special case where i am related to my father. This just because of no important changes occured.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


um...

idiot.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 18 2009,15:57

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 18 2009,21:53)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 18 2009,04:41)
Its only a special case where i am related to my father. This just because of no important changes occured.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


um...

idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, inbreeding could explain high ressemblance and impaired brain functions...
Posted by: KCdgw on Nov. 18 2009,16:08

I've never looked in on this thread. It's frakking breathtaking.
Posted by: KCdgw on Nov. 18 2009,16:17

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 18 2009,08:38)
A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Communist/Satanic Influences in Mr Ed >. Sigh.


Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 18 2009,17:23

Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 18 2009,11:49)
One word: Barnacles
< http://darwin-online.org.uk/Editori....ia.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Ah, yes, Barnacles, the ancient Greek naturalist. I was wondering when someone would mention him.  He examined sea life along with his faithful student, Tentacles.
Posted by: jeffox on Nov. 18 2009,18:17

Yes, quite; along with his exceptionally male cousin, Testicles.  

:)
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 18 2009,19:35

They were in competition with the triplets Heracles, Theracles, and Everywheracles (the slow one). :p
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 18 2009,21:10

We dare not leave out the promiscuous Bicycles!
Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 18 2009,22:52

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 18 2009,21:10)
We dare not leave out the promiscuous Bicycles!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or his enthusiastic cousin, Tricycles?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 18 2009,23:13

Or the devil-worshipping Pentacles.

Oh dear. I'm sorry to have started this debacle.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 18 2009,23:18

I remember studying Debacles in high school.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 19 2009,03:06

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 18 2009,05:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Data and reasoning but no scientific methodology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What method are you using to determine that marsupials are bears? That is not a difficult question. What method are you using to define species?

Please show that archaeology doesn't use < this > method.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not science but solid presumptions , data, and logical deductions.
I once thought I did test my hypothesis by finding in the fossil record other orders that showed what the marsupial order showed. Same shaped creatures said to be unrelated because of some details all the creatures have in some area etc. They puff about convergent evolution.
I now think I only have analogy that makes my idea reasonable but is not a test of biological relationships. Biology is about living systems and not mere ideas about bloodlines.
evolutionary biology is not biology mostly or more.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 19 2009,03:16

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2009,09:43)
Rob, do you really not understand that evolutionary theory is not based only in taxonomy?  Your marsupial example really describes this perfectly.

You base your observations on some photos you got off the internet (I'm assuming you've never ventured 'into the guts' of a kangaroo).

Real scientists are basing the claims they have made on
A) anatomy and physiology - not just the fur color and shape of the ears, but the location and size of holes in the skull, the shape and number of teeth, the shape and number of verterbrae, etc.
B) paleontology - i.e. the history of the organism.  What were it's closest fossil relatives, what were their closest fossil relatives, etc. until you get to the most recent common ancestor with another group (say opossums vs. possums)
C) Biochemical relatedness - how do the DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, proteins (especially cytochrome c), and the like match or not match between species, genus, families, etc
D) Geographical relatedness - i.e. is there a difference between the opossum and the possum?  What is it and why?

That is how we determine the relationships between organisms.  Linnaeus had a good idea, but his taxonomy has (IMO) harmed the study of relatedness between organisms.  For example, would Linnaeus have guessed that hippos are the closest living relative to whales?  Doubt it.  Instead, we found genetic evidence, then paleotological evidence, and therefore concluded that whales and hippos are very closely related.

Just a single train of evidence is OK, but multiple lines of evidence is much better and that is what we have with evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your four points make my point.
The first can only deal with living creatures or its about mere bones and not living life which is the important thing of relationship.
The second is speculation and not biology.
The third is speculation in very atomic matters and not the actual living system of a creature. its a blueprint but not the house and not biology as a skilled profession.
The fourth is not biology but biogeography which is really just living quarters and speculation as to its relevance.

Biology is about blood and guts and not dust and atoms.
The prestige of biology which all recognize is great is wrongly usurped by evolution  researchers.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 19 2009,03:49

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 18 2009,10:08)
Maybe it should be pointed out to Rob that DNA is not only effective as evidence whether you are the son of your father & mother - or the father of children you might have; it is also a very effective tool in determining relationships between you and your other relatives, and your forebears. This extends throughout the entire animal kingdom, that
is why we determine species relationships by using DNA instead of just looking at the exterior of their bodies.

Just as we do not determine your relationships by finding people that most closely look like you.

Do you understand that finding a Frank Sinatra lookalike is not evidence that he is a close relative of Frank Sinatra? Using DNA, I am certain we may find people looking nothing like Frank Sinatra but still they would be more closely related.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First creationism would say there is a common blueprint.
So one should expect a sameness in dna. Its not a trail of heritage but a expression of bits and pieces from a common factory.
its only a special case that we are easily connected to our relations including all of mankind.
yet apes or any creatures only have like dna to us or each other because they have the same parts.
Its speculation that because I am easily identified with my dad etc that all dna can by extrapolation be used to connect us back to bugs.
If we were created kinds, as the bible, says likewise all men would have the same dna as we have the same bodies. We also come from a original pair. Noi reason however to say we are related to like form other creatures. It would be that way if there is a common factory outlet for parts.
Marsupials have like dna because of like marsupial features. Yet it could only be this way if a physical change took place by triggers instantly.
DNA is not proven to be the trail. its guessing. I say anatomy is a better trail and so dna ideas are wrong.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,04:15

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,03:49)
I say anatomy is a better trail and so dna ideas are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When can we expect to see your ideas submitted to a journal and peer reviewed?

It's the only way to overturn evolution! Get your ideas in front of the people who matter, via peer reviewed channels.

Otherwise it's just talk. And you are not just all talk are you?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 19 2009,04:38


Posted by: Quack on Nov. 19 2009,05:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Its speculation that because I am easily identified with my dad etc that all dna can by extrapolation be used to connect us back to bugs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not quite, all evidence points to the same inevitable conclusion. That's what Geology and the fossil record says, that's the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

You are just speculating.

Robert, what about dogs? The dog was domesticated from wolves about ten thousand years ago. From that we have been able to breed very may different dogs and according to your methodology they cannot all be dogs. So Grand Danois and Chihuahua are different species, created by man? How could that be possible?

DNA shows they are both dogs, while your intuitive method based on morphology would determine that they are different species.

How is it possible to get so many different dogs from a single source?
Posted by: BillB on Nov. 19 2009,06:02

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,09:49)
First creationism would say there is a common blueprint.
So one should expect a sameness in dna. Its not a trail of heritage but a expression of bits and pieces from a common factory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rubbish - you need to demonstrate with some evidence why the designer would conform to that pattern of creation.  It might seem logical to you that a designer would make everything based on a  common underlying platform but from the perspective of a deity there may be many ways to create living organisms that are all built on different fundamental principles, who are you to decide that this deity would only choose one method of creation.

It is quite arrogant of you to assume you know what god would do and why.

Everything is consistent with a god who can do anything.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Nov. 19 2009,07:14

Someone should tell Robert about stable isotope analysis. Using it we are able to determine terrestrial vs marine diets, diet rich in say plants that use C3 or C4 pathways, etc. Spoonhiemer was actually able to determine that female <em>Australopithecus robustus</em> left their natal groups upon maturity.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 19 2009,07:31

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,05:15)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,03:49)
I say anatomy is a better trail and so dna ideas are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When can we expect to see your ideas submitted to a journal and peer reviewed?

It's the only way to overturn evolution! Get your ideas in front of the people who matter, via peer reviewed channels.

Otherwise it's just talk. And you are not just all talk are you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course not!  Bob also serves a tasty word salad for every meal.  No croutons, but what can you do.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 19 2009,08:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say anatomy is a better trail and so dna ideas are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anatomical and DNA evidence correlate very, very well and paint the same picture as many other lines of independently collected and verified, converging evidence:  Life, from spirochetes to rattlesnakes to human beings, evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years.  The details are still being worked out and probably always will be, but the big picture is quite clear.  We're quite sorry this doesn't confirm to your fairy tales, but tough shit.  If you choose to believe that some supernatural boogeyman planted all the evidence that tells us this, that is your right, but even if this were true, it does not affect the utility of science and its findings.  

You could come up with a testable scientific hypothesis of Goddidit, then test it, but we all notice that you aren't doing that and nobody else is either (because attempts to do so in the past resulted in those hypotheses failing).  As long as you're not doing this, you and your creotard buddies have no right to complain about the results of the scientific process.  You don't have the "right" to have the facts suppressed just because they are inconvenient to the propagation of your inane superstitions.  You're here with the stated goal of slaying evolutionary theory, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about and you're just making yourself look stupid.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 19 2009,09:26

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,03:16)
Your four points make my point.
The first can only deal with living creatures or its about mere bones and not living life which is the important thing of relationship.
The second is speculation and not biology.
The third is speculation in very atomic matters and not the actual living system of a creature. its a blueprint but not the house and not biology as a skilled profession.
The fourth is not biology but biogeography which is really just living quarters and speculation as to its relevance.

Biology is about blood and guts and not dust and atoms.
The prestige of biology which all recognize is great is wrongly usurped by evolution  researchers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are wrong.  You're also incorrect.  I'd like to add confused.

According to you, a disection is of no value to biologists because the critter is dead.  That doesn't even make sense.

1) One living things is only a part of what biologists study.  Have you ever heard of 'ecology'?  The study of living things and how they interact with the non-living environment.  Bones can only be made by living things, therefore the bones can tell us all kinds of things about the thing that was once living... like how big it was and how it moved.

2) Paleontology is not speculation... of course, you have to accept that bones were once inside something that was alive.

3) Wow, I just can't believe this level of ignorance.  You do realize that biologists (geneticists) are changing the DNA on purpose and then observing the results.  It takes a hell of a lot of skill to insert the flourescent genes from a jelly fish into corn and beetles and mice.  More skill than it takes to type on a keyboard, that's for sure.  By the way, almost anyone can look at a house blueprint and describe the house in much more detail than one could by walking through the house, because much of the important details of the house are covered by drywall.  Little things like plumbing and electrical systems (that are very important to the house) can only be understood through the blueprint once the house is finished.  

4) Really, it's just speculation that opossums live in America and possums live in Australia?  It's jsut speculation that every southern continent has a flightless bird that is more closely related to other continents flightless birds rather than other birds on that continent.

If Biology was just about blood and guts, then most everyone currently alive would be dead from things like smallpox, TB, and other virals that are not alive and can only be studied at the molecular level.

Biologists do some amazing work in the real world.  I guess in your world they don't do much.  How sad for your world.  I guess you better make sure that you only eat plants and animals native to Canada and make sure you don't use any drugs (because chemicals don't affect biology).  Oh, you better make sure you don't get diabetes because insulin is now derived from transgenic bacteria (all that silliness about chemicals and all).

Let me ask this... why does a marsupial wolf (Tasmanian wolf) and a mammal wolf (grey wolf) have different numbers and types of teeth?  Yet, the marsupial wolf has the same type and number of teeth as other marsupials and the mammal wolf has the same type and number of teeth as other mammals.

Please explain.
Posted by: Reed on Nov. 19 2009,17:30

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 19 2009,03:17)
Robert, what about dogs? The dog was domesticated from wolves about ten thousand years ago. From that we have been able to breed very may different dogs and according to your methodology they cannot all be dogs. So Grand Danois and Chihuahua are different species, created by man? How could that be possible?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heck, if marsupialism is just a product of the environment, how come no one has managed to breed a marsupial dog ?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Nov. 19 2009,17:34

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2009,09:26)
Let me ask this... why does a marsupial wolf (Tasmanian wolf) and a mammal wolf (grey wolf) have different numbers and types of teeth?  Yet, the marsupial wolf has the same type and number of teeth as other marsupials and the mammal wolf has the same type and number of teeth as other mammals.

Please explain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I find fascinating about this point is that Robert obviously believes in a huge amount of micro-evolution.  It encompasses changes in numbers and types of teeth, massive changes to the reproductive system, etc.  However, Robert denies his turbo-charged micro-evolution, which can do all those things, can lead to the relatively minor by comparison transition between humans and other apes.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Nov. 19 2009,17:39

Quote (Reed @ Nov. 19 2009,17:30)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 19 2009,03:17)
Robert, what about dogs? The dog was domesticated from wolves about ten thousand years ago. From that we have been able to breed very may different dogs and according to your methodology they cannot all be dogs. So Grand Danois and Chihuahua are different species, created by man? How could that be possible?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heck, if marsupialism is just a product of the environment, how come no one has managed to breed a marsupial dog ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe dingoes ate the babies?

All week.  Waitress. Veal.
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 19 2009,20:01

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,03:49)
First creationism would say there is a common blueprint.
So one should expect a sameness in dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, first, scientists did work to discover "sameness in dna.", adding support to the idea of common descent. Then the Creationists came along and said, "Aha! a common blueprint! We knew it was their all along.", thereby contradicting previous statements by creationists who said that each "kind" was created according to unique blueprints residing in the mind of God.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 19 2009,21:37

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 19 2009,05:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Its speculation that because I am easily identified with my dad etc that all dna can by extrapolation be used to connect us back to bugs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not quite, all evidence points to the same inevitable conclusion. That's what Geology and the fossil record says, that's the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

You are just speculating.

Robert, what about dogs? The dog was domesticated from wolves about ten thousand years ago. From that we have been able to breed very may different dogs and according to your methodology they cannot all be dogs. So Grand Danois and Chihuahua are different species, created by man? How could that be possible?

DNA shows they are both dogs, while your intuitive method based on morphology would determine that they are different species.

How is it possible to get so many different dogs from a single source?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. dogs look alike enough to be the same. In fact they are more different then the marsupial/placental difference.
You make my point that minor differences should not mix up classification. Within reasonable variety one can place one kind of creature.
In fact i would say bears and dogs are the same creature. It is the anatomy that should lead the way and this means same shaped creatures are the same creatures despite details like size, teeth, pouches.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 19 2009,21:46

Quote (BillB @ Nov. 19 2009,06:02)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,09:49)
First creationism would say there is a common blueprint.
So one should expect a sameness in dna. Its not a trail of heritage but a expression of bits and pieces from a common factory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rubbish - you need to demonstrate with some evidence why the designer would conform to that pattern of creation.  It might seem logical to you that a designer would make everything based on a  common underlying platform but from the perspective of a deity there may be many ways to create living organisms that are all built on different fundamental principles, who are you to decide that this deity would only choose one method of creation.

It is quite arrogant of you to assume you know what god would do and why.

Everything is consistent with a god who can do anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet this is what it is. Everything almost has two eyes, ears, head, butt, leggs, arms. inner organs etc that all show a common theme. A blueprint from which all life separates.
otherwise one is asking for random creations with wayward fancy about how creatures are to be made and exist.
it could only be that there is a single blueprint to life just like the order of gravity etc.
So in this order all life just has parts with dna scores.
Dna just follows physical laws and thers no reason to see it as a trail of ancestry.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 19 2009,22:00

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2009,09:26)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,03:16)
Your four points make my point.
The first can only deal with living creatures or its about mere bones and not living life which is the important thing of relationship.
The second is speculation and not biology.
The third is speculation in very atomic matters and not the actual living system of a creature. its a blueprint but not the house and not biology as a skilled profession.
The fourth is not biology but biogeography which is really just living quarters and speculation as to its relevance.

Biology is about blood and guts and not dust and atoms.
The prestige of biology which all recognize is great is wrongly usurped by evolution  researchers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are wrong.  You're also incorrect.  I'd like to add confused.

According to you, a disection is of no value to biologists because the critter is dead.  That doesn't even make sense.

1) One living things is only a part of what biologists study.  Have you ever heard of 'ecology'?  The study of living things and how they interact with the non-living environment.  Bones can only be made by living things, therefore the bones can tell us all kinds of things about the thing that was once living... like how big it was and how it moved.

2) Paleontology is not speculation... of course, you have to accept that bones were once inside something that was alive.

3) Wow, I just can't believe this level of ignorance.  You do realize that biologists (geneticists) are changing the DNA on purpose and then observing the results.  It takes a hell of a lot of skill to insert the flourescent genes from a jelly fish into corn and beetles and mice.  More skill than it takes to type on a keyboard, that's for sure.  By the way, almost anyone can look at a house blueprint and describe the house in much more detail than one could by walking through the house, because much of the important details of the house are covered by drywall.  Little things like plumbing and electrical systems (that are very important to the house) can only be understood through the blueprint once the house is finished.  

4) Really, it's just speculation that opossums live in America and possums live in Australia?  It's jsut speculation that every southern continent has a flightless bird that is more closely related to other continents flightless birds rather than other birds on that continent.

If Biology was just about blood and guts, then most everyone currently alive would be dead from things like smallpox, TB, and other virals that are not alive and can only be studied at the molecular level.

Biologists do some amazing work in the real world.  I guess in your world they don't do much.  How sad for your world.  I guess you better make sure that you only eat plants and animals native to Canada and make sure you don't use any drugs (because chemicals don't affect biology).  Oh, you better make sure you don't get diabetes because insulin is now derived from transgenic bacteria (all that silliness about chemicals and all).

Let me ask this... why does a marsupial wolf (Tasmanian wolf) and a mammal wolf (grey wolf) have different numbers and types of teeth?  Yet, the marsupial wolf has the same type and number of teeth as other marsupials and the mammal wolf has the same type and number of teeth as other mammals.

Please explain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Disection is still close enough to a living creature and not about casts.
Indeed in this case actual life systems are studied because they are before the eye.

Bones may say how big a creature was but so would footprints. Yet neither is biology.

The molecular level in your example is not the atomic bits of a creature but actual life at a atomic level. So parasites is biology but the atoms of a creature I see as not biology in a real way of a living system.
Boundaries here.

Teeth are a minor and very adaptable part of creatures.
it should not be a trail of heritage.
Perhaps most creatures off the ark had something inbetween marsupial and placental teeth with later adaption to a area or upon immigration it just suited these creatures in different areas to form the same teeth in limited options for what one can get by way of teeth.
The creatures all lived together and separate from others and so why not have like teeth if they do the job.
yet your saying this sameness should drive classification when instead the thousands of points in sameness of a marsupial wolf and our wolf should in fact be the guide.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 19 2009,22:03

Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 19 2009,17:34)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2009,09:26)
Let me ask this... why does a marsupial wolf (Tasmanian wolf) and a mammal wolf (grey wolf) have different numbers and types of teeth?  Yet, the marsupial wolf has the same type and number of teeth as other marsupials and the mammal wolf has the same type and number of teeth as other mammals.

Please explain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I find fascinating about this point is that Robert obviously believes in a huge amount of micro-evolution.  It encompasses changes in numbers and types of teeth, massive changes to the reproductive system, etc.  However, Robert denies his turbo-charged micro-evolution, which can do all those things, can lead to the relatively minor by comparison transition between humans and other apes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see instant triggers in physical bodies is demanded by the evidence. no evolution.
Apes/men is a special case where we had to be put into the order of things and simply God picked the best body fpr our use in this order or equation of the blueprint. What else would he pick? Otherwise we would have to have bodies totally out of order to the rest of creation.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 19 2009,22:20

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,22:03)
I see instant triggers in physical bodies is demanded by the evidence. no evolution.
Apes/men is a special case where we had to be put into the order of things and simply God picked the best body fpr our use in this order or equation of the blueprint. What else would he pick? Otherwise we would have to have bodies totally out of order to the rest of creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Quack on Nov. 20 2009,03:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact i would say bears and dogs are the same creature. It is the anatomy that should lead the way and this means same shaped creatures are the same creatures despite details like size, teeth, pouches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, details don't matter, therefore science is right when defining man as just another in the family of great apes: Man, Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Bonobo.

Besides,    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dna just follows physical laws and thers no reason to see it as a trail of ancestry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let it be known: DNA is useless in determining ancestry; DNA also is useless as forensic evidence.

What's more: according to Robert, DNA does not determine morphology, anatomy.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 20 2009,04:17

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 19 2009,23:20)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,22:03)
I see instant triggers in physical bodies is demanded by the evidence. no evolution.
Apes/men is a special case where we had to be put into the order of things and simply God picked the best body fpr our use in this order or equation of the blueprint. What else would he pick? Otherwise we would have to have bodies totally out of order to the rest of creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< It was a dark and stormy night..... >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 20 2009,09:03

You can't really believe this.  Have you ever taken a Biology class?  

Here's the similarities between a Tasmanian wolf and a grey wolf.  They are mammals (assume that they have fur, vertebrae, four legs, etc.) and they have 'wolf' in their name.  The NAME is provided by humans.  It's a label, it really doesn't have anything to do with the reality of the animal.

A Tasmanian wolf IS NOT a wolf.  It is less closely related to a wolf that we are.  I, or anyone here, would be happy to explain everything I listed previously, but you are not willing to listen.  

Tell you what Robert.  You breed a brown bear and a great dane together and see what happens.  Then you breed a Tasmanian wolf (or are they extinct?  I forget) with a grey wolf and see what happens.  Then you breed a grey wolf and a great dane and see what happens.

I predict, because I'm a science guy, that the brown bear and great dane mating will not result in offspring.  Therefore they are not closely related.  

I predict the Tasmanian wolf and grey wolf mating will not result in offspring.  Therefore they are not closely related.

I predict the grey wolf and great dane mating will result in offspring, therefore the are very closely related.

It's called science, you might want to try it sometime.

Please note Robert.  I never said paleontology was Biology.  However, it is perfectly acceptable (to those of us in the real world) to use information from other fields to help with our work.  You know, kind of like electical engineers and software developers work together to make these things called computers.  

Robert, let me ask you this.  Is it permissible, by your standards to teach Astrology (not Astronomy) and Wiccan creation in my science class?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 20 2009,10:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then you breed a Tasmanian wolf (or are they extinct?  I forget) with a grey wolf and see what happens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thylacine is sadly exctinct, yes. There are still tasmanian devils, though...
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 20 2009,10:35

I think Byers' ideas can be summed up in a single sentence, extracted from a  < recent comment at PT >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin make a concept but did not prove it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 20 2009,10:40

I wonder if Robert believes the marsupial cat and the house cat are more closely related than the cat and dog or the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial cat?

I mean, cats are of the same kind right?
Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 20 2009,11:04

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2009,10:40)
I wonder if Robert believes the marsupial cat and the house cat are more closely related than the cat and dog or the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial cat?

I mean, cats are of the same kind right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From what he has said, that would be correct, as long as we are not talking about humans, since we are special.  Why his god decided that the ape was a good shape to copy from I'll never know, since the upright posture causes so many problems for us.  Maybe his god is an idiot?  Does his god talk like him - maybe that explains so much....
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 20 2009,11:32

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2009,08:40)
I wonder if Robert believes the marsupial cat and the house cat are more closely related than the cat and dog or the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial cat?

I mean, cats are of the same kind right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Based on his apparent belief that names are more important than anatomy or genetics, I'm guessing he believes the catfish, catapult and cat o' nine tails are also close relatives.
Posted by: RDK on Nov. 20 2009,11:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The molecular level in your example is not the atomic bits of a creature but actual life at a atomic level. So parasites is biology but the atoms of a creature I see as not biology in a real way of a living system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What.  The.  Fuck?

Okay, whoever is controlling Mr. Byers behind that curtain should just come out now.  Joke's over; it's stopped being funny and has started to become disturbing.
Posted by: RDK on Nov. 20 2009,12:18


Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 20 2009,12:25

Hi RDK, great job!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 20 2009,12:29

I dint care who ya r... dat der is funny
Posted by: snorkild on Nov. 20 2009,12:36

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 20 2009,10:13)
Thylacine is sadly exctinct, yes. There are still tasmanian devils, though...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did they leave Hell to go to Tasmania before or after the Flood?
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 20 2009,14:56

I think that creationists look at life through blurry glasses. With these glasses on the thialacine and the wolf are almost alike. Take the glasses off (compare bone structures internal organs) and you can see that the thialicine and the kangaroo look more alike.

Now Darwin did this and quipped when he was in Australia that there must have been a second creator. Darwin doesn't have the blurry glasses on and he saw that though superficially there were similarities between Australian and other animals, they are in fact very different to the Animals on other continents.

You don't need fossils, you don't need DNA, you just need a keen mind to see that Bible literalism is bunk.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 20 2009,15:09

The other case of the blurry glasses is flood geology. Way before Darwin, the geologists and civil engineers while trying to make predictions about where to mine or where to build roads/bridges etc. realised that flood geology doesn't make sense. Using no dating methods just using their eyes and brains they saw that the strata were millions of years old and created through a uniform process.

Now, real scientists can tell the story of the planet with a great deal of accuracy. We can go anywhere and see when there was a volcano, a sea, a desert etc.

They have had 200 hundred years - Creationists have yet to get out of their armchairs.
Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 20 2009,18:30

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 20 2009,15:09)
They have had 200 hundred years - Creationists have yet to get out of their armchairs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All that walkin' is SINFUL!!!!!  Jebus didn't give us an ass for us to not use sittin' in our armchairs. He also gave us a brain so that we could devote it to worshipping him 24/7, with no thought for anything else.

How's that?  ???
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 20 2009,23:47

This Robert Byers idiot is someone I seem to recall from years of creationist stupidity. I think they are terminally stupid.

Sad.
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 21 2009,04:00

Has this possibility been entertained before: Someone from a creationist/ID forum coming here and socking it to us by acting all anti-ID and whatnot, trying to turn the tables?
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 21 2009,10:21

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 20 2009,23:47)
This Robert Byers idiot is someone I seem to recall from years of creationist stupidity. I think they are terminally stupid.

Sad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A reasonable conclusion, but I wonder if not things like home schooling, poor education, religious brainwashing and lack of exposure to qualified 19th thru 21st century science and thinking also plays an important role in the dumbing down of people.

Robert Byers is a perfect example; as far as I can tell, without shame he presents his own random thoughts as facts overriding even the most rigorously studied scientific subjects.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 21 2009,10:32

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 20 2009,15:56)
I think that creationists look at life through blurry glasses. With these glasses on the thialacine and the wolf are almost alike. Take the glasses off (compare bone structures internal organs) and you can see that the thialicine and the kangaroo look more alike.

Now Darwin did this and quipped when he was in Australia that there must have been a second creator. Darwin doesn't have the blurry glasses on and he saw that though superficially there were similarities between Australian and other animals, they are in fact very different to the Animals on other continents.

You don't need fossils, you don't need DNA, you just need a keen mind to see that Bible literalism is bunk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think they look at all.  They have their eyes glued shut with super jesus glue, as they argue endlessly about what you are seeing with your own eyes wide open.
Posted by: jeffox on Nov. 23 2009,14:04

MichaelJ wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think that creationists look at life through blurry glasses. With these glasses on the thialacine and the wolf are almost alike. Take the glasses off (compare bone structures internal organs) and you can see that the thialicine and the kangaroo look more alike.

Now Darwin did this and quipped when he was in Australia that there must have been a second creator. Darwin doesn't have the blurry glasses on and he saw that though superficially there were similarities between Australian and other animals, they are in fact very different to the Animals on other continents.

You don't need fossils, you don't need DNA, you just need a keen mind to see that Bible literalism is bunk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think that they use day-vision goggles, AKA "tardware" glasses.  

:)
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 23 2009,15:52

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 20 2009,03:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact i would say bears and dogs are the same creature. It is the anatomy that should lead the way and this means same shaped creatures are the same creatures despite details like size, teeth, pouches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, details don't matter, therefore science is right when defining man as just another in the family of great apes: Man, Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Bonobo.

Besides,    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dna just follows physical laws and thers no reason to see it as a trail of ancestry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let it be known: DNA is useless in determining ancestry; DNA also is useless as forensic evidence.

What's more: according to Robert, DNA does not determine morphology, anatomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DNA is not a trail. Its only a atomic representation at any one point. So yes it can be connected from me to my dad. Only because of such little lack of change can this be done. Yet if there is great sudden change then the dna will change and not show a connection even from off spring to parent.
The marsupial thing insists on this. There must be innate triggers in physical bodies to adapt to great needs. We know womens bodies change to bear children and our bodies react positively or not to disease etc. So its not a big deal though not happening today.
I would see that post flood there was more need and ability perhaps for bodies to change quickly to fulfill Gods mandate for life to quickly refill the planet. People lived long lives and animals bred faster.

The case between apes/man is different. The bible says we were created different. So we are special beings in the image of God.
So this time god just picked the best model to put a being into.
What esle would one pick? A rhino or bird? If we had to fit the blueprint of nature with two eyes, ears etc then it could only be that we must be close to something in nature.
The ape body is the best one.
So here it is not hinting at relationship while a marsupial wolf and other wolves is. Not convergent evolution but the same thing.
Remember evolution does not say we are convergent with apes but directly relational.
Posted by: khan on Nov. 23 2009,16:07

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 23 2009,16:52)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 20 2009,03:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact i would say bears and dogs are the same creature. It is the anatomy that should lead the way and this means same shaped creatures are the same creatures despite details like size, teeth, pouches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, details don't matter, therefore science is right when defining man as just another in the family of great apes: Man, Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Bonobo.

Besides,      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dna just follows physical laws and thers no reason to see it as a trail of ancestry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let it be known: DNA is useless in determining ancestry; DNA also is useless as forensic evidence.

What's more: according to Robert, DNA does not determine morphology, anatomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DNA is not a trail. Its only a atomic representation at any one point. So yes it can be connected from me to my dad. Only because of such little lack of change can this be done. Yet if there is great sudden change then the dna will change and not show a connection even from off spring to parent.
The marsupial thing insists on this. There must be innate triggers in physical bodies to adapt to great needs. We know womens bodies change to bear children and our bodies react positively or not to disease etc. So its not a big deal though not happening today.
I would see that post flood there was more need and ability perhaps for bodies to change quickly to fulfill Gods mandate for life to quickly refill the planet. People lived long lives and animals bred faster.

The case between apes/man is different. The bible says we were created different. So we are special beings in the image of God.
So this time god just picked the best model to put a being into.
What esle would one pick? A rhino or bird? If we had to fit the blueprint of nature with two eyes, ears etc then it could only be that we must be close to something in nature.
The ape body is the best one.
So here it is not hinting at relationship while a marsupial wolf and other wolves is. Not convergent evolution but the same thing.
Remember evolution does not say we are convergent with apes but directly relational.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did it ever occur to you that folks can't respond to your blitherings because there is nothing coherent in them?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 23 2009,16:14

goddam that is entertaining.  not so much the attempted conversation, but the poking and watching it bump into the wall over and over again.  hooboy
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 23 2009,16:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet if there is great sudden change then the dna will change and not show a connection even from off spring to parent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No limit to your stupidity? A great sudden change means there will not be any offspring!

DNA with a 'great sudden change' is a damaged DNA, unable to develop into offspring.

Even a slightly altered DNA will result in no developing embryo, or in a spontaneous abort, or perhaps a stillborn. But healthy offspring, no way!

And I am not even a scientist. Shame on you, Robert, you are only displaying an unbelievably high level of ignorance.

You know less than nothing about genetics!

I won't tell you what I suspect.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 23 2009,16:19

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2009,09:03)
You can't really believe this.  Have you ever taken a Biology class?  

Here's the similarities between a Tasmanian wolf and a grey wolf.  They are mammals (assume that they have fur, vertebrae, four legs, etc.) and they have 'wolf' in their name.  The NAME is provided by humans.  It's a label, it really doesn't have anything to do with the reality of the animal.

A Tasmanian wolf IS NOT a wolf.  It is less closely related to a wolf that we are.  I, or anyone here, would be happy to explain everything I listed previously, but you are not willing to listen.  

Tell you what Robert.  You breed a brown bear and a great dane together and see what happens.  Then you breed a Tasmanian wolf (or are they extinct?  I forget) with a grey wolf and see what happens.  Then you breed a grey wolf and a great dane and see what happens.

I predict, because I'm a science guy, that the brown bear and great dane mating will not result in offspring.  Therefore they are not closely related.  

I predict the Tasmanian wolf and grey wolf mating will not result in offspring.  Therefore they are not closely related.

I predict the grey wolf and great dane mating will result in offspring, therefore the are very closely related.

It's called science, you might want to try it sometime.

Please note Robert.  I never said paleontology was Biology.  However, it is perfectly acceptable (to those of us in the real world) to use information from other fields to help with our work.  You know, kind of like electical engineers and software developers work together to make these things called computers.  

Robert, let me ask you this.  Is it permissible, by your standards to teach Astrology (not Astronomy) and Wiccan creation in my science class?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your wrong.
If you look in your science textbooks you will find the concept called convergent evolution. it means unrelated creatures ended up looking greatly the same because of same selection pressures in like niche.
Therefore evolution says marsupial wolves look like our wolves because of profound selection pressures. Its not just being 'mamal" ish and having the word wolf. The word tells the tale. They both look like wolves.
There are likewise marsupial bears, cats, mice, tapirs, etc
I say hogwash.
A wolf is a wolf. Pouch or not.
They both are from the same parents off the ark.
There is the common classification error in biology.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 23 2009,16:22

Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 20 2009,11:04)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2009,10:40)
I wonder if Robert believes the marsupial cat and the house cat are more closely related than the cat and dog or the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial cat?

I mean, cats are of the same kind right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From what he has said, that would be correct, as long as we are not talking about humans, since we are special.  Why his god decided that the ape was a good shape to copy from I'll never know, since the upright posture causes so many problems for us.  Maybe his god is an idiot?  Does his god talk like him - maybe that explains so much....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes all cat shaped creatures are the same creature. marsupial, credontal (sp), or our kittys.
The ape body in fact is excellent. Gynastics shows how useful.
Perhaps any minor problems is just a post fall development and not the original creation.
Posted by: khan on Nov. 23 2009,16:22

It's degenerating.
Reminds me of HAL as Dave removed parts.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 23 2009,16:27

"Daisy, daisy..."
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 23 2009,16:28

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 20 2009,14:56)
I think that creationists look at life through blurry glasses. With these glasses on the thialacine and the wolf are almost alike. Take the glasses off (compare bone structures internal organs) and you can see that the thialicine and the kangaroo look more alike.

Now Darwin did this and quipped when he was in Australia that there must have been a second creator. Darwin doesn't have the blurry glasses on and he saw that though superficially there were similarities between Australian and other animals, they are in fact very different to the Animals on other continents.

You don't need fossils, you don't need DNA, you just need a keen mind to see that Bible literalism is bunk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darwins wrong. The creatures are alike in thousands of points of the physical body and different in minor points.
By the way in south America he got right what today they say he got wrong. in saying some camel shaped creature was a camel while today they say its just a convergent look alike to a camel.

In fact marsupials inside or out look 95% the same. Just a few details of the head, teeth, and reproductive organs. All within the ranges of other creatures not said to be different.

In fact snakes can bear their young live or by way of eggs. Yet clealy they are the same kind.
Posted by: damitall on Nov. 23 2009,16:32

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 23 2009,16:22)
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 20 2009,11:04)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2009,10:40)
I wonder if Robert believes the marsupial cat and the house cat are more closely related than the cat and dog or the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial cat?

I mean, cats are of the same kind right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From what he has said, that would be correct, as long as we are not talking about humans, since we are special.  Why his god decided that the ape was a good shape to copy from I'll never know, since the upright posture causes so many problems for us.  Maybe his god is an idiot?  Does his god talk like him - maybe that explains so much....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes all cat shaped creatures are the same creature. marsupial, credontal (sp), or our kittys.
The ape body in fact is excellent. Gynastics shows how useful.
Perhaps any minor problems is just a post fall development and not the original creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well,well.

Byers redux.

But (against all reason) even less coherent than in previous appearances.

According to our Robert B, a wolf could become a marsupial wolf in its own lifetime.

He insists.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 23 2009,16:34

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 23 2009,16:28)
In fact snakes can bear their young live or by way of eggs. Yet clealy they are the same kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Therefore the earth is 6000 years old and Noah had one of every "kind" on the Ark. OK.

So, RB, how many kinds were on the Ark then?

How many original "kinds" have turned into the 1.5 million+ species of animals, plants and algae we see today?

And in how long? 4000 odd years?
Posted by: khan on Nov. 23 2009,16:38

I still want to know which of the 8 folks on the Ark carried all the STDs.
Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 23 2009,16:59

bobby's writing makes me appreciate the "cut and paste" crowd.  my local IDiota tried to quotemine dawkins to support ID today.  talk about falling out of your chair laughing.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 23 2009,17:28

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 24 2009,07:28)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 20 2009,14:56)
I think that creationists look at life through blurry glasses. With these glasses on the thialacine and the wolf are almost alike. Take the glasses off (compare bone structures internal organs) and you can see that the thialicine and the kangaroo look more alike.

Now Darwin did this and quipped when he was in Australia that there must have been a second creator. Darwin doesn't have the blurry glasses on and he saw that though superficially there were similarities between Australian and other animals, they are in fact very different to the Animals on other continents.

You don't need fossils, you don't need DNA, you just need a keen mind to see that Bible literalism is bunk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darwins wrong. The creatures are alike in thousands of points of the physical body and different in minor points.
By the way in south America he got right what today they say he got wrong. in saying some camel shaped creature was a camel while today they say its just a convergent look alike to a camel.

In fact marsupials inside or out look 95% the same. Just a few details of the head, teeth, and reproductive organs. All within the ranges of other creatures not said to be different.

In fact snakes can bear their young live or by way of eggs. Yet clealy they are the same kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's strange how creationists like to prove your point for you. I was saying how creationists fail to do any detailed set of analysis and instead sit in the armchair with the blurry glasses.

So what does Robert do? Does he get 100 points of comparison between wolves and Tasmanian wolf and compare then with 100 points of comparison between the Tasmanian Wolf and a Tasmanian Devil and show which is closer. Does he then formulate a hypothesis as to why God decided that Marsupials are better adapted to Australia than placentals. Does he look for similar environments to see if the hypothesis works? Does he examine the fossil evidence that shows where and when this sudden change occured? He might not agree with the dating but shouldn't wolf fossils be found in Tasmania under the marsupial fossils?

No, he just waves his magic wand and says that the thousands of scientists that do take the trouble of looking through the evidence, are wrong.

I know it is painful in the US at the moment but Creationism will eventually die.
Posted by: RDK on Nov. 23 2009,17:35

Quote (khan @ Nov. 23 2009,16:38)
I still want to know which of the 8 folks on the Ark carried all the STDs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was probably Ham, the dirty bastard.  No doubt he was an evolutionist.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 23 2009,18:02

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 23 2009,15:28)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 24 2009,07:28)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 20 2009,14:56)
I think that creationists look at life through blurry glasses. With these glasses on the thialacine and the wolf are almost alike. Take the glasses off (compare bone structures internal organs) and you can see that the thialicine and the kangaroo look more alike.

Now Darwin did this and quipped when he was in Australia that there must have been a second creator. Darwin doesn't have the blurry glasses on and he saw that though superficially there were similarities between Australian and other animals, they are in fact very different to the Animals on other continents.

You don't need fossils, you don't need DNA, you just need a keen mind to see that Bible literalism is bunk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darwins wrong. The creatures are alike in thousands of points of the physical body and different in minor points.
By the way in south America he got right what today they say he got wrong. in saying some camel shaped creature was a camel while today they say its just a convergent look alike to a camel.

In fact marsupials inside or out look 95% the same. Just a few details of the head, teeth, and reproductive organs. All within the ranges of other creatures not said to be different.

In fact snakes can bear their young live or by way of eggs. Yet clealy they are the same kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's strange how creationists like to prove your point for you. I was saying how creationists fail to do any detailed set of analysis and instead sit in the armchair with the blurry glasses.

So what does Robert do? Does he get 100 points of comparison between wolves and Tasmanian wolf and compare then with 100 points of comparison between the Tasmanian Wolf and a Tasmanian Devil and show which is closer. Does he then formulate a hypothesis as to why God decided that Marsupials are better adapted to Australia than placentals. Does he look for similar environments to see if the hypothesis works? Does he examine the fossil evidence that shows where and when this sudden change occured? He might not agree with the dating but shouldn't wolf fossils be found in Tasmania under the marsupial fossils?

No, he just waves his magic wand and says that the thousands of scientists that do take the trouble of looking through the evidence, are wrong.

I know it is painful in the US at the moment but Creationism will eventually die.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I get the impression Robert has no idea what scientists do all day.  Fieldwork, lab work, data analysis, hypothesis testing, prediction, attempting to fit the model to new data?  Not in Robert's little world - he seems to think we just sit around making shit up, pausing only to genuflect before our icons of Darwin, Dawkins and Satan.  

His whole argument (I'm using the word in its loosest possible sense) is "Oh yeah?  I can make shit up too!"
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 23 2009,18:40

Robert is a walking cautionary tale. This is what happens when parents lock their child in the closet under the stairs for 16 hours a day with nothing but a Bible and a plastic ark.

Please note: In most countries, this would be considered child abuse. Here in the U.S. it's just called "Christian Homeschooling".
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 23 2009,18:46

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 23 2009,17:34)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 23 2009,16:28)
In fact snakes can bear their young live or by way of eggs. Yet clealy they are the same kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Therefore the earth is 6000 years old and Noah had one of every "kind" on the Ark. OK.

So, RB, how many kinds were on the Ark then?

How many original "kinds" have turned into the 1.5 million+ species of animals, plants and algae we see today?

And in how long? 4000 odd years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


this i think is the one thing worth asking Bubba.  i doubt he can answer.  but the rest is just winding it up and watching it poop on itself.  love it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 23 2009,18:46

Quote (RDK @ Nov. 23 2009,18:35)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 23 2009,16:38)
I still want to know which of the 8 folks on the Ark carried all the STDs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was probably Ham, the dirty bastard.  No doubt he was an evolutionist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BUTT SECKS!!!!!11!!
Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 24 2009,00:07

Quote (damitall @ Nov. 23 2009,16:32)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 23 2009,16:22)
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 20 2009,11:04)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2009,10:40)
I wonder if Robert believes the marsupial cat and the house cat are more closely related than the cat and dog or the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial cat?

I mean, cats are of the same kind right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From what he has said, that would be correct, as long as we are not talking about humans, since we are special.  Why his god decided that the ape was a good shape to copy from I'll never know, since the upright posture causes so many problems for us.  Maybe his god is an idiot?  Does his god talk like him - maybe that explains so much....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes all cat shaped creatures are the same creature. marsupial, credontal (sp), or our kittys.
The ape body in fact is excellent. Gynastics shows how useful.
Perhaps any minor problems is just a post fall development and not the original creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well,well.

Byers redux.

But (against all reason) even less coherent than in previous appearances.

According to our Robert B, a wolf could become a marsupial wolf in its own lifetime.

He insists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still want to see Marsupial Humans.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 24 2009,03:07

Robert, is it too much to ask that you try and learn at least some rudimentary genetics? You know, DNA and genetics are what makes reproduction possible. It works according to strict principles that cannot be violated if reproduction shall take place.

Corruption of DNA  - for whatever reason, leads to failure! Only slight changes are possible. That's the reason you find that of all the 6+ billion people on the planet, they are all human beings! Human, nothing else. And if we analyze the DNA of all those people, we see the same thing: Human DNA, showing clear relationship with all other humans.

A human will never give birth to anything but a human.

People like you used to deny Earth orbiting the Sun - the church even almost killed Galileo for telling the truth. The fact is, you and people like you deny everything that doesn't fit your religion. You simply deny the facts. An yet, all it would take to verify the truth of Galileo's discovery was to look into his telescope.

In the same manner, you refuse to learn the basic facts.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 24 2009,03:13

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 24 2009,09:07)
Robert, is it too much to ask that you try and learn at least some rudimentary genetics? You know, DNA and genetics are what makes reproduction possible. It works according to strict principles that cannot be violated if reproduction shall take place.

Corruption of DNA  - for whatever reason, leads to failure! Only slight changes are possible. That's the reason you find that of all the 6+ billion people on the planet, they are all human beings! Human, nothing else. And if we analyze the DNA of all those people, we see the same thing: Human DNA, showing clear relationship with all other humans.

A human will never give birth to anything but a human.

People like you used to deny Earth orbiting the Sun - the church even almost killed Galileo for telling the truth. The fact is, you and people like you deny everything that doesn't fit your religion. You simply deny the facts. An yet, all it would take to verify the truth of Galileo's discovery was to look into his telescope.

In the same manner, you refuse to learn the basic facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, right. Go and tell that to his sixth thumb and his monolobal© "brain"...

Quack, I admire your efforts to try and educate this fool, but I think it's a lost cause. Say something nasty about the bible instead, it will be more entertaining to watch his "brain" explode :)
Posted by: damitall on Nov. 24 2009,03:14

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 23 2009,18:40)
Robert is a walking cautionary tale. This is what happens when parents lock their child in the closet under the stairs for 16 hours a day with nothing but a Bible and a plastic ark.

Please note: In most countries, this would be considered child abuse. Here in the U.S. it's just called "Christian Homeschooling".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I may of course be wrong, but I believe Our Robert is Canadian.

If so, Canada has something to answer for, having foisted both this tard-twat AND Densey on to the world.
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 24 2009,04:54

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 24 2009,03:07)
A human will never give birth to anything but a human.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ummmmmmm, Quack. . . .




. . . . are you sure?
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 24 2009,06:34

Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 24 2009,04:54)
 
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 24 2009,03:07)
A human will never give birth to anything but a human.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ummmmmmm, Quack. . . .




. . . . are you sure?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Weel, looking at it that way...
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 24 2009,06:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quack, I admire your efforts to try and educate this fool, but I think it's a lost cause. Say something nasty about the bible instead, it will be more entertaining to watch his "brain" explode :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good idea, I'll just wait for his next coprolalia.
Posted by: RDK on Nov. 24 2009,09:18

Speaking of wingnuts...is it just me, or does Ken Ham have a weird aura about him?  He just gives me the heebie-jeebies.  Every time I see a picture of him I get the feeling he's going to touch me inappropriately.


Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 24 2009,09:59

Quote (RDK @ Nov. 24 2009,09:18)
Speaking of wingnuts...is it just me, or does Ken Ham have a weird aura about him?  He just gives me the heebie-jeebies.  Every time I see a picture of him I get the feeling he's going to touch me inappropriately.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's who that is?!

Eek - he does have a face that says "I will molest your children and eat your brains."

Of course, that is basically what he does anyway.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 24 2009,11:36

Quote (RDK @ Nov. 24 2009,09:18)
Speaking of wingnuts...is it just me, or does Ken Ham have a weird aura about him?  He just gives me the heebie-jeebies.  Every time I see a picture of him I get the feeling he's going to touch me inappropriately.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=spot_the_pedo >
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 24 2009,11:39

Quote (damitall @ Nov. 24 2009,03:14)
I may of course be wrong, but I believe Our Robert is Canadian.

If so, Canada has something to answer for, having foisted both this tard-twat AND Densey on to the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, we gave you Kim Cattrall. I figure we're even.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 24 2009,11:43

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,11:39)
Quote (damitall @ Nov. 24 2009,03:14)
I may of course be wrong, but I believe Our Robert is Canadian.

If so, Canada has something to answer for, having foisted both this tard-twat AND Densey on to the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, we gave you Kim Cattrall. I figure we're even.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but you also gave the world Bryan Adams and Celine Dion.  Those are practically capital crimes.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 24 2009,11:52

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2009,11:43)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,11:39)
 
Quote (damitall @ Nov. 24 2009,03:14)
I may of course be wrong, but I believe Our Robert is Canadian.

If so, Canada has something to answer for, having foisted both this tard-twat AND Densey on to the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, we gave you Kim Cattrall. I figure we're even.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but you also gave the world Bryan Adams and Celine Dion.  Those are practically capital crimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tru dat. um... basketball? Leslie Neilsen? Frederick Banting? Terminals for the underground railroad? Half the NHL players?
Posted by: jeffox on Nov. 24 2009,13:04

'Twas writ above:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, but you also gave the world Bryan Adams and Celine Dion.  Those are practically capital crimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More than made up for by the likes of Randy Bachman, Burton Cummings, "Geddy" Lee, Robbie Robertson, and a few others.  My 2c.

:)
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Nov. 24 2009,13:24

Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 24 2009,14:04)
More than made up for by the likes of ... "Geddy" Lee ... and a few others.  My 2c.

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Yep. >

And Second City Television.  And Tommy Chong.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 24 2009,13:26

Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 24 2009,13:04)
'Twas writ above:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, but you also gave the world Bryan Adams and Celine Dion.  Those are practically capital crimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More than made up for by the likes of Randy Bachman, Burton Cummings, "Geddy" Lee, Robbie Robertson, and a few others.  My 2c.

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joni Mitchell and Neil Young.

'Nuff said.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 24 2009,14:59

Feelin' the love.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 24 2009,15:07

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,14:59)
Feelin' the love.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, all that is swell, but Celine-freaking-Dion?

< Exhibit 1 >

The United States of 'merka rests its case.
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 24 2009,15:22

Also from Canada: William Shatner. The question is, should he be counted on the 'good' side of the ledger or the 'bad' side?
Posted by: khan on Nov. 24 2009,15:30

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 24 2009,16:22)
Also from Canada: William Shatner. The question is, should he be counted on the 'good' side of the ledger or the 'bad' side?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He can be forgiven much for his beat poetic readings of Sarah P.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 24 2009,15:50

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 24 2009,15:22)
Also from Canada: William Shatner. The question is, should he be counted on the 'good' side of the ledger or the 'bad' side?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That depends on whether you think < this is a serious attempt > at the execrable Elton John song "Rocket Man" or not.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 24 2009,18:11

Quote (Gunthernacus @ Nov. 24 2009,11:24)
 
Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 24 2009,14:04)
More than made up for by the likes of ... "Geddy" Lee ... and a few others.  My 2c.

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Yep. >

And Second City Television.  And Tommy Chong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Dave?  Dave's not here, Man >
Posted by: jswilkins on Nov. 24 2009,19:55

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 25 2009,06:22)
Also from Canada: William Shatner. The question is, should he be counted on the 'good' side of the ledger or the 'bad' side?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That depends on whether he is doing comedy/acting, or singing, respectively.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 24 2009,21:49

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,12:52)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2009,11:43)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,11:39)
   
Quote (damitall @ Nov. 24 2009,03:14)
I may of course be wrong, but I believe Our Robert is Canadian.

If so, Canada has something to answer for, having foisted both this tard-twat AND Densey on to the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, we gave you Kim Cattrall. I figure we're even.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but you also gave the world Bryan Adams and Celine Dion.  Those are practically capital crimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tru dat. um... basketball? Leslie Neilsen? Frederick Banting? Terminals for the underground railroad? Half the NHL players?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< The Broad Street Bullies > makes it all good. Even TARD can't spoil that.

ETA: Linkage.


Posted by: someotherguy on Nov. 24 2009,22:03

Here's a piece of friendly advice for you, Robert:  when your arguments don't even reach the "random YouTube commenter" level of coherence, it's probably time to rethink your whole approach.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 25 2009,14:17

Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 25 2009,13:03)
Here's a piece of friendly advice for you, Robert:  when your arguments don't even reach the "random YouTube commenter" level of coherence, it's probably time to rethink your whole approach.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's gone. Did you break another one?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 25 2009,14:35

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2009,15:07)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,14:59)
Feelin' the love.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, all that is swell, but Celine-freaking-Dion?

< Exhibit 1 >

The United States of 'merka rests its case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(pat, pat) There, there. Sometimes these things happen. Just let it go, man.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 25 2009,14:40

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 25 2009,14:35)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2009,15:07)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,14:59)
Feelin' the love.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, all that is swell, but Celine-freaking-Dion?

< Exhibit 1 >

The United States of 'merka rests its case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(pat, pat) There, there. Sometimes these things happen. Just let it go, man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will say this about you Canadians.  You are closer to being honorary Americans than the British, who gave us < this guy >.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 25 2009,17:58

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 25 2009,14:40)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 25 2009,14:35)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2009,15:07)
       
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,14:59)
Feelin' the love.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, all that is swell, but Celine-freaking-Dion?

< Exhibit 1 >

The United States of 'merka rests its case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(pat, pat) There, there. Sometimes these things happen. Just let it go, man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will say this about you Canadians.  You are closer to being honorary Americans than the British, who gave us < this guy >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it just me or does he look like a young Rick Moranis. (You're welcome for him too, by the way)

Brits also gave you Clapton, Lennon, Beck, Page, Emma Thompson, Diana Rigg, Sean Connery, Black Adder, Red Dwarf, and of course MPFC...  you just gotta take the bad with the good, old shoe.

... honorary americans? We should be grateful? :-)
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 25 2009,18:25

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 25 2009,17:58)
... honorary americans? We should be grateful? :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, but I know < you will never admit it >.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Nov. 25 2009,18:33

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 25 2009,14:40)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 25 2009,14:35)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 24 2009,15:07)
     
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,14:59)
Feelin' the love.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, all that is swell, but Celine-freaking-Dion?

< Exhibit 1 >

The United States of 'merka rests its case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(pat, pat) There, there. Sometimes these things happen. Just let it go, man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will say this about you Canadians.  You are closer to being honorary Americans than the British, who gave us < this guy >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh please fuck off. We gave you Darwin, Dawkins, Newton, Benny Hill, Monty Python, programmable computers and your language (to name just a few). You still owe us about 200 years of taxes.  

Bloody colonials!   Uppity ones to boot.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 25 2009,21:21

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 24 2009,03:07)
Robert, is it too much to ask that you try and learn at least some rudimentary genetics? You know, DNA and genetics are what makes reproduction possible. It works according to strict principles that cannot be violated if reproduction shall take place.

Corruption of DNA  - for whatever reason, leads to failure! Only slight changes are possible. That's the reason you find that of all the 6+ billion people on the planet, they are all human beings! Human, nothing else. And if we analyze the DNA of all those people, we see the same thing: Human DNA, showing clear relationship with all other humans.

A human will never give birth to anything but a human.

People like you used to deny Earth orbiting the Sun - the church even almost killed Galileo for telling the truth. The fact is, you and people like you deny everything that doesn't fit your religion. You simply deny the facts. An yet, all it would take to verify the truth of Galileo's discovery was to look into his telescope.

In the same manner, you refuse to learn the basic facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Human understanding of genetics or the body in general is rudimentary. thats why disease goes on having its way.
I'm saying there are innate abilities of bodies to change within a generation as needed. The body changes and so the dna. hand in glove.
The big point here is that genetics must not contradict obvious sameness of physical forms.
if creatures look the same or about that much then they are the same.
Now with marsupial/placental sameness I do start from biblical boundaries. I see a marsupial dominance and lack of others in modern Australia and since this is impossible from a common origin from the ark its a small step to see dogs, cats, mice, bears, tapirs, etc with pouches as just the same creatures as elsewhere and not the unlikely idea of convergent evolution.
That is saying niche put such selection pressures on creatures as to bring same looking creatures, yet unrelated, to different areas on earth and in time.
Then a study of the fossil record shows this convergent idea is claimed constantly to explain away what is rather a obvious .
A horse is a horse. A wolf is a wolf.
I'm confident and more that i am right.
Posted by: Reed on Nov. 25 2009,23:00

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 25 2009,19:21)
Human understanding of genetics or the body in general is rudimentary.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your understanding is rudimentary, no question there. The generalization to other humans appears premature.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm saying there are innate abilities of bodies to change within a generation as needed. The body changes and so the dna. hand in glove.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you want to be taken seriously, you have to do more than say it. You have to demonstrate it. Good luck.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2009,01:21

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 25 2009,18:25)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 25 2009,17:58)
... honorary americans? We should be grateful? :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, but I know < you will never admit it >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Sorry >
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 26 2009,04:02

Hi Robert, since your arguments are unique and you are the only person on the planet sharing belief in such nonsense, here is a suggestion for you:

You do not trust science (and you don't understand science), but do you trust AiG or CMI? They are Christian YEC creationists like you, and I suggest you ask them if they support your unique theory of biology and genetics.

Will you trust and accept their answer?

You trust their geology, shouldn't you trust their biology too?

__
Edited by removing relevant arguments beyond Robert's comprehension and making the suggestion above.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 26 2009,07:00

Quack, let's get down to business here and adress what really interest Boobah:

< http://whywontgodhealamputees.com >

Let him brainfuck himself until explosion. the world doesn't need this brand of tard...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2009,08:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm confident and more that i am right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



lolololol

who cares

hey guess what my pigs just had babies and they are FUCKING MARSUPIAL PIGS!

and a colleague just called from new zealand, they discovered a new species of dolphin down there and IT IS A FUCKING MARSUPIAL DOLPHIN!!!!

THIS GOES WITH THE MARSUPIAL STARFISH THEY DISCOVERED LAST WEEK!!!!!  TEH BIBEL IS TRUE!!11!
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 26 2009,11:35

For Thanksgiving dinner this year we bought a Canadian marsupial turkey.  Ideal for that cornbread and sage stuffing!
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2009,17:01

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 26 2009,11:35)
For Thanksgiving dinner this year we bought a Canadian marsupial turkey.  Ideal for that cornbread and sage stuffing!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< We do things differently up here >
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 27 2009,02:30

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 26 2009,07:00)
Quack, let's get down to business here and adress what really interest Boobah:

< http://whywontgodhealamputees.com >

Let him brainfuck himself until explosion. the world doesn't need this brand of tard...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, for every person praising the Lord for miraculously saving their lives from all sorts of disease, disasters and accidents there are thousands the same Lord didn't give and don't give a damn about. Whatever he is, he isn't fair and loving but cruel and indifferent to our suffering. Praying doesn't help either.

Should I make a list of times and places when His Bloodthirstyness Himself calmly with a smirk looked down at our suffering?

He is well known from way back for his predilection for blood and the stench of burnt flesh.

Good to be back on track.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Nov. 27 2009,09:58

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 27 2009,02:30)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 26 2009,07:00)
Quack, let's get down to business here and adress what really interest Boobah:

< http://whywontgodhealamputees.com >

Let him brainfuck himself until explosion. the world doesn't need this brand of tard...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, for every person praising the Lord for miraculously saving their lives from all sorts of disease, disasters and accidents there are thousands the same Lord didn't give and don't give a damn about. Whatever he is, he isn't fair and loving but cruel and indifferent to our suffering. Praying doesn't help either.

Should I make a list of times and places when His Bloodthirstyness Himself calmly with a smirk looked down at our suffering?

He is well known from way back for his predilection for blood and the stench of burnt flesh.

Good to be back on track.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep-lets New Orleans pay the price for decades of sin (Katrina) and is very concerned about my thoughts (lust, coveting my neighbor's possessions) but can't seem to save a few folks in Sudan, or stop genocide, or talk sense to those suicide bombers. I can't decide is such a deity doesn't exist, or does and surely does NOT deserve to be worshipped... :angry:
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 27 2009,11:36


Woe unto thee, unbelievers
Posted by: Robert Byers on Nov. 30 2009,04:58

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 26 2009,04:02)
Hi Robert, since your arguments are unique and you are the only person on the planet sharing belief in such nonsense, here is a suggestion for you:

You do not trust science (and you don't understand science), but do you trust AiG or CMI? They are Christian YEC creationists like you, and I suggest you ask them if they support your unique theory of biology and genetics.

Will you trust and accept their answer?

You trust their geology, shouldn't you trust their biology too?

__
Edited by removing relevant arguments beyond Robert's comprehension and making the suggestion above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Origin subjects are not science.
The point in all knowledge is to weigh the merits of the case. Except in science where there is a greater process. Yet if the process is not done then theres no science.

I received mostly negative feedback from many creationist groups.
ICR was more open but still not accepting it in its teachings. Another creationist at NWCREATION at the same time as me also on a limited area of my essay suggested marsupials were just placentals after all. in fact my essay is on their webpage.

Yet what matters is the quality of evidence and not who gives thumbsup.
In much of the progress in "science etc" there has been the story of great resistance until acceptance.
All I can do is present the idea and the evidence and for creationists the boundaries of genesis.
Time will tell.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 30 2009,06:09

Robert Byers:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

All I can do is present the idea and the evidence and for creationists the boundaries of genesis.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Everything I've seen from you so far has been pure assertion. Do you really have an interest in evidence, and are you really going to present any within our lifetimes?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 30 2009,08:41

<snort> fat chance

Bubba is at his best waving his hands around and making up stuff.  asking him to put on the spectacles and actually point to something that exists is asking a wee bit too much from our soft headed friend here.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 30 2009,08:48

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2009,06:09)
Robert Byers:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

All I can do is present the idea and the evidence and for creationists the boundaries of genesis.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Everything I've seen from you so far has been pure assertion. Do you really have an interest in evidence, and are you really going to present any within our lifetimes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Robert, Wes beat me to it, but we all most certainly want to see the some of that evidence of yours. Fair enough?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 30 2009,10:00

Robert hasn't exploded yet?  Wow, I'm impressed... and saddened.

Anyway, I had big long argument for him, but I took out the extraneous words and it said... "Robert... learn... biology... first."
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 30 2009,11:35

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2009,06:09)
Robert Byers:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

All I can do is present the idea and the evidence and for creationists the boundaries of genesis.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Everything I've seen from you so far has been pure assertion. Do you really have an interest in evidence, and are you really going to present any within our lifetimes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Robert says yes, then I must be prepared to live past 100 years old.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 30 2009,11:52

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2009,10:00)
Robert hasn't exploded yet?  Wow, I'm impressed... and saddened.

Anyway, I had big long argument for him, but I took out the extraneous words and it said... "Robert... learn... biology... first."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he only would learn anything at all. He is unbelievably ignorant and shows no signs of intelligence.
Posted by: RDK on Nov. 30 2009,15:30

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 30 2009,11:52)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2009,10:00)
Robert hasn't exploded yet?  Wow, I'm impressed... and saddened.

Anyway, I had big long argument for him, but I took out the extraneous words and it said... "Robert... learn... biology... first."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he only would learn anything at all. He is unbelievably ignorant and shows no signs of intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can we even consider him to be living?  I'm starting to wonder if our boy Bobby is not a robot.  Or at least one of those garden rocks you see around the magnolia bushes.
Posted by: snorkild on Nov. 30 2009,15:47

Maybe he is human but has a made a bet with a garden rock over who knows less.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 03 2009,02:14

People asking me for evidence. About what? If its my ideas on marsupials well i wrote an essay "Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.
In it i give the biblical and living/fossil evidence for why same shaped creatures are the same and not convergent evolution.
I am confident I'm right and believe classification sysems one day will correct themselves with or without my help.
Posted by: Amadan on Dec. 03 2009,04:56

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 03 2009,02:14)
People asking me for evidence. About what? If its my ideas on marsupials well i wrote an essay "Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Robert, that gives us evidence that you wrote an essay. I suppose that's a start.
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In it i give the biblical and living/fossil evidence for why same shaped creatures are the same and not convergent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The pillars of science tremble! Let's have a look at < your essay >, shall we?

               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science organizes them according to shared body structure attributes that they believe indicate a common origin for each group. It is the inner skeleton or biological workings that they say indicate relationships of mammals. Other then this they have no evidence of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So stratigraphy, environmental science, and biogeography have no bearing on the subject? Care to explain why? Of course, if they are irrelevant, you should be able explain why fossil marsupial are different from present-day ones, and why there aren't herds of wallabies roaming the Gobi desert.
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is all interpretation of what can be observed in living and fossil mammals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bing! Robert makes a (nearly) correct statement! (It's only nearly because you have to consider the environment as well as evidence from life forms other than mammals too.)

About convergent evolution, you say
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem is that this is actually a definition masquerading as an explanation. Giving a phenomenon an evolutionary name does not explain the phenomenon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh good. This must be where Robert is going to show us the "evidence".

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The remarkable similarity of creatures in the fossil record (yet said to be unrelated orders) is better explained by saying that they are designed as the same creatures after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever seen a graviton, Robert? Me neither. So the reason why we don't float off into the sky is "better explained" by pixies pushing us down. Or am I wrong? No doubt you'll explain one way or the other.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There has been no “convergent evolution” on such a major and repeating scale but rather these animals with similar morphology are the same kind from the same pair off the Ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you must be right - after all, you told us that you are. But can you explain why you think that having the "same morphology" mean that animals descend "from the same pair off the Ark"? Could there have been just a Mummy and Daddy marsupial on the Ark who, through a series of comic mishaps and thrilling adventures, arrived on Botany Bay? ("Disney's Pouch Tales, coming sooooon to a ...") Is it more or less likely that there is just a marsupial 'kind' that diversified into grazers, carnivores, etc etc, rather than mouse, dog etc 'kinds? Why do you say so?

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After the migration from the Ark minor or micro-evolution by environmental influences brought relatively minor changes to the geographically separated descendents. These changes would of affected all the creatures in that area in the same way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wonderful place, Oz. Apart from waving your hands around, can you tell us what "environmental influences" made all the wolves there turn placental? Will the same thing happen to rabbits? Or Kylie Minogue?* Please explain why.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Using the same line of reasoning, creationists can boldly say the Marsupial creatures of Australia are simply the same creatures as elsewhere on the earth now or in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's it????

Robert, you promised us evidence!! You just gave us a few assertions!

Where's the comparative anatomy? The DNA sequences? The embyology?

Robert, the ninth commandment is very clear.

Robert, why did you lie to us by saying that your essay provided evidence for your explanation?


               
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 03 2009,02:14)
I am confident I'm right and believe classification sysems one day will correct themselves with or without my help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Without, I'm sure. Because you are a liar and will go to Hell for it. Don't you believe in the Bible, Robert?

*Omigod, it's already started! From "Do the Locomotion":
    Come on baby, jump up, hmmm jump back
    Oh well I think you got the knack



ETA: Edited to complete after truly skilful premature pressing of Submit button. And to correct a few goofs.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Dec. 03 2009,05:35

nything.
Posted by: snorkild on Dec. 03 2009,06:01

In your essay you speculates that the "environment" is responsible for placentals going totally marsupial.
Do you have any suggestion as to what environmental factors has this effect?
Why hasn't humans and dogs become marsupials? Your essay doesn't seem to answer that question.

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 03 2009,02:14)
I am confident I'm right and believe classification sysems one day will correct themselves with or without my help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think you should worry. Classfication systems may well change, but not because of you.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2009,08:05

NOT KYLIE!??!?!?!  [sniffle]

Anyway, Robert, you do realize that a marsupial cat is not a cat and a marsupial wolf is not a wolf, right?

These are "labels" that humans apply to things.

Why not start here: < http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html#s091 >

and explain why the "inner skeleton" is so very different between Tasmanian (marsupial) wolfs and North American (placental) wolfs...
Posted by: Amadan on Dec. 03 2009,09:43

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2009,08:05)
NOT KYLIE!??!?!?!  [sniffle]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You should be so lucky.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... explain why the "inner skeleton" is so very different between Tasmanian (marsupial) wolfs and North American (placental) wolfs...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't be ridiculous. They even spell it the same way as placental wolves!

Posted by: JLT on Dec. 03 2009,10:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The small differences in bone structures or reproduction, as in the case of the marsupials, that are used to separate same-shaped animals are not convincing or even prompting evidence of different original ancestors. Instead these changes are only an adaptation to local areas by the same creatures from the same parents from the Ark. Different areas produced different results and this affected all the animals in that area. The animals in that area are not related by their adaptation but only had similar adaptation.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Robert,
it's a shame that you don't realize just how mind-blowingly wrong you are. No one with the slightest clue about biology would ever think that a different reproductive system is a minor adaptation.
I bet you don't even know HOW different the reproductive system is. E. g. the minor difference of female marsupials having two vaginae instead of one. I wonder, which environmental factor could lead to that kind of adaptation in all Australian animals (but not humans).  
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Anatomy of Reproduction >

The reproductive anatomy of marsupials also distinguishes them from Eutherian mammals. The female reproductive system is very unusual in that it is almost entirely doubled. Females have a posterial urogenital sinus which recieves two lateral vaginae and the urethra. One of a pair of uteri and then a cervix leads from the top of each vagina. Fertilisation occurs via either of the vaginae. At the time of birth the two vaginae fuse to form a 'median vagina' or 'pseudo birth canal'. In some species, e.g. the brushtail possum, the septum which was breached during birth reforms; in others, e.g. the grey kangaroo, this median canal remains open permanently.
The reproductive system of the male is much more similar to Eutherian mammals than that of the female. The main differences in the male are external rather than internal and comprise a bifurcate penis which is posterior to the scrotum. When flaccid, the penis is held in an S-shaped curve withdrawn into the body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See, there are a lot of different dog breeds with different shapes. They're all dogs of course, but they can have thick fur, with or without undercoat, thin fur, curly hair, short hair, long hair, fur in almost all colours, long or short legs, they can be very muscular or very lean, with a massive head or a slim long one. All these dog breads, despite their different shapes, have identical skulls, identical numbers of teeth, an identical reproductive system and so on.
With only a few changes in a few genes the shape (or fur) can change a lot (e.g it is known that only a minor difference in one gene is responsible for short legs in some breeds; the same is true for curly hair), but to alter e. g. the position of the tear duct (which is positioned differently in placental mammals and marsupials) you need to alter the whole developmental "programme" of the tear duct. And that is only one of the "small differences in bone structure" you were talking about.

< Here you can find some slides > where the skull of a Tasmanian wolf is compared first to dog and wolf skulls and then to the skulls of two other marsupials.
Look at it and then tell me that Tasmanian wolf and wolf are more similar then Tasmanian wolf and opossum:


Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 03 2009,10:41

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 03 2009,10:31)
< Here you can find some slides > where the skull of a Tasmanian wolf is compared first to dog and wolf skulls and then to the skulls of two other marsupials.
Look at it and then tell me that Tasmanian wolf and wolf are more similar then Tasmanian wolf and opossum:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can just hear Robert muttering that "Darn it"..."Facts and pictures have a well-known liberal bias".
Posted by: Texas Teach on Dec. 03 2009,18:02

Won't someone take pity on Robert and show how similar placentals and marsupials are using coloring book pictures?
Posted by: Wolfhound on Dec. 04 2009,08:44

SYRSLY, guys, Bobbie-B is completely uneducable.  We tried and tried and tried and tried over at IIDB (or was it Rants N Raves, I dunno) and he proved that his skull has Jesus Shields set at maximum power.  Ain't nothing gonna' penetrate something that dense.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 08 2009,09:19

It just occured to me, if Byers is right, then Australia should be overrun by marsupial plants.  :)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 08 2009,12:11

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2009,10:19)
It just occured to me, if Byers is right, then Australia should be overrun by marsupial plants.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayum
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 08 2009,20:40

Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 03 2009,04:56)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 03 2009,02:14)
People asking me for evidence. About what? If its my ideas on marsupials well i wrote an essay "Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Robert, that gives us evidence that you wrote an essay. I suppose that's a start.
                 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In it i give the biblical and living/fossil evidence for why same shaped creatures are the same and not convergent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The pillars of science tremble! Let's have a look at < your essay >, shall we?

               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science organizes them according to shared body structure attributes that they believe indicate a common origin for each group. It is the inner skeleton or biological workings that they say indicate relationships of mammals. Other then this they have no evidence of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So stratigraphy, environmental science, and biogeography have no bearing on the subject? Care to explain why? Of course, if they are irrelevant, you should be able explain why fossil marsupial are different from present-day ones, and why there aren't herds of wallabies roaming the Gobi desert.
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is all interpretation of what can be observed in living and fossil mammals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bing! Robert makes a (nearly) correct statement! (It's only nearly because you have to consider the environment as well as evidence from life forms other than mammals too.)

About convergent evolution, you say
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem is that this is actually a definition masquerading as an explanation. Giving a phenomenon an evolutionary name does not explain the phenomenon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh good. This must be where Robert is going to show us the "evidence".

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The remarkable similarity of creatures in the fossil record (yet said to be unrelated orders) is better explained by saying that they are designed as the same creatures after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever seen a graviton, Robert? Me neither. So the reason why we don't float off into the sky is "better explained" by pixies pushing us down. Or am I wrong? No doubt you'll explain one way or the other.

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There has been no “convergent evolution” on such a major and repeating scale but rather these animals with similar morphology are the same kind from the same pair off the Ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you must be right - after all, you told us that you are. But can you explain why you think that having the "same morphology" mean that animals descend "from the same pair off the Ark"? Could there have been just a Mummy and Daddy marsupial on the Ark who, through a series of comic mishaps and thrilling adventures, arrived on Botany Bay? ("Disney's Pouch Tales, coming sooooon to a ...") Is it more or less likely that there is just a marsupial 'kind' that diversified into grazers, carnivores, etc etc, rather than mouse, dog etc 'kinds? Why do you say so?

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After the migration from the Ark minor or micro-evolution by environmental influences brought relatively minor changes to the geographically separated descendents. These changes would of affected all the creatures in that area in the same way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wonderful place, Oz. Apart from waving your hands around, can you tell us what "environmental influences" made all the wolves there turn placental? Will the same thing happen to rabbits? Or Kylie Minogue?* Please explain why.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Using the same line of reasoning, creationists can boldly say the Marsupial creatures of Australia are simply the same creatures as elsewhere on the earth now or in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's it????

Robert, you promised us evidence!! You just gave us a few assertions!

Where's the comparative anatomy? The DNA sequences? The embyology?

Robert, the ninth commandment is very clear.

Robert, why did you lie to us by saying that your essay provided evidence for your explanation?


                 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 03 2009,02:14)
I am confident I'm right and believe classification sysems one day will correct themselves with or without my help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Without, I'm sure. Because you are a liar and will go to Hell for it. Don't you believe in the Bible, Robert?

*Omigod, it's already started! From "Do the Locomotion":
    Come on baby, jump up, hmmm jump back
    Oh well I think you got the knack



ETA: Edited to complete after truly skilful premature pressing of Submit button. And to correct a few goofs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for reading it.
The evidence is what I present. first it is directed to a YEC audience but i mean everyone too.
I simply look at the anomaly of marsupial distribution and note a sameness of form of creatures said to be unrelated. I present that its unlikely the conclusion of convergent evolution and how the many points of sameness trump the few differences. Then this is backed up by looking at this claim everywhere in the fossil record and finding the same strange flaw.
The facts are the same but a different interpretation.
The evidence is the creatures bodies.
Evolution does no different.
Neither is doing science but simple detective work.
In this as elsewhere Biblical creationists are the Sherlock Holmes to evolutionists Scotland yard inspectors.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 08 2009,20:45

Quote (snorkild @ Dec. 03 2009,06:01)
In your essay you speculates that the "environment" is responsible for placentals going totally marsupial.
Do you have any suggestion as to what environmental factors has this effect?
Why hasn't humans and dogs become marsupials? Your essay doesn't seem to answer that question.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 03 2009,02:14)
I am confident I'm right and believe classification sysems one day will correct themselves with or without my help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think you should worry. Classfication systems may well change, but not because of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mechanism is not my agenda in my essay but only a explanation for data.
I see innate triggers in all post flood life in order to fulfill Gods command to quickly refill the earth. A new command being needed because normal reproductive abilities were not good enough.
marsupials simply , on both continents, had the farthest to go and so needed a more assembly line of reproduction.
The evidence is compelling and so a presumption is reasonable of innate triggers in bodies.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 08 2009,21:10

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 03 2009,10:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The small differences in bone structures or reproduction, as in the case of the marsupials, that are used to separate same-shaped animals are not convincing or even prompting evidence of different original ancestors. Instead these changes are only an adaptation to local areas by the same creatures from the same parents from the Ark. Different areas produced different results and this affected all the animals in that area. The animals in that area are not related by their adaptation but only had similar adaptation.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Robert,
it's a shame that you don't realize just how mind-blowingly wrong you are. No one with the slightest clue about biology would ever think that a different reproductive system is a minor adaptation.
I bet you don't even know HOW different the reproductive system is. E. g. the minor difference of female marsupials having two vaginae instead of one. I wonder, which environmental factor could lead to that kind of adaptation in all Australian animals (but not humans).  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Anatomy of Reproduction >

The reproductive anatomy of marsupials also distinguishes them from Eutherian mammals. The female reproductive system is very unusual in that it is almost entirely doubled. Females have a posterial urogenital sinus which recieves two lateral vaginae and the urethra. One of a pair of uteri and then a cervix leads from the top of each vagina. Fertilisation occurs via either of the vaginae. At the time of birth the two vaginae fuse to form a 'median vagina' or 'pseudo birth canal'. In some species, e.g. the brushtail possum, the septum which was breached during birth reforms; in others, e.g. the grey kangaroo, this median canal remains open permanently.
The reproductive system of the male is much more similar to Eutherian mammals than that of the female. The main differences in the male are external rather than internal and comprise a bifurcate penis which is posterior to the scrotum. When flaccid, the penis is held in an S-shaped curve withdrawn into the body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See, there are a lot of different dog breeds with different shapes. They're all dogs of course, but they can have thick fur, with or without undercoat, thin fur, curly hair, short hair, long hair, fur in almost all colours, long or short legs, they can be very muscular or very lean, with a massive head or a slim long one. All these dog breads, despite their different shapes, have identical skulls, identical numbers of teeth, an identical reproductive system and so on.
With only a few changes in a few genes the shape (or fur) can change a lot (e.g it is known that only a minor difference in one gene is responsible for short legs in some breeds; the same is true for curly hair), but to alter e. g. the position of the tear duct (which is positioned differently in placental mammals and marsupials) you need to alter the whole developmental "programme" of the tear duct. And that is only one of the "small differences in bone structure" you were talking about.

< Here you can find some slides > where the skull of a Tasmanian wolf is compared first to dog and wolf skulls and then to the skulls of two other marsupials.
Look at it and then tell me that Tasmanian wolf and wolf are more similar then Tasmanian wolf and opossum:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would insist that the differences are few and the sameness of marsupial wolves etc are fantastic. In fact so much that they have to invoke a concept of special convergent evolution.

There are still and moving pictures of the Marsupial wolf and it loks spot on with our wolves. The skull would have some like attributes because of like needs in the beginning. Little details due to the area. If niche can make wolf looking possums then why not just a skull detail is made to look the same for a general niche stress?
Evolution sees a big ability here for sameness but denies a a ability for a small detail.

In fact snakes can deliver their young wiggling or by eggs. Yet they are not defined as separate kinds by reproduction inclinations.

It comes down to whether one lumps and so classifies  creatives by a few pints of the body or by great numbers of points of the body.
I say a dog is a dog if it looks like a dog despite a pouch or small skull then other dogs.
It also fits the boundaries of post flood biogeography.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 08 2009,22:22

I tried to write this three times before I just gave up.

Robert, you are wrong.  Incorrect, confused, brain-addled, and possibly mentally unbalanced.

Please, just stop.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Dec. 08 2009,23:01

Well Robert, waving your hands and saying that the differences are minor when the science shows detailed analysis and show that the differences are not minor means ...

You Lose...

Science is not a debate. Science is data and evidence, you have shown neither except for assertions, so

You Lose...

Until you get out of your armchair and do some work you are a  Loser.

No wonder atheism is growing. People like you say that it is either creationism or atheism. When creationism fails to answer the data people take you at your word.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 09 2009,00:35

michael you can't fault Bubba for not trying.  

he is so postmodern that he can't even pretend that trying matters



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The facts are the same but a different interpretation.
The evidence is the creatures bodies.
Evolution does no different.
Neither is doing science but simple detective work.
In this as elsewhere Biblical creationists are the Sherlock Holmes to evolutionists Scotland yard inspectors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i mean for fucks sake that is the craziest shit anyone ever wrote.  but to him it's merely shruggable.  this moonbat has defined "science" out of fucking existence and that makes him Sherlock motherscratching Holmes.

unreal.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say a dog is a dog if it looks like a dog despite a pouch or small skull then other dogs.
It also fits the boundaries of post flood biogeography.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i mean good god man anyone who can just say shit like that with an ostensibly straight face is fucking capable of all sorts of delusional fuckwittery.  

just poke the fucker and watch it run around beshitting itself and walking off of ledges
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 09 2009,00:52

HA HA < THIS > IS YOU
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 09 2009,03:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would insist that the differences are few and the sameness of marsupial wolves etc are fantastic. In fact so much that they have to invoke a concept of special convergent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are making a colossal error by just looking at overall external appearance. Those animals are so very different in lots of details internally and genetically that nobody in his right mind consider them the same animal. They are absolutely incapable of interbreeding.

Is it enough for you if two cars to have similar exterior, then they are the same model? They have for wheels and you have to look closely to see that one is a Chevrolet the other is a Ford, doesn't matter to you?

Doesn't matter if one have a small four cylinder diesel engine, manual gearing et cetera, and the other a six-cylinder gasoline engine, automatic gearing and all sorts of bells and whistles?

ETA typo fix.
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 09 2009,11:30

How do scientists know Thylacosmilus was marsupial, Robert?

(Hint: "It's Australian" won't help you here).
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 09 2009,13:21

What about the South American marsupials, Byers? How do you explain the oldest marsupial fossils are from South America, and the next oldest are not from Australia, but Antarctica?  And they're not piled up in a single generation either.

You do know everyone's laughing at you, right?
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 09 2009,20:10

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 09 2009,13:21)
What about the South American marsupials, Byers? How do you explain the oldest marsupial fossils are from South America, and the next oldest are not from Australia, but Antarctica?  And they're not piled up in a single generation either.

You do know everyone's laughing at you, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They laughed at Galileo (sp?, ah who cares! need more CAPS!)  They laughed at EINSTEIN!!!!!  They laughed at GROUCHO MARX - oh, wait, his name is Marx so he must be a commie!  They laughed at....what was my point?  Why are my pants wet?  Where's my medication?  Who are you people?

Sorry - must have channeled a creationist there for a moment.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 10 2009,00:15

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 09 2009,03:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would insist that the differences are few and the sameness of marsupial wolves etc are fantastic. In fact so much that they have to invoke a concept of special convergent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are making a colossal error by just looking at overall external appearance. Those animals are so very different in lots of details internally and genetically that nobody in his right mind consider them the same animal. They are absolutely incapable of interbreeding.

Is it enough for you if two cars to have similar exterior, then they are the same model? They have for wheels and you have to look closely to see that one is a Chevrolet the other is a Ford, doesn't matter to you?

Doesn't matter if one have a small four cylinder diesel engine, manual gearing et cetera, and the other a six-cylinder gasoline engine, automatic gearing and all sorts of bells and whistles?

ETA typo fix.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
The sameness is so important that even evolution must come up with a explanation. They call it convergent evolution. it means unrelated creatures came to look the same because they lived in the same kind of niches.

The external is what it is because of thousands of points of twists and turns of the anatomy. To have such sameness to the eye  requires fantastic biological realities of physical attributes.
Evolution itself must insist selection was very important on bodies from point a to point b to bring such convergence.

The marsupial body is only different in reproductive details and a few things in the skull.
Otherwise marsupial cats, dogs, bears, mice, tapirs etc are so close to their placental namesakes that it stretches credibility to not see they are the same kinds.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 10 2009,00:18

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 09 2009,11:30)
How do scientists know Thylacosmilus was marsupial, Robert?

(Hint: "It's Australian" won't help you here).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They know from the skeleton remains in regards to a few details.
Its been a error to classify creatures by a few points when they surely should be classified by the hundreds or thousands of points that force conclusions of great convergent evolution mechanisms to dismiss their obvious identity.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 10 2009,00:26

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 09 2009,13:21)
What about the South American marsupials, Byers? How do you explain the oldest marsupial fossils are from South America, and the next oldest are not from Australia, but Antarctica?  And they're not piled up in a single generation either.

You do know everyone's laughing at you, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i discuss South American marsupials. They likewise are just those who went farthest  from the ark. They may of changed upon entering South america or before when moving quickly through North america.
They were not related to Australian ones because of a united southern continent but rather just from migration from up north or change upon entering the area down south.
By the way there were was many creatures, like horses, elephants in soutn america said to be unrelated to ours but looking just the same save for a few details. of coarse evolution defined the creatures by these few details and not by the great numbers of details that invoked the names of horses and elephants.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 10 2009,01:30

robert why aren't there marsupial humans on anarctica and australia?

marsupial plants?

WHY ARE THERE NO MARSUPIAL BIRDS ON NEW ZEALAND!!!!!!!!1!!
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 10 2009,02:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Otherwise marsupial cats, dogs, bears, mice, tapirs etc are so close to their placental namesakes that it stretches credibility to not see they are the same kinds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

what do you mean by 'kind'? Yes, they look similar, but in what way do that make them 'same'? Look-alikeness doesn't equate to sameness!

Look, car manufacture originated late 19th/early 20th century and all cars made today are the product of the evolutionary process of car making since then. It has diversified into many different lines of production all over the world.

But you know what: Whether rolling off assembly lines in Korea, Europe or USA, they look very similar because they are made for the same purpose: To carry people to and from workplace or supermarket.  

In the same way, because wolf and thylacine are/were adapted to a similar lifestyle they would have to share many features as required by that lifestyle. While at the same time retaining those fundamental differences that make them different species. They arrived there by different routes! Like all life shares a common origins, we have arrived here by different routes!

What makes you think you are smarter than millions of scientists? Who do you think you are, to tell the world anything about things you know nothing about?
Posted by: Reed on Dec. 10 2009,05:16

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 09 2009,22:15)

The marsupial body is only different in reproductive details and a few things in the skull.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. Just the reproductive system and the skull eh ? So no one could tell the difference between a thylacine and a wolf from, say, just the a couple of bones ? Or a single internal organ ? Or heck, a fragment of a hair ?

Do you have any idea what a monumental level of ignorance you've demonstrated in that simple statement ? And to what end ? Do you really think that parading your ignorance is going to further your cause ? Really ? "Oh some guy on the internet who obviously doesn't have a high school level understanding of biology says they look the same, better throw out the last two hundred years of hard won science!"

(yes, I know talking to Robert is pointless, but sometimes, the stupid is just so mind blowing I can't resist)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 10 2009,06:34

The marsupial bodycreationist is only different in reproductive details and a few things in the skull.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 10 2009,08:04

Robert you do realize that people named the marsupial wolf and the marsupial cat right?  They aren't really wolves and cats, right?  

When I go to her concert, I want to see Kylie's pouch.
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 10 2009,10:18

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2009,08:04)
Robert you do realize that people named the marsupial wolf and the marsupial cat right?  They aren't really wolves and cats, right?  

When I go to her concert, I want to see Kylie's pouch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Second!  Take pictures! I'll pay!

(oh - pouch....hmm....ok, it's still on!)  :p
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 11 2009,02:40

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 10 2009,02:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Otherwise marsupial cats, dogs, bears, mice, tapirs etc are so close to their placental namesakes that it stretches credibility to not see they are the same kinds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

what do you mean by 'kind'? Yes, they look similar, but in what way do that make them 'same'? Look-alikeness doesn't equate to sameness!

Look, car manufacture originated late 19th/early 20th century and all cars made today are the product of the evolutionary process of car making since then. It has diversified into many different lines of production all over the world.

But you know what: Whether rolling off assembly lines in Korea, Europe or USA, they look very similar because they are made for the same purpose: To carry people to and from workplace or supermarket.  

In the same way, because wolf and thylacine are/were adapted to a similar lifestyle they would have to share many features as required by that lifestyle. While at the same time retaining those fundamental differences that make them different species. They arrived there by different routes! Like all life shares a common origins, we have arrived here by different routes!

What makes you think you are smarter than millions of scientists? Who do you think you are, to tell the world anything about things you know nothing about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Few people deal with these areas and even if millions well they are wrong.
Small circles in reality.

I understand your repeating the convergent evolution line but I repeat my line. Same shaped animals are the same animals. its been a error to focus on minor attributes and not the major ones.
A marsupial wolf looks 95% like our wolves and even would howl at night.
I'm sure the marsupial lion would of roared and the marsupial bear grab picnic baskets.
It comes down to classifying by these points or those of a body.
My case is not just with marsupials but that this has been a common error made about many orders of creatures.
For example the litoptern order has a horse type that is so alike that to say its not a horse is incredible.
It has a horse head and legs but because of a few points that it shares with other creatures in the area its put in a order of creatures different from the ones our horses are in.
Yes i'm confident i'm moving biology closer to accuracy in origins.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 11 2009,02:44

Quote (Reed @ Dec. 10 2009,05:16)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 09 2009,22:15)

The marsupial body is only different in reproductive details and a few things in the skull.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. Just the reproductive system and the skull eh ? So no one could tell the difference between a thylacine and a wolf from, say, just the a couple of bones ? Or a single internal organ ? Or heck, a fragment of a hair ?

Do you have any idea what a monumental level of ignorance you've demonstrated in that simple statement ? And to what end ? Do you really think that parading your ignorance is going to further your cause ? Really ? "Oh some guy on the internet who obviously doesn't have a high school level understanding of biology says they look the same, better throw out the last two hundred years of hard won science!"

(yes, I know talking to Robert is pointless, but sometimes, the stupid is just so mind blowing I can't resist)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well its on the merits of the case and not your judgement of my abilities.
I welcome the attention. Ithink it would be persuasive to most or many of the public creationist or not.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 11 2009,02:59

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 11 2009,02:40)
Yes i'm confident i'm moving biology closer to accuracy in origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Presumably you are in fact publishing this work you are doing?

I mean, you can't possibly believe that you are moving biology in any particular direction by a few posts on this board?

Can you?

So, given that you must be publishing your "work", where are you publishing it and who is reviewing it for accuracy before you are publishing?

And what are you calling this body of work?

"Things that look alike are really the same things?"

What predictions does your theory make that can be tested?

etc etc.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 11 2009,05:44

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 11 2009,02:40)
I'm sure the marsupial lion would of roared and the marsupial bear grab picnic baskets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, if I wasn't already satisfied with my sig, I would definitely grab that one...
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 11 2009,08:16

Robert, you have failed all tests so far. And you have ignored my very relevant use of cars as an analogy. That means you are unable to dispute the obvious argument: Cars looking like does not mean they are the same!

We can now say with certainty that we could replace your brain with a true plastic replica - it would look like the original, you would still have the same IQ and would still be the same "somebody who acts in a foolish, self defeating, uneducated or counterproductive way. clueless." (Wikipedia)
Posted by: huwp on Dec. 11 2009,08:48

<disengaging lurk mode>

How very nice to see Kylie get a mention here.

Anyway, I'm sure you all know this, but you're never ever, ever, ever going to convince Robert that he might possibly be mistaken because he knows the Truth.  He knows it's the true Truth because he says so.

Still, Better the Devil You Know, especially On a Night Like This, even if it is a bit Slow.

:D

I'm going to re-lurk now... 3-2-1...

<engaging lurk mode>
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 11 2009,14:44

Putting aside marsupials for the moment,

Are cetacea (dolphins, whales, etc.) mammals, or are they modified fish otherwise unrelated to mammals?

Of course, using Byer's "logic" they're fish, since their outward shape more resembled fish than mammal. Using absolutely anybody else's logic, they are mammals.

Henry
Posted by: Reed on Dec. 11 2009,15:52

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 11 2009,00:44)
 
Well its on the merits of the case and not your judgement of my abilities.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your "case" consists entirely of saying "I think they look the same and I think this is important". This is a level of argument that would warrant an F in a high school science assignment, never mind overturning the last 200+ years of actual science.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 11 2009,17:25

Robert, if you had no previous knowledge about dogs and were shown a St. Bernhard and a Chihuahua, you would not say they were "the same", would you? Be honest now, how would you determine they are "the same"? Oh, so you say they are not the same, huh?

How many cubs would you expect a thylacine mother to  have with a wolf as father?
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 11 2009,19:00

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 10 2009,00:15)
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 09 2009,03:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would insist that the differences are few and the sameness of marsupial wolves etc are fantastic. In fact so much that they have to invoke a concept of special convergent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are making a colossal error by just looking at overall external appearance. Those animals are so very different in lots of details internally and genetically that nobody in his right mind consider them the same animal. They are absolutely incapable of interbreeding.

Is it enough for you if two cars to have similar exterior, then they are the same model? They have for wheels and you have to look closely to see that one is a Chevrolet the other is a Ford, doesn't matter to you?

Doesn't matter if one have a small four cylinder diesel engine, manual gearing et cetera, and the other a six-cylinder gasoline engine, automatic gearing and all sorts of bells and whistles?

ETA typo fix.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
The sameness is so important that even evolution must come up with a explanation. They call it convergent evolution. it means unrelated creatures came to look the same because they lived in the same kind of niches.

The external is what it is because of thousands of points of twists and turns of the anatomy. To have such sameness to the eye  requires fantastic biological realities of physical attributes.
Evolution itself must insist selection was very important on bodies from point a to point b to bring such convergence.

The marsupial body is only different in reproductive details and a few things in the skull.
Otherwise marsupial cats, dogs, bears, mice, tapirs etc are so close to their placental namesakes that it stretches credibility to not see they are the same kinds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is so, well, drug-trippy, that I had to go back to it (while skimming to find the newest responses).

"The external is what it is because of thousands of points of twists and turns of the anatomy. To have such sameness to the eye  requires fantastic biological realities of physical attributes.
Evolution itself must insist selection was very important on bodies from point a to point b to bring such convergence."

The external is the way it is because of genes and the effects of the environment (including other creatures) on said genes.  Anatomy is the end result (more or less).  To have such sameness (which really isn't there in marsupial wof/wolf comparisons) merely indicates that selective pressures were similar.  And why not?  A forest is a forest, just the finer details are different - and while they make all the difference for the final product, the large details can play a major role for the gross characteristics.

Eyes, however, come in many different forms, but follow basic the same basic principles due to physics and the limits of what our biology is capable of.  In energy-limited environments (that means our bodies too) there is a limit on what can develop and what can survive.  Mutations too severe probably account for some fraction of the millions (or billions, rather) or spontaneous abortions that happen every year.

Do a little research on the variety of eyes - it's fascinating.
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 11 2009,19:03

Quote (Reed @ Dec. 11 2009,15:52)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 11 2009,00:44)
 
Well its on the merits of the case and not your judgement of my abilities.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your "case" consists entirely of saying "I think they look the same and I think this is important". This is a level of argument that would warrant an F in a high school science assignment, never mind overturning the last 200+ years of actual science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, that's not completely fair.  His case also has "they are named similarly, so they are related."  Got to give him credit where credit is due.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 11 2009,20:33

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 11 2009,19:03)
Now, that's not completely fair.  His case also has "they are named similarly, so they are related."  Got to give him credit where credit is due.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So hedge apples, crab apples, May apples and horse apples are all the same "kind" as well.

Thanks, that helps. I'll have another beer now and see if it makes sense after that.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 11 2009,20:47

Horse apples: Maclura pomifera, or road apples?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Dec. 11 2009,21:30

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 11 2009,19:03)
Quote (Reed @ Dec. 11 2009,15:52)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 11 2009,00:44)
 
Well its on the merits of the case and not your judgement of my abilities.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your "case" consists entirely of saying "I think they look the same and I think this is important". This is a level of argument that would warrant an F in a high school science assignment, never mind overturning the last 200+ years of actual science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, that's not completely fair.  His case also has "they are named similarly, so they are related."  Got to give him credit where credit is due.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So would Robert say that horse flies belong in horse "kind" or fly "kind"?  Are sea cucumbers part of cucumber "kind"?  Inquiring minds want to know...
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 11 2009,23:07

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 11 2009,21:30)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 11 2009,19:03)
   
Quote (Reed @ Dec. 11 2009,15:52)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 11 2009,00:44)
 
Well its on the merits of the case and not your judgement of my abilities.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your "case" consists entirely of saying "I think they look the same and I think this is important". This is a level of argument that would warrant an F in a high school science assignment, never mind overturning the last 200+ years of actual science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, that's not completely fair.  His case also has "they are named similarly, so they are related."  Got to give him credit where credit is due.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So would Robert say that horse flies belong in horse "kind" or fly "kind"?  Are sea cucumbers part of cucumber "kind"?  Inquiring minds want to know...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about the Aardwolf (< wiki >)?  Are they related to the two previously mentioned?  Since they are native to Eastern and Southern Africa, are they the original?  Did they speciate into Wolves and Thylacines?  Or did they branch off from the "dog" kind (or vice versa)?

Damn, no wonder they go to clown christian college Liberty University Diploma Mill - they have a lot to learn dogmatically memorize.

Yeah!  I learned how to strike through text!  I can haz cookie? Or maybe...bukkitz?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 12 2009,14:42

Quote (huwp @ Dec. 11 2009,08:48)
<disengaging lurk mode>

How very nice to see Kylie get a mention here.

Anyway, I'm sure you all know this, but you're never ever, ever, ever going to convince Robert that he might possibly be mistaken because he knows the Truth.  He knows it's the true Truth because he says so.

Still, Better the Devil You Know, especially On a Night Like This, even if it is a bit Slow.

:D

I'm going to re-lurk now... 3-2-1...

<engaging lurk mode>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess It's No Secret that Robert is nuts.  His argument is very Fragile.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2009,19:09

reindeer moss?

water bears?

moose knuckles?

i'd like to see Bubba answer oldman's questions.  betcha he don't!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 13 2009,08:12

< Ray Comfort and plagiarism >
Posted by: George on Dec. 13 2009,08:54

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 13 2009,08:12)
< Ray Comfort and plagiarism >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope Stan whoops his ass.  No better man and few bigger boots.
Posted by: George on Dec. 13 2009,09:28

Robert, while I'm here, I'll add that your arguments make baraminologists look like freaking geniuses.  At least they try to crunch a few numbers to justify their definitions of a "kind".  Have a look at Creation Science Quarterly (can't be arsed to provide you with the link).  There's a paper there by Todd Woods who identifies the family Canidae as a "kind" with no inclusion of Tasmanian wolves or any other marsupial.  This was based on analysis of a number of morphological characters, not just the "'cause it looks like one" and "it's got 'wolf' in the name" criteria.

Now don't get me wrong, baraminology and created "kinds" are just so much rubbish.  But your brand of rubbish makes theirs smell oh-so-sweet.  If you want to do anything other than display your own foolishness, such as having a coherent discussion, you'll need to step up the level of your argumentation and the evidence you provide.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 13 2009,12:01

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 13 2009,06:12)
< Ray Comfort and plagiarism >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wondered how Comfort could have written the openning pages, and then screwed up everything else.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 15 2009,02:36

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 10 2009,01:30)
robert why aren't there marsupial humans on anarctica and australia?

marsupial plants?

WHY ARE THERE NO MARSUPIAL BIRDS ON NEW ZEALAND!!!!!!!!1!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is not a worthy question.
Marsupialism is a reaction to a need back in the day.
its not like a virus. Insects etc don't need help reproducing. they are very quick.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 15 2009,02:41

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 11 2009,14:44)
Putting aside marsupials for the moment,

Are cetacea (dolphins, whales, etc.) mammals, or are they modified fish otherwise unrelated to mammals?

Of course, using Byer's "logic" they're fish, since their outward shape more resembled fish than mammal. Using absolutely anybody else's logic, they are mammals.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This makes my case. I would say upon inspection that the fish form is just a adaptation to a particular need in the area. A water world.
In like manner marsupialism is a adaption of all creatures in the area for some need.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 15 2009,02:47

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 11 2009,17:25)
Robert, if you had no previous knowledge about dogs and were shown a St. Bernhard and a Chihuahua, you would not say they were "the same", would you? Be honest now, how would you determine they are "the same"? Oh, so you say they are not the same, huh?

How many cubs would you expect a thylacine mother to  have with a wolf as father?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its not just eyeballs telling the tale. Its a examination of a marsupial wolf and our wolves. Indeed it would be discovered these types of dogs you mentioned are the same kind. Likewise the marsupial dog fits easily within these ranges. One just needs to add the option that historical stresses in nature brought a few different reactions. Yet its not right to define marsupials by the minor differences. It was a premature move in the 1800's and perhaps if the full fossil record of marsupial cats, bears, tapirs etc had been known this error would not of occured.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 15 2009,02:52

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,02:47)
 
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 11 2009,17:25)
Robert, if you had no previous knowledge about dogs and were shown a St. Bernhard and a Chihuahua, you would not say they were "the same", would you? Be honest now, how would you determine they are "the same"? Oh, so you say they are not the same, huh?

How many cubs would you expect a thylacine mother to  have with a wolf as father?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its not just eyeballs telling the tale. Its a examination of a marsupial wolf and our wolves. Indeed it would be discovered these types of dogs you mentioned are the same kind. Likewise the marsupial dog fits easily within these ranges. One just needs to add the option that historical stresses in nature brought a few different reactions. Yet its not right to define marsupials by the minor differences. It was a premature move in the 1800's and perhaps if the full fossil record of marsupial cats, bears, tapirs etc had been known this error would not of occured.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But now that the error has occurred where will you be publishing your work in an attempt to correct that error?

As it's obvious that you wont make any changes in the field of biology just by posting here and at PT I assume you will in fact be publishing your work?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Indeed it would be discovered these types of dogs you mentioned are the same kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would it? Then you have discovered it. Obviously to get taken seriously you need to publish.

Where will you be publishing your paper on this remarkable discovery and when? What will it be called?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 15 2009,02:56

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 11 2009,19:00)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 10 2009,00:15)
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 09 2009,03:01)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would insist that the differences are few and the sameness of marsupial wolves etc are fantastic. In fact so much that they have to invoke a concept of special convergent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are making a colossal error by just looking at overall external appearance. Those animals are so very different in lots of details internally and genetically that nobody in his right mind consider them the same animal. They are absolutely incapable of interbreeding.

Is it enough for you if two cars to have similar exterior, then they are the same model? They have for wheels and you have to look closely to see that one is a Chevrolet the other is a Ford, doesn't matter to you?

Doesn't matter if one have a small four cylinder diesel engine, manual gearing et cetera, and the other a six-cylinder gasoline engine, automatic gearing and all sorts of bells and whistles?

ETA typo fix.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
The sameness is so important that even evolution must come up with a explanation. They call it convergent evolution. it means unrelated creatures came to look the same because they lived in the same kind of niches.

The external is what it is because of thousands of points of twists and turns of the anatomy. To have such sameness to the eye  requires fantastic biological realities of physical attributes.
Evolution itself must insist selection was very important on bodies from point a to point b to bring such convergence.

The marsupial body is only different in reproductive details and a few things in the skull.
Otherwise marsupial cats, dogs, bears, mice, tapirs etc are so close to their placental namesakes that it stretches credibility to not see they are the same kinds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is so, well, drug-trippy, that I had to go back to it (while skimming to find the newest responses).

"The external is what it is because of thousands of points of twists and turns of the anatomy. To have such sameness to the eye  requires fantastic biological realities of physical attributes.
Evolution itself must insist selection was very important on bodies from point a to point b to bring such convergence."

The external is the way it is because of genes and the effects of the environment (including other creatures) on said genes.  Anatomy is the end result (more or less).  To have such sameness (which really isn't there in marsupial wof/wolf comparisons) merely indicates that selective pressures were similar.  And why not?  A forest is a forest, just the finer details are different - and while they make all the difference for the final product, the large details can play a major role for the gross characteristics.

Eyes, however, come in many different forms, but follow basic the same basic principles due to physics and the limits of what our biology is capable of.  In energy-limited environments (that means our bodies too) there is a limit on what can develop and what can survive.  Mutations too severe probably account for some fraction of the millions (or billions, rather) or spontaneous abortions that happen every year.

Do a little research on the variety of eyes - it's fascinating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I'm saying selection did not act upon unrelated 'rodent like creatures" and in bring forth same looking but unrelated creatures.
I'm saying same is same and other explanations for the minor differences should of been invoked first.
I was not talking about the eye but only meant that to ones view a marsupial wolf looking like our wolves requires thousands of twists and turns of the physical makeup and is not superficial. its profound. Even evolution would have to say this as they have selection over time bringing forth such convergent bodies.

I welcome research into different kinds of eyes as I historically had eye crises issues.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 15 2009,03:05

Quote (George @ Dec. 13 2009,09:28)
Robert, while I'm here, I'll add that your arguments make baraminologists look like freaking geniuses.  At least they try to crunch a few numbers to justify their definitions of a "kind".  Have a look at Creation Science Quarterly (can't be arsed to provide you with the link).  There's a paper there by Todd Woods who identifies the family Canidae as a "kind" with no inclusion of Tasmanian wolves or any other marsupial.  This was based on analysis of a number of morphological characters, not just the "'cause it looks like one" and "it's got 'wolf' in the name" criteria.

Now don't get me wrong, baraminology and created "kinds" are just so much rubbish.  But your brand of rubbish makes theirs smell oh-so-sweet.  If you want to do anything other than display your own foolishness, such as having a coherent discussion, you'll need to step up the level of your argumentation and the evidence you provide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These creationists would be wrong. not right about everything although farther along then 'others".
I wrote a essay and made my case there.
Remember its not about words but about rejecting the conclusion of evolutionists that convergent evolution explains the fantastic and prolific instances of creatures in different orders looking the same but said to be unrelated. Marsupials are just another case. i focus on them as they are more known.
My evidence is excellent. In fact convergent concepts are my evidence. I then put in a twist.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Dec. 15 2009,03:10

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,18:05)
Quote (George @ Dec. 13 2009,09:28)
Robert, while I'm here, I'll add that your arguments make baraminologists look like freaking geniuses.  At least they try to crunch a few numbers to justify their definitions of a "kind".  Have a look at Creation Science Quarterly (can't be arsed to provide you with the link).  There's a paper there by Todd Woods who identifies the family Canidae as a "kind" with no inclusion of Tasmanian wolves or any other marsupial.  This was based on analysis of a number of morphological characters, not just the "'cause it looks like one" and "it's got 'wolf' in the name" criteria.

Now don't get me wrong, baraminology and created "kinds" are just so much rubbish.  But your brand of rubbish makes theirs smell oh-so-sweet.  If you want to do anything other than display your own foolishness, such as having a coherent discussion, you'll need to step up the level of your argumentation and the evidence you provide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These creationists would be wrong. not right about everything although farther along then 'others".
I wrote a essay and made my case there.
Remember its not about words but about rejecting the conclusion of evolutionists that convergent evolution explains the fantastic and prolific instances of creatures in different orders looking the same but said to be unrelated. Marsupials are just another case. i focus on them as they are more known.
My evidence is excellent. In fact convergent concepts are my evidence. I then put in a twist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidence I see no evidence. You have done nothing more than so "is not" to anybody who has presented evidence.

Quantify the differences ...

Otherwise you are a loser
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 15 2009,03:36

If I may i would like to make a point here.
I propose my ideas on marsupials etc being placentals based on living and fossil evidence. Of coarse also a biblical boundary of a focal point for post flood migration options.
I don't need to provide mechanism, except a few thoughts, to make a solid assertion.
Two examples.
The continental drift idea of Wegener (sp) was based on the shapes of lands and fossil evidence and perhaps a few other details LONG before he had a mechanism for how continents move about.
Yet he could of strongly claimed the evidence showed continents had moved without a need to provide a a mechanism. Having no mechanism should not of slowed him or anyone down in considering his idea as accurate.

Another example is of the missoula flood concept by Bretz.
He likewise did not need to be slowed down by criticisms made about the source for such a mega flood. The evidence in the field was excellent that the land had been destroyed by a great flood. Mechanism of the original water storage need not and should not ever of been a important criticism of Bretz. The evidence of the results and so the conclusion should of stood on its own.

I see my case the same way. The evidence backing up my assertions is solid and the issue of mechanism should not be even brought up.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 15 2009,04:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see my case the same way. The evidence backing up my assertions is solid and the issue of mechanism should not be even brought up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are dead wrong.

Your two examples are excellent evidence for the scientific method: Hypotheses are mad based on observations. The observations require an explanation, a theory about causes for the observed facts.

Such theories were proposed, tested, researched and found valid; they accounted for the observed facts in a coherent manner consistent with all scientific knowledge about our world. Further evidence have been found, the continents are still moving!

Mechanisms have been found. If no evidence and no mechanisms had been found, those hypotheses would have been in great trouble by now!

That's why your personal thoughts cannot be taken seriously. They go against all our knowledge about the world and of a similar quality as theories about the moon being made of green cheese.

You can make such assertions without mechanism, but until you present mechanism/evidence they will remain stupid nonsense as far as the rest of the world population is concerned.

Any idiot can make stupid assertions, you are a perfect example of that.

See what happened to all the christian idiots who asserted that the Earth was the center of the universe?

They thought they didn't need a mechanism, they relied on the bible. The scientific method employed by skeptics making observations of facts and finding mechanism exposed the religious idiocy for all the world to see.

Your idiocy is a few centuries too late, we have already all the mechanisms in place. Before you have a mechanism,you have nothing but emanations from a dysfunctional brain.
Posted by: Reed on Dec. 15 2009,05:27

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,01:36)

I propose my ideas on marsupials etc being placentals based on living and fossil evidence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You again confuse assertion with evidence. You haven't presented a your "theory" sufficient specificity to define what evidence would support it, never mind actually presenting such evidence. Your "theory" remains the bald assertions that
1) They look the same
2) This alleged sameness is more important than other quantifiable, highly successful means of determining relatedness.

Note that #1 is simply wrong unless you are extremely selective about which traits you look at, yet you have provided no justification for this selectivity.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't need to provide mechanism, except a few thoughts, to make a solid assertion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're problem isn't just the absence of a mechanism, it's the absence of any room for a plausible mechanism that doesn't contradict a mountain of well established data. It would be one thing if we had absolutely no idea about things like genetics and mutation rates and developmental biology and so on. 150 years ago, Darwin didn't have a mechanism for traits being passed to the next generation, but he had pretty good evidence that it happened. Today, we know those mechanisms in exquisite detail, and they don't leave any room for your bullshit "theory".
Posted by: George on Dec. 15 2009,07:35

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,03:05)
These creationists would be wrong. not right about everything although farther along then 'others".
I wrote a essay and made my case there.
Remember its not about words but about rejecting the conclusion of evolutionists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would do well to heed your own advice.  No, it's not about words.  It's about data.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My evidence is excellent. In fact convergent concepts are my evidence. I then put in a twist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(All bolding mine.)

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.  
Concepts are not evidence.  Evidence is data.  Where are your data?  Where is your analysis?  Have you numerically compared the characteristics of Tasmanian wolves, living and fossil canids, and fossil marsupials to come up with an objective evaluation of similarities?  Have you been able to trace these similarities through the fossil record?

Until you do, no one will listen to you.  Except to make fun of you.
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 15 2009,10:10

Quote (George @ Dec. 15 2009,07:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,03:05)
These creationists would be wrong. not right about everything although farther along then 'others".
I wrote a essay and made my case there.
Remember its not about words but about rejecting the conclusion of evolutionists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would do well to heed your own advice.  No, it's not about words.  It's about data.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My evidence is excellent. In fact convergent concepts are my evidence. I then put in a twist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(All bolding mine.)

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.  
Concepts are not evidence.  Evidence is data.  Where are your data?  Where is your analysis?  Have you numerically compared the characteristics of Tasmanian wolves, living and fossil canids, and fossil marsupials to come up with an objective evaluation of similarities?  Have you been able to trace these similarities through the fossil record?

Until you do, no one will listen to you.  Except to make fun of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree - his knowledge of genetics (and evo-devo, and biology, history, geology...etc) would make a grade-school student laugh at him.  Hmm - what does that say about creationists?  Actually, how  many creationists would agree with him?

I add my voice to the calls for him to present his evidence.  To paraphrase a famous man, Robert - "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means." (sorry, it's been a long time)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 15 2009,10:14

Wait, I just want to be clear here Robert.  You think Felids and Marsupial Cats are the same, correct?

You think that these two critters are the same:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QuollSS7196.jpg >

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tigerramki.jpg >

Because the Tiger and the Tiger Quoll (also known as the Native Cat) have the same name, then they are the same...
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 15 2009,10:17

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 15 2009,10:10)
Quote (George @ Dec. 15 2009,07:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,03:05)
These creationists would be wrong. not right about everything although farther along then 'others".
I wrote a essay and made my case there.
Remember its not about words but about rejecting the conclusion of evolutionists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would do well to heed your own advice.  No, it's not about words.  It's about data.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My evidence is excellent. In fact convergent concepts are my evidence. I then put in a twist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(All bolding mine.)

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.  
Concepts are not evidence.  Evidence is data.  Where are your data?  Where is your analysis?  Have you numerically compared the characteristics of Tasmanian wolves, living and fossil canids, and fossil marsupials to come up with an objective evaluation of similarities?  Have you been able to trace these similarities through the fossil record?

Until you do, no one will listen to you.  Except to make fun of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree - his knowledge of genetics (and evo-devo, and biology, history, geology...etc) would make a grade-school student laugh at him.  Hmm - what does that say about creationists?  Actually, how  many creationists would agree with him?

I add my voice to the calls for him to present his evidence.  To paraphrase a famous man, Robert - "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means." (sorry, it's been a long time)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's that for Epic Fail?  I read the top part, thought "this will be the one I use to quote" and completely fail to read the quote that I was going to use.  Gah!  If it's any consolation, everybody is probably thinking the same thing.  Can I blame just waking up a short time ago?
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 15 2009,11:52

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 15 2009,08:14)
Wait, I just want to be clear here Robert.  You think Felids and Marsupial Cats are the same, correct?

You think that these two critters are the same:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QuollSS7196.jpg >

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tigerramki.jpg >

Because the Tiger and the Tiger Quoll (also known as the Native Cat) have the same name, then they are the same...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To me, the quoll looks more like a weasel than a cat, and the thylacine looks more like a fox than a wolf.  So if I was an eighteenth-century biologist, Robert might now be arguing that they were really weasels and foxes, not cats and wolves.

And what about oysters and prairie oysters?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 15 2009,13:11



The Blind Men and the Elephant by John Godfrey Saxe

(A poetic parable about the stupidity of Bobby B's  methodologies):

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

It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind.

The first approached the Elephant
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side
At once began to bawl:
"Bless me, it seems the Elephant
Is very like a wall"   ...

...The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
< http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Blindmen_and_the_Elephant >

Superficial similarities don't mean a hell of a lot when significant details = major differences, Bobby B.

Oh, and by the way, Harlan Bretz managed to publish his views many, many times during the 1920's-30's, Bobby.

You haven't, because you have nothing to publish.

Bretz was aware that his job was to find a "mechanism" for his Missoula flood event, Bobby B. -- the problem was that he couldn't see the obvious right in front of his eyes and didn't accept the word of his colleague J.T. Pardee about the ancient glacial-dam source ( the "mechanism") of the Scablands flood. This was exactly what Bretz needed, though and when Pardee and Bretz finally began to work together on the subject, the geological world quickly recognized the validity of their claims...

This stands in stark contrast to your belief that theories without plausible causative mechanisms should be stupidly accepted -- just because you say so, Booby Byers.

The moral of the story is : provide details and fill out your theories with generative mechanisms and clear data and you get accepted.

Or, be a Blind Booby B. and get laughed at.

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

A listing of Bretz' publications when you claimed he was being ignored, Booby:

Bretz, J.H., 1923a.  Glacial drainage on the Columbia Plateau.  Geological  
Society of America Bulletin, v.34, p.573-608.
--, 1923b.  The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau.  Journal of  
Geology, v.31, p.617-649.
--, 1925.  The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands.  Jounral of  
Geology, v.33, p.97-115, 236-259.
--, 1927.  Channeled Scabland and the Spokane Flood.  Journal of  
Washington Academy of Sciences, v.18, p.200-211.
--, 1928a.  Alternate hypotheses for channeled scabland.  Journal of  
Geology, v.36, p.193-223, 312-341.
--, 1928b.  Bars of Channeled Scabland.  Geological Society of America  
Bulletin, v.39, p.643-702.
--, 1928c.  The Channeld Scabland of eastern Washington.  Geographical  
Review, v.18, p.446-477.
--, 1929.  Valley deposits immediately east of the Channeled Scabland of  
Washington.  Journal of Geology, v.37, p.393-427, 505-541.
--, 1930a.  Lake Missoula and the Spokane Flood.  Geological Society of  
America Bulletin, v.41, p.92-93.
--, 1930b.  Valley deposits immediately west of the channeled scabland.  
Journal of Geology, v.38, p.385-422.
--, 1932.  The Grand Coulee.  American Geographical Society, Special  
Publication 15, p.1-89.

 You might want to read this FACTUAL recounting of the episode in American science < http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html >  rather than the usual bullshitting, fraudulent  creationist accounts, Booby.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 15 2009,15:41

I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species. On the contrary, placental reproduction would give its carriers an advantage over their marsupial or egg laying analogs; otherwise placental reproduction would never have developed.

Also if marsupials had developed from one or a few branches of placentals, they would be closest related to the branches from which they developed.

If Tasmanian wolves had developed from placental wolves, they would be closest related to placental wolves, rather than to other types of marsupials that don't resemble wolves at all.

Henry
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 15 2009,15:51

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species. On the contrary, placental reproduction would give its carriers an advantage over their marsupial or egg laying analogs; otherwise placental reproduction would never have developed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We see dingoes where there used to be thylacines.  I'm sure Robert's explanation will be entertaining.
Posted by: Reed on Dec. 15 2009,15:56

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's also worth noting that some imported placentals have been extremely successful in Australia, at the expense of the natives. There is good evidence that dingos have been there for what is, according to Robert, almost the age of the earth. Certainly since Teh Flud. Yet strangely they show no signs of becoming marsupial!

Later introduced species like rabbits also do quite well.

Roberts "theory" isn't not just < fractally wrong >, it's fractally stupid. No matter what direction or scale you look at it, you find more stupid.
Posted by: khan on Dec. 15 2009,16:02

Quote (Reed @ Dec. 15 2009,16:56)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's also worth noting that some imported placentals have been extremely successful in Australia, at the expense of the natives. There is good evidence that dingos have been there for what is, according to Robert, almost the age of the earth. Certainly since Teh Flud. Yet strangely they show no signs of becoming marsupial!

Later introduced species like rabbits also do quite well.

Roberts "theory" isn't not just < fractally wrong >, it's fractally stupid. No matter what direction or scale you look at it, you find more stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are cane toads becoming marsupial?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Dec. 15 2009,17:55

Quote (khan @ Dec. 15 2009,16:02)
Quote (Reed @ Dec. 15 2009,16:56)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's also worth noting that some imported placentals have been extremely successful in Australia, at the expense of the natives. There is good evidence that dingos have been there for what is, according to Robert, almost the age of the earth. Certainly since Teh Flud. Yet strangely they show no signs of becoming marsupial!

Later introduced species like rabbits also do quite well.

Roberts "theory" isn't not just < fractally wrong >, it's fractally stupid. No matter what direction or scale you look at it, you find more stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are cane toads becoming marsupial?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Licking toads might be an explanation for Robert's assertions.
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 15 2009,23:26

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 15 2009,17:55)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 15 2009,16:02)
Quote (Reed @ Dec. 15 2009,16:56)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's also worth noting that some imported placentals have been extremely successful in Australia, at the expense of the natives. There is good evidence that dingos have been there for what is, according to Robert, almost the age of the earth. Certainly since Teh Flud. Yet strangely they show no signs of becoming marsupial!

Later introduced species like rabbits also do quite well.

Roberts "theory" isn't not just < fractally wrong >, it's fractally stupid. No matter what direction or scale you look at it, you find more stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are cane toads becoming marsupial?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Licking toads might be an explanation for Robert's assertions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It depends on what (or where) the toads are licking.... :O
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 17 2009,00:40

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 15 2009,04:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see my case the same way. The evidence backing up my assertions is solid and the issue of mechanism should not be even brought up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are dead wrong.

Your two examples are excellent evidence for the scientific method: Hypotheses are mad based on observations. The observations require an explanation, a theory about causes for the observed facts.

Such theories were proposed, tested, researched and found valid; they accounted for the observed facts in a coherent manner consistent with all scientific knowledge about our world. Further evidence have been found, the continents are still moving!

Mechanisms have been found. If no evidence and no mechanisms had been found, those hypotheses would have been in great trouble by now!

That's why your personal thoughts cannot be taken seriously. They go against all our knowledge about the world and of a similar quality as theories about the moon being made of green cheese.

You can make such assertions without mechanism, but until you present mechanism/evidence they will remain stupid nonsense as far as the rest of the world population is concerned.

Any idiot can make stupid assertions, you are a perfect example of that.

See what happened to all the christian idiots who asserted that the Earth was the center of the universe?

They thought they didn't need a mechanism, they relied on the bible. The scientific method employed by skeptics making observations of facts and finding mechanism exposed the religious idiocy for all the world to see.

Your idiocy is a few centuries too late, we have already all the mechanisms in place. Before you have a mechanism,you have nothing but emanations from a dysfunctional brain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you seem to misunderstand my two examples.
They proposed and tried to live with the evidence they had.
They were both attacked and denied because of mechanism complaints.
Yet both are accepted today. The serious refusal to accept these guys ideas was a waste of time.
Anyways my point is that mechanism should not get in the way of powerful or pretty good evidence.
Just fight the evidence and not derail ideas on secondary matters.
my two examples support me and don't oppose me.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 17 2009,01:07

Quote (Reed @ Dec. 15 2009,05:27)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,01:36)

I propose my ideas on marsupials etc being placentals based on living and fossil evidence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You again confuse assertion with evidence. You haven't presented a your "theory" sufficient specificity to define what evidence would support it, never mind actually presenting such evidence. Your "theory" remains the bald assertions that
1) They look the same
2) This alleged sameness is more important than other quantifiable, highly successful means of determining relatedness.

Note that #1 is simply wrong unless you are extremely selective about which traits you look at, yet you have provided no justification for this selectivity.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't need to provide mechanism, except a few thoughts, to make a solid assertion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're problem isn't just the absence of a mechanism, it's the absence of any room for a plausible mechanism that doesn't contradict a mountain of well established data. It would be one thing if we had absolutely no idea about things like genetics and mutation rates and developmental biology and so on. 150 years ago, Darwin didn't have a mechanism for traits being passed to the next generation, but he had pretty good evidence that it happened. Today, we know those mechanisms in exquisite detail, and they don't leave any room for your bullshit "theory".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't confuse assertion with evidence. The evidence is as i present it.
I expect to persuade a creationist audience or anyone on this.
its all that is needed. The opposition also almost has just this.
In fact saying marsupials or creodont (sp) etc are separate unrelated orders doesn't go much farther then seeing pouches or teeth ot a little curve in skull. All things that are minor compared to the great details that force ideas on convergent evolution.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 17 2009,01:10

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 15 2009,10:14)
Wait, I just want to be clear here Robert.  You think Felids and Marsupial Cats are the same, correct?

You think that these two critters are the same:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QuollSS7196.jpg >

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tigerramki.jpg >

Because the Tiger and the Tiger Quoll (also known as the Native Cat) have the same name, then they are the same...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Been   over this. Its not words. its physical structure.
The marsupial lion looked, acted, and was just a lion. Just had a pouch. Well the girls.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 17 2009,01:15

Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 15 2009,13:11)


The Blind Men and the Elephant by John Godfrey Saxe

(A poetic parable about the stupidity of Bobby B's  methodologies):

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

It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind.

The first approached the Elephant
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side
At once began to bawl:
"Bless me, it seems the Elephant
Is very like a wall"   ...

...The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
< http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Blindmen_and_the_Elephant >

Superficial similarities don't mean a hell of a lot when significant details = major differences, Bobby B.

Oh, and by the way, Harlan Bretz managed to publish his views many, many times during the 1920's-30's, Bobby.

You haven't, because you have nothing to publish.

Bretz was aware that his job was to find a "mechanism" for his Missoula flood event, Bobby B. -- the problem was that he couldn't see the obvious right in front of his eyes and didn't accept the word of his colleague J.T. Pardee about the ancient glacial-dam source ( the "mechanism") of the Scablands flood. This was exactly what Bretz needed, though and when Pardee and Bretz finally began to work together on the subject, the geological world quickly recognized the validity of their claims...

This stands in stark contrast to your belief that theories without plausible causative mechanisms should be stupidly accepted -- just because you say so, Booby Byers.

The moral of the story is : provide details and fill out your theories with generative mechanisms and clear data and you get accepted.

Or, be a Blind Booby B. and get laughed at.

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

A listing of Bretz' publications when you claimed he was being ignored, Booby:

Bretz, J.H., 1923a.  Glacial drainage on the Columbia Plateau.  Geological  
Society of America Bulletin, v.34, p.573-608.
--, 1923b.  The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau.  Journal of  
Geology, v.31, p.617-649.
--, 1925.  The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands.  Jounral of  
Geology, v.33, p.97-115, 236-259.
--, 1927.  Channeled Scabland and the Spokane Flood.  Journal of  
Washington Academy of Sciences, v.18, p.200-211.
--, 1928a.  Alternate hypotheses for channeled scabland.  Journal of  
Geology, v.36, p.193-223, 312-341.
--, 1928b.  Bars of Channeled Scabland.  Geological Society of America  
Bulletin, v.39, p.643-702.
--, 1928c.  The Channeld Scabland of eastern Washington.  Geographical  
Review, v.18, p.446-477.
--, 1929.  Valley deposits immediately east of the Channeled Scabland of  
Washington.  Journal of Geology, v.37, p.393-427, 505-541.
--, 1930a.  Lake Missoula and the Spokane Flood.  Geological Society of  
America Bulletin, v.41, p.92-93.
--, 1930b.  Valley deposits immediately west of the channeled scabland.  
Journal of Geology, v.38, p.385-422.
--, 1932.  The Grand Coulee.  American Geographical Society, Special  
Publication 15, p.1-89.

 You might want to read this FACTUAL recounting of the episode in American science < http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html >  rather than the usual bullshitting, fraudulent  creationist accounts, Booby.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope your wrong.
Bretz was rejected and fought against. A big complaint was that there was no water for the Missoula flood. they used this to dismiss his fantastic evidence of a great flood.
Water source was a irrelevant point to the reality and evidence of the mega flood.
yet they tried to use this lack of a water mechanism to stop his ideas.
They lost and are just the bad and dumb guys in the story.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 17 2009,01:21

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,15:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species. On the contrary, placental reproduction would give its carriers an advantage over their marsupial or egg laying analogs; otherwise placental reproduction would never have developed.

Also if marsupials had developed from one or a few branches of placentals, they would be closest related to the branches from which they developed.

If Tasmanian wolves had developed from placental wolves, they would be closest related to placental wolves, rather than to other types of marsupials that don't resemble wolves at all.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thats my point.
I'm saying marsupial wolves are not more related to "marsupials" then to other wolves.
Mechanism again.
I see marsupialism as a adaptation of creatures to more rapidly reproduce in areas farthest from the ark. Its not the water or air but a innate impulse to quickly refill the earth. This however is not the strengh of my claims.
I attack the, strange, concept here of seeing same shaped creatures as the same because of convergent evolution and not seeing them as actually the same things as they look like. With the details of marsupialism being the adaption , as it were, to niche.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 17 2009,02:02

hahahahahahahahahaha

ETA no that's really all I had to say.

oh, well, OK.  please, Cane toads.  yes.  Ok.  

hahahahahahahahahahaha
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 17 2009,02:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thats my point.
I'm saying marsupial wolves are not more related to "marsupials" then to other wolves.
Mechanism again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, please define 'related', 'relation', 'relationship.

Since you have demonstrated utter disregard for the concept of évidence, please also consider this and tell us whether you think it nonsense or not:

Évidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring évidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via évidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Évidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
Posted by: Reed on Dec. 17 2009,03:56

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 16 2009,23:07)
I don't confuse The evidence is as i present it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean non-existent ? Because all you have presented is vague hand waving and assertions.

I notice you didn't bother to explain dingos didn't become marsupial ?

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Its not the water or air but a innate impulse to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How does this "innate impulse" translate into changes in phenotype and genotype ? That is one of the many mechanisms you failed to produce.

Aside:
The funniest thing to me about Roberts "but they look the same" argument is that even superficially, they really don't look that much alike. If I saw a thylacine out in the woods, I wouldn't say "look, a wolf!" I would say "WTF is that ?" Looking through the pictures at < http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylaci....e_1.htm > yes, it looks strangely doggy from some angles, but man that's weird looking critter. The films (< 1 > < 2 > < 3 > < 4 > < 5 >) don't really give much of a feel to how it would move out in the open, but it doesn't seem particularly dog like.
Posted by: Amadan on Dec. 17 2009,09:20

Robert, I look much more like my father than I look like my mother.

Am I more closely related to him than to her?
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 17 2009,17:13

I'm curious as to why being marsupial is necessary for the rapid reproduction Robert seems to think had to occur.  Did the rest of the world, including all those places further away from (wherever Noah's Ark is supposed to be), not need animals to reproduce incredibly fast (poor females - were they in the quiverfull movement too?) - in other words, being an egg-laying bird or reptile, or being a placental mammal, was good enough for other places, why was it not good enough for Australia?

Why aren't the marsupials dominant in the Americas, since we have some, if their reproduction was so incredibly fast?  

Is this all part of the Grand Plan of YHVH?

(ps - if I wasn't at work, I could link to the Onion article on YHVH creating the world, again, while the Sumerians were trying to get their work done.  Pretty funny, and on target for those who think the world was created, and flooded, while other civilizations went on about their daily business.
Posted by: khan on Dec. 17 2009,17:26

< Sumerians >

Just to be sure: < http://tinyurl.com/y9u7tdp >
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 17 2009,17:52

Hey, Robert!

I had an urge to buy a pouch in Calif. which is far away from Ark. and that makes me a marsupial, right?

Sorry, can't stay and chat.  Must hop to it.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 17 2009,19:17

< http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolution_going_great_reports >

From the same place.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 19 2009,04:06

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 17 2009,17:13)
I'm curious as to why being marsupial is necessary for the rapid reproduction Robert seems to think had to occur.  Did the rest of the world, including all those places further away from (wherever Noah's Ark is supposed to be), not need animals to reproduce incredibly fast (poor females - were they in the quiverfull movement too?) - in other words, being an egg-laying bird or reptile, or being a placental mammal, was good enough for other places, why was it not good enough for Australia?

Why aren't the marsupials dominant in the Americas, since we have some, if their reproduction was so incredibly fast?  

Is this all part of the Grand Plan of YHVH?

(ps - if I wasn't at work, I could link to the Onion article on YHVH creating the world, again, while the Sumerians were trying to get their work done.  Pretty funny, and on target for those who think the world was created, and flooded, while other civilizations went on about their daily business.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again this is about mechanism. Marsupials were in great diversity in south America actually. i just speculate it was because the rapid colonization from the Ark demanded a steady but mobile reproduction. the whole point of marsupialism is to get the fetus out of the womb and get another growing. Speed was everything. then later it just stays in that shift. There is no need today for speed and so its slowed down but the proceadure is the same.
This is speculation and not conclusion based on the anatomical bodies of fossil and living marsupials in the literature.
Plus biblical boundaries leading the way.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 19 2009,05:51

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is that?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 19 2009,09:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i just speculate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



say it ain't so!
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 19 2009,10:29

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 17 2009,17:13)
I'm curious as to why being marsupial is necessary for the rapid reproduction Robert seems to think had to occur.  Did the rest of the world, including all those places further away from (wherever Noah's Ark is supposed to be), not need animals to reproduce incredibly fast (poor females - were they in the quiverfull movement too?) - in other words, being an egg-laying bird or reptile, or being a placental mammal, was good enough for other places, why was it not good enough for Australia?

Why aren't the marsupials dominant in the Americas, since we have some, if their reproduction was so incredibly fast?  

Is this all part of the Grand Plan of YHVH?

(ps - if I wasn't at work, I could link to the Onion article on YHVH creating the world, again, while the Sumerians were trying to get their work done.  Pretty funny, and on target for those who think the world was created, and flooded, while other civilizations went on about their daily business.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again this is about mechanism. Marsupials were in great diversity in south America actually. i just speculate it was because the rapid colonization from the Ark demanded a steady but mobile reproduction. the whole point of marsupialism is to get the fetus out of the womb and get another growing. Speed was everything. then later it just stays in that shift. There is no need today for speed and so its slowed down but the proceadure is the same.
This is speculation and not conclusion based on the anatomical bodies of fossil and living marsupials in the literature.
Plus biblical boundaries leading the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While looking for a note on marsupial reproduction, I ran into this (http://www.nwcreation.net/marsupials.html) - is this yours (if so, it seems much better written than you write here) or did someone else have this idea?

Anyway, the point I was going to get is that even while the baby is growing in the pouch, to the best of my knowledge marsupials don't get pregnant again.  I know you claim this is because they don't need it that way now (got evidence?), but you completely ignored why the placentals did not need this uber-fast reproduction, since they had to repopulate a much larger proportion of the planet.  Why did they not need to do this?  

Plus, since I can't find the marsupial reproduction passage in the bible, perhaps you can point out chapter and verse on these "biblical boundaries."
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 19 2009,10:31

Not sure who "Chris Ashcroft" is, but I did recognize that idiot woodmorappe's name. (from < the site I linked to above >)
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 19 2009,10:51

Robert's correct.

I've been to ARKansas which is in the south of America and it's full o' possums.  Chock.  Full.

Can't hardly take a step without getting your foot stuck in a pouch.

Noah was obviously talking about possum when, in the little known Biblical passage, he said to his wife, "Ham, nothin', dem's good eatin'!"
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 19 2009,15:25

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 19 2009,10:51)
Robert's correct.

I've been to ARKansas which is in the south of America and it's full o' possums.  Chock.  Full.

Can't hardly take a step without getting your foot stuck in a pouch.

Noah was obviously talking about possum when, in the little known Biblical passage, he said to his wife, "Ham, nothin', dem's good eatin'!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe that's the original meaning of "clean" and "unclean" - clean animals had pouches, while unclean didn't - but as the placentals took over (for whatever reason known only to YHVH) they had to change the definition.  I do think I remember our Sunday school lesson that had that "Them's good eatin' " line, but maybe I'm confused.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 21 2009,03:50

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
Today there is no need. So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 21 2009,04:01

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 19 2009,10:29)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 17 2009,17:13)
I'm curious as to why being marsupial is necessary for the rapid reproduction Robert seems to think had to occur.  Did the rest of the world, including all those places further away from (wherever Noah's Ark is supposed to be), not need animals to reproduce incredibly fast (poor females - were they in the quiverfull movement too?) - in other words, being an egg-laying bird or reptile, or being a placental mammal, was good enough for other places, why was it not good enough for Australia?

Why aren't the marsupials dominant in the Americas, since we have some, if their reproduction was so incredibly fast?  

Is this all part of the Grand Plan of YHVH?

(ps - if I wasn't at work, I could link to the Onion article on YHVH creating the world, again, while the Sumerians were trying to get their work done.  Pretty funny, and on target for those who think the world was created, and flooded, while other civilizations went on about their daily business.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again this is about mechanism. Marsupials were in great diversity in south America actually. i just speculate it was because the rapid colonization from the Ark demanded a steady but mobile reproduction. the whole point of marsupialism is to get the fetus out of the womb and get another growing. Speed was everything. then later it just stays in that shift. There is no need today for speed and so its slowed down but the proceadure is the same.
This is speculation and not conclusion based on the anatomical bodies of fossil and living marsupials in the literature.
Plus biblical boundaries leading the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While looking for a note on marsupial reproduction, I ran into this (http://www.nwcreation.net/marsupials.html) - is this yours (if so, it seems much better written than you write here) or did someone else have this idea?

Anyway, the point I was going to get is that even while the baby is growing in the pouch, to the best of my knowledge marsupials don't get pregnant again.  I know you claim this is because they don't need it that way now (got evidence?), but you completely ignored why the placentals did not need this uber-fast reproduction, since they had to repopulate a much larger proportion of the planet.  Why did they not need to do this?  

Plus, since I can't find the marsupial reproduction passage in the bible, perhaps you can point out chapter and verse on these "biblical boundaries."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No . This is a different article. it is better written.
My idea was independent and i recognized in my notes to creationist organizations that this idea came up. In fact they did kindly let me publish my essay on their webpage.
My idea is not just about marsupials but a bigger one one about many orders of creatures said to be unrelated despite, like marsupials, identical looking bodies.
So my ideas are more involved but indeed one can't do anything but BANG someone writes the same thing on some points a little before you.

I know that they say , I think the big kangaroos, will have a joey in the pouch, a fetus growing, and some embryol in storage.
So in this one can see the original rapid production line for off spring.
I do see now that the need is gone and so the biological triggers that were there after the flood.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 21 2009,05:37

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
     
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today there is no need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 21 2009,06:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why? God has plenty of time. Time doesn't matter to God, does it? He has all eternity at his hands.

I guess that's why the Bible is full of lies, like this one:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Quack on Dec. 21 2009,06:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why? With God such a smart guy, why didn't he just wipe out mankind instead of destroying his entire creation? And why don't he fulfill this promise of the  Bible:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
       For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

        For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

       Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1Thes 4:15)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We may trust God but the Bible is not trustworthy. Why do you believe a pack of lies?

You are such a great thinker, think some religion for us!
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 21 2009,11:35

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,01:50)
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why did Australia, which is largely desert and can only support a relatively small population, need to be "refilled" more quickly than, say, the Central African rainforest?
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 21 2009,15:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would that require a different strategy for Austrailia than for Africa or the Americas or any of several isolated islands? Why would marsupial be particularly faster than placental at producing offspring? For that matter, why would it be faster than laying eggs that hatch outside the mother's body?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What reason is there to think the distinction is just the reproductive system? Kangaroos seem quite distinct from anything else, afaik.

Basically though, I see no reason to trust conclusions that depend on accusing scientists as a group of consistently ignoring basic points, and all of them doing so in the same way. One scientist can make a mistake, but a huge number of scientists from around the world, from many different countries, cultures, religions, and backgrounds, are not all going to make the same set of mistakes.

Henry
Posted by: Chayanov on Dec. 21 2009,17:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What reason is there to think the distinction is just the reproductive system? Kangaroos seem quite distinct from anything else, afaik.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wasn't there a Loony Tunes where a baby kangaroo was mistaken for a giant mouse? Maybe Robert's getting his ideas from old cartoons.
Posted by: khan on Dec. 21 2009,17:04

Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 21 2009,18:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What reason is there to think the distinction is just the reproductive system? Kangaroos seem quite distinct from anything else, afaik.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wasn't there a Loony Tunes where a baby kangaroo was mistaken for a giant mouse? Maybe Robert's getting his ideas from old cartoons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, involved Sylvester the Cat & his nephew.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippety_Hopper >

ETA link
Posted by: Chayanov on Dec. 21 2009,17:16

Quote (khan @ Dec. 21 2009,17:04)
 
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 21 2009,18:02)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What reason is there to think the distinction is just the reproductive system? Kangaroos seem quite distinct from anything else, afaik.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wasn't there a Loony Tunes where a baby kangaroo was mistaken for a giant mouse? Maybe Robert's getting his ideas from old cartoons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, involved Sylvester the Cat & his nephew.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippety_Hopper >

ETA link
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And on "The Beverly Hillbillies" Granny thought a kangaroo was a giant jackrabbit. So which is it? Are kangaroos mice or rabbits?
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 21 2009,18:21

Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 21 2009,15:16)
And on "The Beverly Hillbillies" Granny thought a kangaroo was a giant jackrabbit. So which is it? Are kangaroos mice or rabbits?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Neither.  They're big, hairy, marsupial cane toads.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 21 2009,21:37

who "needed" the earth to be repopulated quickly bubba?

i mean if all the people were up on mt ararat why was there a need for a bunch of different species of crayfish and salamanders to truck it over to sunny tennessee and the hills of caroline?

what "need" is being satisfied by having hundreds of species of < darters > in North America?

you don't have to answer.  but if you do please tell me about these "needs".
Posted by: RDK on Dec. 21 2009,22:30

Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 21 2009,17:16)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 21 2009,17:04)
   
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 21 2009,18:02)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What reason is there to think the distinction is just the reproductive system? Kangaroos seem quite distinct from anything else, afaik.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wasn't there a Loony Tunes where a baby kangaroo was mistaken for a giant mouse? Maybe Robert's getting his ideas from old cartoons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, involved Sylvester the Cat & his nephew.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippety_Hopper >

ETA link
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And on "The Beverly Hillbillies" Granny thought a kangaroo was a giant jackrabbit. So which is it? Are kangaroos mice or rabbits?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps it's time to consult

THE ROBERT BYERS GUIDE TO CREATION CLADISTICS



No, but seriously Robert, riddle me this one.  How do you explain comparative homology?  Vestigial structures?  Gene sequencing?

What is your SCIENTIFIC explanation of the similarity of all living organisms at the molecular and cellular levels?  What is your SCIENTIFIC explanation for the DNA and RNA system of information processing?  What is your SCIENTIFIC explanation for things like the Electron Transport Chain and ATP Synthase, which are both present in virtually all species that use oxygen?  What about the fact that nearly all living organisms can metabolize glucose via the glycolotic pathway?  What about two completely different antifreeze proteins being expressed in the sea raven and the longhorn sculpin, two completely different species of fish that occupy similar habitats?

What about convergent species?  I know that marsupials and placentals are your favorite topic lately, but I have yet to hear a good SCIENTIFIC explanation from you about how these animals came about and why they share amazing similarities while being relatively far apart on the evolutionary tree.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 21 2009,23:51

HAR HAR HAR RDK THIS IS YOU



Bubba already said he doesn't care about your scientific explanations.  The only true science he said is addition, or long division, or microscope, or something like that.
Posted by: RDK on Dec. 22 2009,00:37

Damn, must've missed that post.  Oh well.

A summary of every Bubba post ever written:

"You're all radical evilutionist priests!  Damn you, you leftist, liberal, democrat, hippie, tree-hugging environmentalist, commie, pinko sons of DiTcHeS and your micro-phones -chips -soft -scopes!"

Come on now, Bubba.  Everyone here has played your creationist waltz for the past couple months.  Now present some evidence.  I'm sure there's at least one or two books over there on the Byers farm, isn't there?  Crack one open.  For us.

Edit: sons of ditches has a nice ring to it; I think Dennis is on to something here.  Who knew that wet rag could start a trend!
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 22 2009,00:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How do you explain comparative homology?  Vestigial structures?  Gene sequencing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't be quite up to date on Bubba's theory. You see, there's a need for change, that's why and how species change. When they end looking similar that's because they are 'the same'. And then, miraculously DNA has "followed".

The only thing I haven't been told yet is how the DNA changes, but since Wolves and Thylacines are quite different DNA-wise, I am certain Bubba can think why that is so for us too.

He's a unique and great thinker, isn't it fantastic what you can learn about nature just by thinking? What's his method?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 22 2009,00:48

he really is not interested in what you are calling "evidence".

to him it is all a big post modern story telling exercise.

he says it's not science.

he says very little of what passes for science is actually science.

he says that his argument is as good as any other but doesn't actually describe how one judges the merit of competing arguments.

it's just the old favorite, argument by bland assertion
Posted by: RDK on Dec. 22 2009,01:04

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 22 2009,00:46)
What's his method?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Thunderous bong hit" and "childhood brain damage" were the first possibilities that came to mind, but we can't be sure which one without examining him in person.

And Ras I'm pretty sure Byers wouldn't know what science was even if it flew down and violated him in inappropriate ways.  The man is either lost, or a new prototype built by Dembski raid to the internets for Jesus.

I'll shut up until he responds; gotta go get my popcorn.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 22 2009,10:49

Quote (RDK @ Dec. 22 2009,00:37)
Damn, must've missed that post.  Oh well.

A summary of every Bubba post ever written:

"You're all radical evilutionist priests!  Damn you, you leftist, liberal, democrat, hippie, tree-hugging environmentalist, commie, pinko sons of DiTcHeS and your micro-phones -chips -soft -scopes!"

Come on now, Bubba.  Everyone here has played your creationist waltz for the past couple months.  Now present some evidence.  I'm sure there's at least one or two books over there on the Byers farm, isn't there?  Crack one open.  For us.

Edit: sons of ditches has a nice ring to it; I think Dennis is on to something here.  Who knew that wet rag could start a trend!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot "feminazi".
Posted by: RDK on Dec. 22 2009,12:23

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 22 2009,10:49)
   
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 22 2009,00:37)
Damn, must've missed that post.  Oh well.

A summary of every Bubba post ever written:

"You're all radical evilutionist priests!  Damn you, you leftist, liberal, democrat, hippie, tree-hugging environmentalist, commie, pinko sons of DiTcHeS and your micro-phones -chips -soft -scopes!"

Come on now, Bubba.  Everyone here has played your creationist waltz for the past couple months.  Now present some evidence.  I'm sure there's at least one or two books over there on the Byers farm, isn't there?  Crack one open.  For us.

Edit: sons of ditches has a nice ring to it; I think Dennis is on to something here.  Who knew that wet rag could start a trend!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot "feminazi".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Women aren't people, remember?  The Bible and < notedscholar > tell me so.  I didn't think them worth mentioning.

Getting angry with women for being feminazis is like getting angry with a puppy for shitting on the floor.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 22 2009,20:24

I wonder if notedscholar is actually < Maddox >.  The same level of over-the-top silliness.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 30 2009,03:55

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
     
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today there is no need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Dec. 30 2009,04:12

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 21 2009,11:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,01:50)
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why did Australia, which is largely desert and can only support a relatively small population, need to be "refilled" more quickly than, say, the Central African rainforest?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After the flood the whole earth had to refill quickly.
Australia/South america were simply the farthest areas. Africa etc were marginally closer.
Australia would not of been a desert after the flood but a vibrant area with no desert. Indeed your crowd says this.
The desert came later and with it the great extinctions of the diversity and power of the original fauna/flora. only a remnant remained when people arrived.
The world today is not the world of yesterday.
Posted by: snorkild on Dec. 30 2009,06:53

Hi Robert. What did the Lions (with or without pouches) eat when they left the ark?
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 30 2009,11:19

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,01:55)
The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think we have a testable hypothesis here, Robert.  I'd like to propose an experiment.

1.  Put a breeding pair of placental mammals* on a boat for a while.

2.  Take them off the boat and cart them away to Australia or South America.

3.  Look for pouches in the female offspring.

Should be easy, Robert.  What are you waiting for?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 30 2009,11:35

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,04:12)
After the flood the whole earth had to refill quickly.
Australia/South america were simply the farthest areas. Africa etc were marginally closer.
Australia would not of been a desert after the flood but a vibrant area with no desert. Indeed your crowd says this.
The desert came later and with it the great extinctions of the diversity and power of the original fauna/flora. only a remnant remained when people arrived.
The world today is not the world of yesterday.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if you had to choose you would call your "explanation"

A) Science

B) Religion

?
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 30 2009,11:51

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,02:12)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 21 2009,11:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,01:50)
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why did Australia, which is largely desert and can only support a relatively small population, need to be "refilled" more quickly than, say, the Central African rainforest?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After the flood the whole earth had to refill quickly.
Australia/South america were simply the farthest areas. Africa etc were marginally closer.
Australia would not of been a desert after the flood but a vibrant area with no desert. Indeed your crowd says this.
The desert came later and with it the great extinctions of the diversity and power of the original fauna/flora. only a remnant remained when people arrived.
The world today is not the world of yesterday.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"My crowd" (whatever that is) says Australia had no desert 4,000 years ago?  Source, please.
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 30 2009,13:06

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:55)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
       
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today there is no need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously WTF?  Again.

"no mutants are needed" and "genes can change" - do you even know what a mutation is?  A quick google for a definition gets to one site < Learn Genetics - University of Utah > has "A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene."

< Genetics Home Reference > lists a mutation as "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene."

Do you even think before you speak (aka write)?  How is a change in DNA (IOW a gene) not a mutation?  Trigger genes and related things do not change the genes themselves (to the best of my knowledge) but they do change whether a gene is on or not, or affect the way a gene is expressed (evo-devo, etc).  Do you mean to say that the genes for marsupials are still present, but are turned off?  That should be easy to prove with the gene sequencing we have today.  

So, if this is what you mean, then we have a relatively easy way to determine if this is true.  We can have a testable hypothesis and confirming or disconfirming evidence!  

Pre-post edit - maybe you are misusing "trigger" in the genetic sense, but even if that is correct, it's still wrong.  Species change in combination with mutations and selective pressures (and non-selective from neutral mutations).  Your statement of "no mutations are needed for speciation" is still wrong since genes have to mutate for the variety to be present (barring the whole front-loading non-issue - do you believe that creatures have all the DNA they need for whatever changes they will go through under YHVH's Plan?  Do you believe the laughable "no new information" claim of IDiots?  Or that there can be no new, novel mutations - they all have to be present in the DNA already?)
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 30 2009,13:47

I find it fascinating how some psychotic fantasies have such internal consistency, with absolutely no connection to reality whatsoever.  Reading Byers' ramblings is like reading the hallucinatory passages from I Never Promised You A Rose Garden.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 30 2009,15:16

Robert,

"After the flood the whole earth had to refill quickly."

Why the hurry? God has all the time in the world, has he not?

How long did it take to restore vegetation and forest life so that the animals had anything to feed on? Since it is obvious you cannot think - your claims of 'thinking' this or that is just bragging - you are of course prevented from applying rational thought to the Noah myth, otherwise you'd know it is just a myth and nothing else.

You really are a waste of time!
Posted by: damitall on Dec. 30 2009,18:26

About this "need for speed" business...

Isn't it a rather serious design fault to depend on the marsupial pouchy method, if the need is so great?

Rabbits don't do it that way. Pigs don't do it that way. Cats and dogs don't do it that way.

Seems to me that the ability to drop a good big litter of squirming young is a much better way to populate a territory rapidly.

But I realise that Bubba Byers is for some reason fixated on marsupials, so multiple pregnancies will be abhorrent to him
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Dec. 30 2009,18:51

I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 30 2009,19:01

I'd love to see his classification of Amphicyonidae. I mean, they're called "bear dogs", and since we're classifying by common names...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 30 2009,19:02

P.S.

Twit.
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 30 2009,19:14

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'd get the same answer as the last time - these "differences" are just minor and unimportant compared to the way they look, and all the other similarities.  He even called the differences between placental and marsupial reproduction "minor" (IIRC).  To him, Thylacines are more like placental wolves than other marsupials.

Would you question the bibble?
Posted by: rhmc on Dec. 30 2009,20:07

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,20:14)

Would you question the bibble?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


get it right, it's "babble".

damn heretic.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Dec. 30 2009,20:46

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,19:14)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'd get the same answer as the last time - these "differences" are just minor and unimportant compared to the way they look, and all the other similarities.  He even called the differences between placental and marsupial reproduction "minor" (IIRC).  To him, Thylacines are more like placental wolves than other marsupials.

Would you question the bibble?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about raccoon dogs then? Are they Dogs? Raccoons? or the mutant offspring of both and hence a crime against man, nature, and baby jebus?

Byers can claim that the differences are minor but I would like to see proof that the superficial resemblances he identifies between the two have greater taxonomic weight than all the other traits that indicate other taxonomic relationships :angry:


Edit to add: I see, pulling the old bibble defense, eh :


Posted by: Bjarne on Dec. 31 2009,11:11

Are Tardigrades, commonly known as water bears or moss piglets, related to bears or pigs, Robert?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 02 2010,01:45

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 30 2009,11:51)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,02:12)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 21 2009,11:35)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,01:50)
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why did Australia, which is largely desert and can only support a relatively small population, need to be "refilled" more quickly than, say, the Central African rainforest?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After the flood the whole earth had to refill quickly.
Australia/South america were simply the farthest areas. Africa etc were marginally closer.
Australia would not of been a desert after the flood but a vibrant area with no desert. Indeed your crowd says this.
The desert came later and with it the great extinctions of the diversity and power of the original fauna/flora. only a remnant remained when people arrived.
The world today is not the world of yesterday.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"My crowd" (whatever that is) says Australia had no desert 4,000 years ago?  Source, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its always said by researchers that Australia was covered by flora and only later did it dry out in the middle. Its a common point they bring up.
if you question just google Australia or something about its original flora condition.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 02 2010,01:52

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,13:06)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:55)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
       
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today there is no need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously WTF?  Again.

"no mutants are needed" and "genes can change" - do you even know what a mutation is?  A quick google for a definition gets to one site < Learn Genetics - University of Utah > has "A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene."

< Genetics Home Reference > lists a mutation as "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene."

Do you even think before you speak (aka write)?  How is a change in DNA (IOW a gene) not a mutation?  Trigger genes and related things do not change the genes themselves (to the best of my knowledge) but they do change whether a gene is on or not, or affect the way a gene is expressed (evo-devo, etc).  Do you mean to say that the genes for marsupials are still present, but are turned off?  That should be easy to prove with the gene sequencing we have today.  

So, if this is what you mean, then we have a relatively easy way to determine if this is true.  We can have a testable hypothesis and confirming or disconfirming evidence!  

Pre-post edit - maybe you are misusing "trigger" in the genetic sense, but even if that is correct, it's still wrong.  Species change in combination with mutations and selective pressures (and non-selective from neutral mutations).  Your statement of "no mutations are needed for speciation" is still wrong since genes have to mutate for the variety to be present (barring the whole front-loading non-issue - do you believe that creatures have all the DNA they need for whatever changes they will go through under YHVH's Plan?  Do you believe the laughable "no new information" claim of IDiots?  Or that there can be no new, novel mutations - they all have to be present in the DNA already?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying the evidence of life and fossil life insists upon marsupials being just placentals with pouches etc.
so the genetics is a minor detail to deal with.
There is no reason to corral genetics to modern observations or processes modern research deals with. I say genetics etc did need to act quickly and so it did. innate triggers is my speculation on how. I see no problem with genetic diversity being a very easy thing to occur and not this clumbsy mutation thing they now push.
The variety in dog breeds alone shows the great potential for variety.
I see no reason not to speculate this variety can be triggered by need and not just happenchance being selected on.
Anyways my point and essay is that the anatomical evidence is king in how to classify biological relationships.
so the genetics needs reform.
Posted by: RDK on Jan. 02 2010,01:56

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,01:52)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,13:06)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:55)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
         
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today there is no need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously WTF?  Again.

"no mutants are needed" and "genes can change" - do you even know what a mutation is?  A quick google for a definition gets to one site < Learn Genetics - University of Utah > has "A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene."

< Genetics Home Reference > lists a mutation as "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene."

Do you even think before you speak (aka write)?  How is a change in DNA (IOW a gene) not a mutation?  Trigger genes and related things do not change the genes themselves (to the best of my knowledge) but they do change whether a gene is on or not, or affect the way a gene is expressed (evo-devo, etc).  Do you mean to say that the genes for marsupials are still present, but are turned off?  That should be easy to prove with the gene sequencing we have today.  

So, if this is what you mean, then we have a relatively easy way to determine if this is true.  We can have a testable hypothesis and confirming or disconfirming evidence!  

Pre-post edit - maybe you are misusing "trigger" in the genetic sense, but even if that is correct, it's still wrong.  Species change in combination with mutations and selective pressures (and non-selective from neutral mutations).  Your statement of "no mutations are needed for speciation" is still wrong since genes have to mutate for the variety to be present (barring the whole front-loading non-issue - do you believe that creatures have all the DNA they need for whatever changes they will go through under YHVH's Plan?  Do you believe the laughable "no new information" claim of IDiots?  Or that there can be no new, novel mutations - they all have to be present in the DNA already?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying the evidence of life and fossil life insists upon marsupials being just placentals with pouches etc.
so the genetics is a minor detail to deal with.
There is no reason to corral genetics to modern observations or processes modern research deals with. I say genetics etc did need to act quickly and so it did. innate triggers is my speculation on how. I see no problem with genetic diversity being a very easy thing to occur and not this clumbsy mutation thing they now push.
The variety in dog breeds alone shows the great potential for variety.
I see no reason not to speculate this variety can be triggered by need and not just happenchance being selected on.
Anyways my point and essay is that the anatomical evidence is king in how to classify biological relationships.
so the genetics needs reform.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bobby, where does the variation of dog breeds come from if there is no such thing as "mutation"?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 02 2010,02:00

Quote (damitall @ Dec. 30 2009,18:26)
About this "need for speed" business...

Isn't it a rather serious design fault to depend on the marsupial pouchy method, if the need is so great?

Rabbits don't do it that way. Pigs don't do it that way. Cats and dogs don't do it that way.

Seems to me that the ability to drop a good big litter of squirming young is a much better way to populate a territory rapidly.

But I realise that Bubba Byers is for some reason fixated on marsupials, so multiple pregnancies will be abhorrent to him
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems the marsupial thing was to increase production on the fly.
The thing about it to me is that they can have one in the pouch, one growing in the womb, and one stored awaiting its turn.
I would also speculate it was even a faster production back then, post flood centuries, and now only a picture of the great worldwide explosion in reproduction is kept.
Everything everywhere rapidly refilled the earth.
Marsupials are telling a old tale.

Anyways mechanism is secondary to what i see as powerful evidence that marsupials were wrongly classified as different from their same shaped namesakes.
A marsupial lion is after all just a lion. ETC.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 02 2010,02:13

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 02 2010,02:30

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:00)
Quote (damitall @ Dec. 30 2009,18:26)
About this "need for speed" business...

Isn't it a rather serious design fault to depend on the marsupial pouchy method, if the need is so great?

Rabbits don't do it that way. Pigs don't do it that way. Cats and dogs don't do it that way.

Seems to me that the ability to drop a good big litter of squirming young is a much better way to populate a territory rapidly.

But I realise that Bubba Byers is for some reason fixated on marsupials, so multiple pregnancies will be abhorrent to him
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems the marsupial thing was to increase production on the fly.
The thing about it to me is that they can have one in the pouch, one growing in the womb, and one stored awaiting its turn.
I would also speculate it was even a faster production back then, post flood centuries, and now only a picture of the great worldwide explosion in reproduction is kept.
Everything everywhere rapidly refilled the earth.
Marsupials are telling a old tale.

Anyways mechanism is secondary to what i see as powerful evidence that marsupials were wrongly classified as different from their same shaped namesakes.
A marsupial lion is after all just a lion. ETC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To save time, I wont quote the last post you responded to of mine, but please, learn some genetics.  Pig ignorant is not the way to go.  There's so much wrong in what you wrote, I'm not sure where to begin, and will have to come back to it if I want a laugh, but I can't let the reading comprehension problem slip by.  Do you even read what you write, or read what others write - or both?

What part of "dogs and cats have litters therefore they can reproduce much faster than marsupials" is hard to understand.  Hell, look at Octo-mom, or the spawner-on-heels Duggers woman.  She can out reproduce marsupials without a sweat.  Sheesh.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 02 2010,02:36

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again - read for comprehension FAIL.

What part of "why do marsupial wolves share more traits (in both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves" translates into "(m)arsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves.  They share few points with "marsupials" ?"

The two say the opposite thing.  How can he make your case for you when he says the opposite?  Is English your third language, and you can't speak your first two?  "More traits" does not equal "very few" in any usage of the language.

So far, all you repeat is "it looks like it to me, so I know better than those who actually study the animals."  Argument from ignorance is not a way to go either.
Posted by: RDK on Jan. 02 2010,02:54

The problem is that Ignoramo here fails even with his whole "they look similar / different" schtick.  Saying the anatomy - or "the way an animal looks" - is the only thing that matters in determining taxonomy doesn't help his rail against genetics anyway because the phenotype of an animal is just the expressed genotype on a visual level.

Unfortunately Bobby didn't pass his middle school biology class so we'll just have to continue kindly letting him know just how little he knows.
Posted by: Bjarne on Jan. 02 2010,04:22

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,08:52)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,13:06)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:55)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
         
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today there is no need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously WTF?  Again.

"no mutants are needed" and "genes can change" - do you even know what a mutation is?  A quick google for a definition gets to one site < Learn Genetics - University of Utah > has "A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene."

< Genetics Home Reference > lists a mutation as "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene."

Do you even think before you speak (aka write)?  How is a change in DNA (IOW a gene) not a mutation?  Trigger genes and related things do not change the genes themselves (to the best of my knowledge) but they do change whether a gene is on or not, or affect the way a gene is expressed (evo-devo, etc).  Do you mean to say that the genes for marsupials are still present, but are turned off?  That should be easy to prove with the gene sequencing we have today.  

So, if this is what you mean, then we have a relatively easy way to determine if this is true.  We can have a testable hypothesis and confirming or disconfirming evidence!  

Pre-post edit - maybe you are misusing "trigger" in the genetic sense, but even if that is correct, it's still wrong.  Species change in combination with mutations and selective pressures (and non-selective from neutral mutations).  Your statement of "no mutations are needed for speciation" is still wrong since genes have to mutate for the variety to be present (barring the whole front-loading non-issue - do you believe that creatures have all the DNA they need for whatever changes they will go through under YHVH's Plan?  Do you believe the laughable "no new information" claim of IDiots?  Or that there can be no new, novel mutations - they all have to be present in the DNA already?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying the evidence of life and fossil life insists upon marsupials being just placentals with pouches etc.
so the genetics is a minor detail to deal with.
There is no reason to corral genetics to modern observations or processes modern research deals with. I say genetics etc did need to act quickly and so it did. innate triggers is my speculation on how. I see no problem with genetic diversity being a very easy thing to occur and not this clumbsy mutation thing they now push.
The variety in dog breeds alone shows the great potential for variety.
I see no reason not to speculate this variety can be triggered by need and not just happenchance being selected on.
Anyways my point and essay is that the anatomical evidence is king in how to classify biological relationships.
so the genetics needs reform.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, you have made two premises.

1st: Dogs show a remarkable variability (I can agree on that).
2nd: Marsupial reproduction is a necessary adaption to a certain kind of reproductive stress.

If we combine both premises, we can predict that, if we put dogs artificially under the required reproductive stress, we would necessarily get marsupial dogs.
Why don't you do this experiment to harden your speculation?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 02 2010,04:47

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong Marsupial wolves share a few points with our wolves. They share uncountable points with "marsupials".
That's what it comes down too. But you gotta look a little closer. At a distance, you couldn't even see the difference between me and Richard Dawkins.

And even if I and RD looked like identical twins, you don't think we would be different in some very significant ways?

You look at the outside - doesn't what's inside count at all?

If you pelted a thylacine and a wolf, I am certain some quite significant difference would be seen even there too.

I show you two paper bags, so they are just the same regardless, whether one contains crap like you do, and the other contains science like we do?

Look at what I bolded: What do you mean by 'evidence', besides looking at a picture and nodding to yourself 'how they look alike, they must be identical'?

I often see cars on the streets that I have a problem identifying - but at a closer look I can see myriads of differences. But according to you, they look alike so they must be identical, built by the same factory?

So scientific issues should be determined by public vote?

The public knows best, you'd vote for a 50% tax cut? Let the public vote, should we nuke Tehran? Let the public vote, is there water on the moon? Just look at the pictures, you see there is not a drop of water on the moon?

Do you know what microscopes are used for?

i can only conclude either you are one of the most stupid people on Earth, or you have the most perverted, morbid sense of humor. Prove me wrong.
Posted by: Reed on Jan. 02 2010,05:07

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 01 2010,23:45)

   
Quote (Johnw @ ,)

"My crowd" (whatever that is) says Australia had no desert 4,000 years ago?  Source, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Its always said by researchers that Australia was covered by flora and only later did it dry out in the middle. Its a common point they bring up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Real scientists (and other vaguely educated people) know Australia is just a bit older than 4000 years.

If you don't take their word for something obvious like that, it's hard to see why you'd accept anything else they say!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you wanted to actually make a case for this, you'd have to come up with some quantifiable method of comparing these "points", and demonstrate that this gave better results than existing phylogenetic methods.

edit: typooos!
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 02 2010,09:05

Quote (Reed @ Jan. 02 2010,13:07)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 01 2010,23:45)

     
Quote (Johnw @ ,)

"My crowd" (whatever that is) says Australia had no desert 4,000 years ago?  Source, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Its always said by researchers that Australia was covered by flora and only later did it dry out in the middle. Its a common point they bring up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Real scientists (and other vaguely educated people) know Australia is just a bit older than than 4000 years.

.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, perhaps Robert could explain the age of the

Diprotodon



From wiki...
Diprotodon was the largest known marsupial that ever lived. It, along with many other members of a group of unusual species collectively called the Australian megafauna, existed from 1.6 million years ago until about 40,000 years ago (through most of the Pleistocene epoch). Diprotodon spp. fossils have been found in many places across Australia, including complete skulls and skeletons, as well as hair and foot impressions. More than one female skeleton has been found with a baby lying in her pouch.

....Robert will have to explain why the bones, hair and foot impressions were placed after the flud by whom  and why they have an age older than his Bible Myth.

While you are at it Robert how about Stromatolites?

Only 3,450 million years old and just up the road from here about a 1000km

Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 02 2010,10:45

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 02 2010,10:53

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 02 2010,09:05)
Diprotodon



From wiki...
Diprotodon was the largest known marsupial that ever lived. It, along with many other members of a group of unusual species collectively called the Australian megafauna, existed from 1.6 million years ago until about 40,000 years ago (through most of the Pleistocene epoch). Diprotodon spp. fossils have been found in many places across Australia, including complete skulls and skeletons, as well as hair and foot impressions. More than one female skeleton has been found with a baby lying in her pouch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Diprotodon is just Yogi Bear corrupted by the Fall.  Everyone knows that!
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 02 2010,11:33

Awesome!
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 02 2010,12:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So far, all you repeat is "it looks like it to me, so I know better than those who actually study the animals."??Argument from ignorance is not a way to go either.??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, his whole spiel seems to boil down to accusing scientists as a group of ignoring a bunch of stuff that he claims is obvious. Not only that, but he claims that most scientists consistently make the same mistakes, despite the fact that the scientific "community" is not a community in the usual meaning of that word - it has no central authority, and its members come from widely different backgrounds, cultures, religions, etc.

Henry
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 04 2010,04:13

Quote (RDK @ Jan. 02 2010,01:56)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,01:52)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,13:06)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:55)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
         
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
         
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today there is no need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously WTF?  Again.

"no mutants are needed" and "genes can change" - do you even know what a mutation is?  A quick google for a definition gets to one site < Learn Genetics - University of Utah > has "A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene."

< Genetics Home Reference > lists a mutation as "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene."

Do you even think before you speak (aka write)?  How is a change in DNA (IOW a gene) not a mutation?  Trigger genes and related things do not change the genes themselves (to the best of my knowledge) but they do change whether a gene is on or not, or affect the way a gene is expressed (evo-devo, etc).  Do you mean to say that the genes for marsupials are still present, but are turned off?  That should be easy to prove with the gene sequencing we have today.  

So, if this is what you mean, then we have a relatively easy way to determine if this is true.  We can have a testable hypothesis and confirming or disconfirming evidence!  

Pre-post edit - maybe you are misusing "trigger" in the genetic sense, but even if that is correct, it's still wrong.  Species change in combination with mutations and selective pressures (and non-selective from neutral mutations).  Your statement of "no mutations are needed for speciation" is still wrong since genes have to mutate for the variety to be present (barring the whole front-loading non-issue - do you believe that creatures have all the DNA they need for whatever changes they will go through under YHVH's Plan?  Do you believe the laughable "no new information" claim of IDiots?  Or that there can be no new, novel mutations - they all have to be present in the DNA already?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying the evidence of life and fossil life insists upon marsupials being just placentals with pouches etc.
so the genetics is a minor detail to deal with.
There is no reason to corral genetics to modern observations or processes modern research deals with. I say genetics etc did need to act quickly and so it did. innate triggers is my speculation on how. I see no problem with genetic diversity being a very easy thing to occur and not this clumbsy mutation thing they now push.
The variety in dog breeds alone shows the great potential for variety.
I see no reason not to speculate this variety can be triggered by need and not just happenchance being selected on.
Anyways my point and essay is that the anatomical evidence is king in how to classify biological relationships.
so the genetics needs reform.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bobby, where does the variation of dog breeds come from if there is no such thing as "mutation"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say there isn't a minor thing of mutations happening.
I just see it as a special case in what is actually going on or used to go on in genes actions in living organisms.
I say there is innate triggers that change genes to adapt a creature , like a dog, to its niche in a post flood world. Modern mutations/artificial selection is just a memory of this ability. In fact perhaps these mutations are not really mutations or problems in genes but just showing how slippery genes are and its  a healthy thing.
Yet again this is about mechanism and my case is on anatomy.
Genes simply must surrender to this conclusion.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 04 2010,04:26

Quote (Reed @ Jan. 02 2010,05:07)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 01 2010,23:45)

   
Quote (Johnw @ ,)

"My crowd" (whatever that is) says Australia had no desert 4,000 years ago?  Source, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Its always said by researchers that Australia was covered by flora and only later did it dry out in the middle. Its a common point they bring up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Real scientists (and other vaguely educated people) know Australia is just a bit older than 4000 years.

If you don't take their word for something obvious like that, it's hard to see why you'd accept anything else they say!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you wanted to actually make a case for this, you'd have to come up with some quantifiable method of comparing these "points", and demonstrate that this gave better results than existing phylogenetic methods.

edit: typooos!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The case for me is made by present ideas about convergent evolution. They mean by convergent that the sameness of a marsupial wolf and our wolf is so profoundly alike in anatomy that it must be from selection/mutation in like niches between these yet unrelated creatures.
EVOLUTION is invoked for the sameness of bodies here!. Its not superficial but from time and genes and selection inside and out of the two kinds of "dogs".
The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 04 2010,04:32

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 02 2010,09:05)
Quote (Reed @ Jan. 02 2010,13:07)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 01 2010,23:45)

       
Quote (Johnw @ ,)

"My crowd" (whatever that is) says Australia had no desert 4,000 years ago?  Source, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Its always said by researchers that Australia was covered by flora and only later did it dry out in the middle. Its a common point they bring up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Real scientists (and other vaguely educated people) know Australia is just a bit older than than 4000 years.

.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, perhaps Robert could explain the age of the

Diprotodon



From wiki...
Diprotodon was the largest known marsupial that ever lived. It, along with many other members of a group of unusual species collectively called the Australian megafauna, existed from 1.6 million years ago until about 40,000 years ago (through most of the Pleistocene epoch). Diprotodon spp. fossils have been found in many places across Australia, including complete skulls and skeletons, as well as hair and foot impressions. More than one female skeleton has been found with a baby lying in her pouch.

....Robert will have to explain why the bones, hair and foot impressions were placed after the flud by whom  and why they have an age older than his Bible Myth.

While you are at it Robert how about Stromatolites?

Only 3,450 million years old and just up the road from here about a 1000km

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point is that marsupials are a placental creature types that in the post flood migrations from the ark adapted to a marsupial mode of reproduction.
The fossilization process must be from events some centuries after the flood. Affecting areas in australia etc but not everywhere.
In fact if it was not for these fossilization events much of the great diversity of post flood australia would not even of been suspected.
Possible, for example, they would never of known about the marsupial lion.
Yet it makes a roaring good case that marsupials are just the same creatures as elsewhere with a little twist.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 04 2010,04:48

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2010,05:04

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,04:48)
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought you said it was god telling creatures to mutate that was the trigger?

Now it's "innate"? I don't think you know what "innate" means.
Posted by: didymos on Jan. 04 2010,05:55

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,02:48)
I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, good luck with that.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And yet the differences, when you actually fucking pay attention to all those words in all those books by all those scientists (deal with it) studying marsupial fossils (not to mention all those studying the ones that are still alive), are so obviously greater and more numerous that the invocation of convergence is entirely reasonable and far less ad-hoc and complicated than your bizarre and muddled notions of warmed-over orthogenesis and/or deity-mandated mutation mashed-up with a bit of uber-extreme environmental influence (for which there is NO evidence at all.  And no, the Bible doesn't count).

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This concept makes my case.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Provided you ignore nearly all of the relevant evidence.
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 04 2010,06:04

RB sais


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My point is that marsupials are a placental creature types that in the post flood migrations from the ark adapted to a marsupial mode of reproduction.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you are saying "post flood" is 1.6 million years ago?
and that the Diprotodon could swim between Asia and Australia?


Even across the "?< The Wallace Line >"?

Why didn't apes and monkeys take the same route?

RB said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fossilization process must be from events some centuries after the flood
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 ....Guffaw

The Diprotodon bones found are not fossils but you really knew that already ....right?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 04 2010,07:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, yes - that is what you say.

But do you really think saying is enough? If we shall believe anything you say, you'd be obliged to believe anything we say say too. Or are you trying to say you are much smarter than us?

Come on Robert, tell us how you know there is an innate trigger to creatures. How did you find out?

Can you name one other person in this world that knows about and agrees with you about the triggers?

Where are the triggers, what do they look like, what are they made of, how do they function?

Do you think anything becomes true simply because you say it?

You have so much in common with God, are you certain you are not God?
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 04 2010,13:01

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 04 2010,15:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, yes - that is what you say.

But do you really think saying is enough? If we shall believe anything you say, you'd be obliged to believe anything we say say too. Or are you trying to say you are much smarter than us?

Come on Robert, tell us how you know there is an innate trigger to creatures. How did you find out?

Can you name one other person in this world that knows about and agrees with you about the triggers?

Where are the triggers, what do they look like, what are they made of, how do they function?

Do you think anything becomes true simply because you say it?

You have so much in common with God, are you certain you are not God?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's gone off half cocked.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 04 2010,13:05

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,04:13)
Quote (RDK @ Jan. 02 2010,01:56)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,01:52)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,13:06)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:55)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
         
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
           
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today there is no need.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously WTF?  Again.

"no mutants are needed" and "genes can change" - do you even know what a mutation is?  A quick google for a definition gets to one site < Learn Genetics - University of Utah > has "A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene."

< Genetics Home Reference > lists a mutation as "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene."

Do you even think before you speak (aka write)?  How is a change in DNA (IOW a gene) not a mutation?  Trigger genes and related things do not change the genes themselves (to the best of my knowledge) but they do change whether a gene is on or not, or affect the way a gene is expressed (evo-devo, etc).  Do you mean to say that the genes for marsupials are still present, but are turned off?  That should be easy to prove with the gene sequencing we have today.  

So, if this is what you mean, then we have a relatively easy way to determine if this is true.  We can have a testable hypothesis and confirming or disconfirming evidence!  

Pre-post edit - maybe you are misusing "trigger" in the genetic sense, but even if that is correct, it's still wrong.  Species change in combination with mutations and selective pressures (and non-selective from neutral mutations).  Your statement of "no mutations are needed for speciation" is still wrong since genes have to mutate for the variety to be present (barring the whole front-loading non-issue - do you believe that creatures have all the DNA they need for whatever changes they will go through under YHVH's Plan?  Do you believe the laughable "no new information" claim of IDiots?  Or that there can be no new, novel mutations - they all have to be present in the DNA already?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying the evidence of life and fossil life insists upon marsupials being just placentals with pouches etc.
so the genetics is a minor detail to deal with.
There is no reason to corral genetics to modern observations or processes modern research deals with. I say genetics etc did need to act quickly and so it did. innate triggers is my speculation on how. I see no problem with genetic diversity being a very easy thing to occur and not this clumbsy mutation thing they now push.
The variety in dog breeds alone shows the great potential for variety.
I see no reason not to speculate this variety can be triggered by need and not just happenchance being selected on.
Anyways my point and essay is that the anatomical evidence is king in how to classify biological relationships.
so the genetics needs reform.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bobby, where does the variation of dog breeds come from if there is no such thing as "mutation"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say there isn't a minor thing of mutations happening.
I just see it as a special case in what is actually going on or used to go on in genes actions in living organisms.
I say there is innate triggers that change genes to adapt a creature , like a dog, to its niche in a post flood world. Modern mutations/artificial selection is just a memory of this ability. In fact perhaps these mutations are not really mutations or problems in genes but just showing how slippery genes are and its  a healthy thing.
Yet again this is about mechanism and my case is on anatomy.
Genes simply must surrender to this conclusion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"This is about mechanism and my case is on anatomy" - yet you have no mechanism.  Your basing your beliefs on your bible and superficial similarities, not actual similarities or differences.  You give no mechanism.  In fact...

"Genes simply must surrender to this conclusion." is so far wrong and backwards it's hysterical.  See, you have to look at the evidence before you can come to a conclusion, not make the evidence fit a predetermined conclusion.  The former is how scientists work, the latter is how you and other pseudoscientists work.  How do you get the anatomy if the genes aren't there.  

The similarities in creatures are usually superficial in convergent evolution.  If you do look deeper than you are looking, you'll find some similarities but a lot more differences, both at the gross (anatomical) level but also at the genetic level.  Two creatures may look the same, but the genes that determine that may be completely different.  That's one way we can determine relatedness, or lack thereof.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 04 2010,13:11

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,04:26)
Quote (Reed @ Jan. 02 2010,05:07)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 01 2010,23:45)

     
Quote (Johnw @ ,)

"My crowd" (whatever that is) says Australia had no desert 4,000 years ago?  Source, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Its always said by researchers that Australia was covered by flora and only later did it dry out in the middle. Its a common point they bring up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Real scientists (and other vaguely educated people) know Australia is just a bit older than 4000 years.

If you don't take their word for something obvious like that, it's hard to see why you'd accept anything else they say!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you wanted to actually make a case for this, you'd have to come up with some quantifiable method of comparing these "points", and demonstrate that this gave better results than existing phylogenetic methods.

edit: typooos!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The case for me is made by present ideas about convergent evolution. They mean by convergent that the sameness of a marsupial wolf and our wolf is so profoundly alike in anatomy that it must be from selection/mutation in like niches between these yet unrelated creatures.
EVOLUTION is invoked for the sameness of bodies here!. Its not superficial but from time and genes and selection inside and out of the two kinds of "dogs".
The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is they are not "profoundly" alike - they are similar, but the differences exceed the similarities, as, I believe, has been shown here.  You just don't want to accept that, so you have to torture the facts to fit your conclusion.  Last I knew, lying was still supposed to be a sin, despite what Luther is rumored to have said (IIRC).

Also - WTF does "The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it." mean?  What thousands of points involving twists and turns of bone to bring about an eye?  You do realize that there are multiple forms of eyes, with differences between them in genes and structure (hint - an octopus and human eye are wildly difference, despite their appearance).  I can't recall off hand, but I think the number of different eyes is something like 7-10 at a minimum (ie - eyes evolved that many times for difference lineages).  Maybe someone here can fix that for me so that we have the facts correct?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 04 2010,13:11

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2010,13:01)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 04 2010,15:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, yes - that is what you say.

But do you really think saying is enough? If we shall believe anything you say, you'd be obliged to believe anything we say say too. Or are you trying to say you are much smarter than us?

Come on Robert, tell us how you know there is an innate trigger to creatures. How did you find out?

Can you name one other person in this world that knows about and agrees with you about the triggers?

Where are the triggers, what do they look like, what are they made of, how do they function?

Do you think anything becomes true simply because you say it?

You have so much in common with God, are you certain you are not God?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's gone off half cocked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does that mean it's nothing to crow about?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 04 2010,14:13

Robert,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why then is it that it is not insects, but bacteria that fills the Earth?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 04 2010,15:14

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 04 2010,14:13)
Robert,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why then is it that it is not insects, but bacteria that fills the Earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If insects have to fill the Earth, since there are no arctic flies, does that mean they failed?  What about earthworms - how fast do they move, Robert?  Were they carried by the insects that flew?  What about water bugs?

I'm reminded of Xanth, I think, which had an insect that flew at supersonic speeds (at least I think it was Xanth, the discworld has the light-speed cheetah/puma/whatever) - did post-Flood earthworms fly or burrow at the speed of sound?
Posted by: RDK on Jan. 04 2010,16:09

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 04 2010,13:11)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2010,13:01)

He's gone off half cocked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does that mean it's nothing to crow about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would say so.  Unfortunately though, our boy Bobby has the brain capacity of a dollar-store manakin.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 04 2010,16:14

Quote (RDK @ Jan. 04 2010,16:09)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 04 2010,13:11)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2010,13:01)

He's gone off half cocked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does that mean it's nothing to crow about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would say so.  Unfortunately though, our boy Bobby has the brain capacity of a dollar-store manakin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! There's no reason to insult manakins.


Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 04 2010,17:00

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 04 2010,14:14)
 
Quote (RDK @ Jan. 04 2010,16:09)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 04 2010,13:11)
     
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2010,13:01)

He's gone off half cocked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does that mean it's nothing to crow about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would say so.  Unfortunately though, our boy Bobby has the brain capacity of a dollar-store manakin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! There's no reason to insult manakins.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you have to call them personakins now.

Ooops, perchildakins.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 04 2010,19:19

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,04:48)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, hundreds of scientists have studied or are currently studying marsupials. The study of marsupials goes back at least to the time of Richard Owen. The list of folks who have studied them (meaning both extinct and extant species) includes some of the finest paleontologists and mammologists.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



However, saying that canine wolves and marsupial wolves are the same based on a resemblance in form is questionable, to say the least. The resemblance between the two is superficial. If you want to convince us name some other traits that demonstrate a relationship between the two and make sure they are phylogenetically informative otherwise you are wasting everybodies time.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This concept makes my case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, the concept of convergent evolution makes the case that two sings look alike and have some similar adaptations, it does not, however, establish a relationship or an identity between the forms being compared. Otherwise



Hunter Thompson is a cartoon character because he looks like a cartoon character.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, what anatomy is similar between the two?



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



Um, no. The traits used are those that have been repeatedly demonstrated to yield useful information about relationships within and between groups.

Edit to add a correction: When I said marsupials have been studied since at least the time of Owen I was only partially correct. Cuvier studied them as well (Cuvier was about 35 when Owen was born).
Posted by: Reed on Jan. 04 2010,22:46

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,02:26)
The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, you completely fail to provide any useful definition of your system. You've just repeated the same assertions. Nothing you've said would allow anyone to objectively compare your "method" (pretending for the moment that you actually have one) with other methods. Your vague philosophical objection to convergent evolution is irrelevant to providing a definition to your alternative.

It's not enough to say that the vaguely specified similarity important. You have to clearly define which similarities you are talking about, provide an objective way of identifying which ones are important, provide a logically consistent way of measuring and comparing them, and then demonstrate that you get better* results than current methods produce.

You have done none of these things. You've just repeated "I'm right because I say so!". This is a level argument one might expect from a 5 year old, but it's down right embarrassing from an adult.

* better in some well defined way, not "it fits my twisted interpretation of some ancient myth"
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 05 2010,00:41

Quote (Reed @ Jan. 04 2010,20:46)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,02:26)
The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, you completely fail to provide any useful definition of your system. You've just repeated the same assertions. Nothing you've said would allow anyone to objectively compare your "method" (pretending for the moment that you actually have one) with other methods. Your vague philosophical objection to convergent evolution is irrelevant to providing a definition to your alternative.

It's not enough to say that the vaguely specified similarity important. You have to clearly define which similarities you are talking about, provide an objective way of identifying which ones are important, provide a logically consistent way of measuring and comparing them, and then demonstrate that you get better* results than current methods produce.

You have done none of these things. You've just repeated "I'm right because I say so!". This is a level argument one might expect from a 5 year old, but it's down right embarrassing from an adult.

* better in some well defined way, not "it fits my twisted interpretation of some ancient myth"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hear, hear.

Which particular similarities are we looking at here, Bobby? Teeth? Well, I guess they both sort of have fangs, but so do most mammals. Rest of the teeth aren't the same at all, really. Nope, that won't do.  

How about the shape of the jaw? Nope. Not that either.

Hmm... skull? Well, kinda sorta, maybe, in the right light. If you squint.

How about "they have four legs, a heart, and a forehead?"* Yeah, that's it!

From this I conclude that thylacines are actually more closely related to hedgehogs. I mean, just look at the similarities!

*esoteric homage to MPFC.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 05 2010,03:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say so.  Unfortunately though, our boy Bobby has the brain capacity of a dollar-store manakin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alternatively, he is just another demonstration of the law of GIGO.

I have noted that it actually is impossible to engage him in anything resembling intelligent discourse. Attempts to put things straight has no effect on him, he just return with yet another insane harangue.

Do we know that there is a functioning intellect at the other end?
Posted by: Bjarne on Jan. 05 2010,03:37

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,11:48)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 05 2010,05:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hate to disappoint you but I think we already have his < answer here. >
Posted by: Bjarne on Jan. 05 2010,06:45

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 05 2010,12:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hate to disappoint you but I think we already have his < answer here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just want to make sure that I did get the core of his idea right. After all, I am no native speaker of English.
Posted by: RDK on Jan. 05 2010,15:16

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 05 2010,03:12)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say so.  Unfortunately though, our boy Bobby has the brain capacity of a dollar-store manakin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alternatively, he is just another demonstration of the law of GIGO.

I have noted that it actually is impossible to engage him in anything resembling intelligent discourse. Attempts to put things straight has no effect on him, he just return with yet another insane harangue.

Do we know that there is a functioning intellect at the other end?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I once attempted a simple Turing Test with Bobby Byers as the subject during his brief stint over at PT, but unfortunately he could not handle the rigors of that particular gauntlet.

If I had to make an educated guess I'd say he's some sort of weird program someone has written that takes a copy of the words you've posted to the board and jumbles them up into a word salad that has something vaguely to do with the original topic.  IMO that's the best explanation of the sheer intellectual prowess we've seen come forth from the entity that is Robert Byers.

If someone has an alternate explanation, please don't hesitate to present it.

Bjarne says:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just want to make sure that I did get the core of his idea right. After all, I am no native speaker of English.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And yet your comprehension and use of English is still superior to Robert's by several orders of magnitude.  I salute you.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 06 2010,23:53

peeking

yup, still stuck on stoopid

and bubba's here too

hmm should be innerstin to watch k.e.. play naughty bits mashup on the old placenta diddler

second thought, nahh
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 07 2010,03:06

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2010,06:04)
RB sais
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My point is that marsupials are a placental creature types that in the post flood migrations from the ark adapted to a marsupial mode of reproduction.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you are saying "post flood" is 1.6 million years ago?
and that the Diprotodon could swim between Asia and Australia?


Even across the "?< The Wallace Line >"?

Why didn't apes and monkeys take the same route?

RB said
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fossilization process must be from events some centuries after the flood
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 ....Guffaw

The Diprotodon bones found are not fossils but you really knew that already ....right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I presumed they were fossils. No matter.

There was no swimming. The land was joined allowing post flood quick migrations everywhere. then a few centuries later the land sank or the water rose drowning the connection between Asia and Australia. The Wallace line shows this. Since then migration has been difficult for larger creatures.
The flood was about 4500 years ago. Not millions.
Biogeography is a friend to creationism and a stumbling block to evolution.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 07 2010,03:16

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 04 2010,07:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, yes - that is what you say.

But do you really think saying is enough? If we shall believe anything you say, you'd be obliged to believe anything we say say too. Or are you trying to say you are much smarter than us?

Come on Robert, tell us how you know there is an innate trigger to creatures. How did you find out?

Can you name one other person in this world that knows about and agrees with you about the triggers?

Where are the triggers, what do they look like, what are they made of, how do they function?

Do you think anything becomes true simply because you say it?

You have so much in common with God, are you certain you are not God?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence leads to this conclusion.
First there are biblical boundaries. Then there is post flood fossils and modern life that shows fantastic diversity beyond normal means to bring speciation. So with confidence in these facts it follows that innate triggers must be at work in life organisms to bring the results.
Evolution admits this but has this idea of selection/mutation/over great time.
Nothing was observed.

I then can add that modern observations like the amazon or cichlid fishes in Africa are actually case in point of rapid diversity abilities of life.
There can be great diversity living together at the same time.
evolution again invokes time/selection for these cases but I say they are revelations that diversity is from innate triggers suddenly with no time concepts involved.
Biblical creationism can and should see the cichlids as a case of sudden adaptation.
They diversified within a few decades or less upon entering these lakes and have since declined in types. Not increased.
Thats my evidence.
Again mechanism is a afterthought. The evidence for my claims is anatomy. Except for the creationist who needs to explain the anomaly of Australia from a focal point of the Ark.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 07 2010,03:34

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 04 2010,13:11)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,04:26)
Quote (Reed @ Jan. 02 2010,05:07)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 01 2010,23:45)

     
Quote (Johnw @ ,)

"My crowd" (whatever that is) says Australia had no desert 4,000 years ago?  Source, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Its always said by researchers that Australia was covered by flora and only later did it dry out in the middle. Its a common point they bring up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Real scientists (and other vaguely educated people) know Australia is just a bit older than 4000 years.

If you don't take their word for something obvious like that, it's hard to see why you'd accept anything else they say!
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you wanted to actually make a case for this, you'd have to come up with some quantifiable method of comparing these "points", and demonstrate that this gave better results than existing phylogenetic methods.

edit: typooos!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The case for me is made by present ideas about convergent evolution. They mean by convergent that the sameness of a marsupial wolf and our wolf is so profoundly alike in anatomy that it must be from selection/mutation in like niches between these yet unrelated creatures.
EVOLUTION is invoked for the sameness of bodies here!. Its not superficial but from time and genes and selection inside and out of the two kinds of "dogs".
The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is they are not "profoundly" alike - they are similar, but the differences exceed the similarities, as, I believe, has been shown here.  You just don't want to accept that, so you have to torture the facts to fit your conclusion.  Last I knew, lying was still supposed to be a sin, despite what Luther is rumored to have said (IIRC).

Also - WTF does "The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it." mean?  What thousands of points involving twists and turns of bone to bring about an eye?  You do realize that there are multiple forms of eyes, with differences between them in genes and structure (hint - an octopus and human eye are wildly difference, despite their appearance).  I can't recall off hand, but I think the number of different eyes is something like 7-10 at a minimum (ie - eyes evolved that many times for difference lineages).  Maybe someone here can fix that for me so that we have the facts correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not talking about eyeballs. i mean anout what vision of these creatures tells ones brain.
i have made my case that marsupial bears, tapirs, mice, dogs, cats are in fact look alikes to the eye , to any close study, and admitted to be so much so that the idea of convergent evolution, not ordinary evolution, is said to be the explanation for amazing sameness of claimed unrelated creatures.

I say a horse is a horse. Pouch or no pouch.
It fits biblical boundaries. It fits close analysis. It fits a common theme of error in classification systems of constantly grouping creatures in some area by some details of sameness while ignoring the greater details of sameness with other creatures.
i say the area is the origin of the few same details and otherwise a general and more reduced earth fauna.
its not just marsupials but other orders not well known to many, where the same strange claims are made.

They have horse, elephant, bears, camels, looking creatures(in south America)  that they say are unrelated to their namesakes just because of this or that detail.
My essay is about a new interpretation of same shaped creatures as being the same creatures. Embrace the sameness and ignore the little differences. not the other wayt around.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 07 2010,03:43

Quote (Reed @ Jan. 04 2010,22:46)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,02:26)
The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, you completely fail to provide any useful definition of your system. You've just repeated the same assertions. Nothing you've said would allow anyone to objectively compare your "method" (pretending for the moment that you actually have one) with other methods. Your vague philosophical objection to convergent evolution is irrelevant to providing a definition to your alternative.

It's not enough to say that the vaguely specified similarity important. You have to clearly define which similarities you are talking about, provide an objective way of identifying which ones are important, provide a logically consistent way of measuring and comparing them, and then demonstrate that you get better* results than current methods produce.

You have done none of these things. You've just repeated "I'm right because I say so!". This is a level argument one might expect from a 5 year old, but it's down right embarrassing from an adult.

* better in some well defined way, not "it fits my twisted interpretation of some ancient myth"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is enough to say what i say.
I am starting from basic acceptance of premises of marsupials in many cases or all looking exactly like their namesakes. Not my invention.
its public knowledge. its firther public knowledge that they are so alike that convergent evolution is invoked to explain this strange case.
I don't need tp prove a wolf looks like a marsupial wolf.
its common knowledge for anyone who could think about this subject.
They can only say whether the great sameness of form defines relationship or the few details of form defines relationship.
I am not adding information but rather correcting interpretation on the information.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 07 2010,03:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First there are biblical boundaries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Right, the bible is the absolute boundary of all your so-called thinking.

This is how your interpretation of the bible binds your thinking:

How can I, Robert Byers satisfy my innate desire to make believe what I want to believe according to how I read the bible?

From that follows everything you say.

If your mind was not so hopelessly conditioned to think in a vicious circle you'd stop and question yourself:

How come I am the only person out of the planet's 6+ billion people that 'knows' this 'truth'?  Why has God given me this gift of knowing something the world doesn't know? Am I a prophet, Christ - or am I God?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 07 2010,03:51

Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 05 2010,03:37)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,11:48)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land. Then the land was drowned segregating life.
I see the mechanism as needed back then but not later.
It was probably just to maintain a steady reproduction on the fly. There was a rush to fill the earth quick. Its now in a neutral gear.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 07 2010,04:12

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 07 2010,03:51)
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know this? Australia is not mentioned in the Bible so where are you getting your information from?
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 07 2010,08:16

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 07 2010,12:12)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 07 2010,03:51)
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know this? Australia is not mentioned in the Bible so where are you getting your information from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not in the Bible, probably in one of those stupid fundy childrens biblical propaganda cartoons shown at Jesus camp.

So not only can be he rightly called a bibliolater but a comicalater.

I think now is the time to see if he believes in ghosts, satan, demons and lesbians.
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 07 2010,08:30

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 07 2010,07:53)
peeking

yup, still stuck on stoopid

and bubba's here too

hmm should be innerstin to watch k.e.. play naughty bits mashup on the old placenta diddler

second thought, nahh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's been awhile...but here goes.

.... old Placenta Domingo singing



< Nessum Dorma >
Posted by: Bjarne on Jan. 07 2010,08:48

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 07 2010,10:51)
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 05 2010,03:37)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,11:48)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land. Then the land was drowned segregating life.
I see the mechanism as needed back then but not later.
It was probably just to maintain a steady reproduction on the fly. There was a rush to fill the earth quick. Its now in a neutral gear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, except for the swimming part, I did get your idea right?

A host of widely different animals migrated to Australia over some hypothetical landbridge and then they did experience the same kind of reproductive stress, which did lead to the development  of a similar  feature, the marsupial reproduction system?

This would be nothing, but convergent evolution. You are just trying to disprove, in the loosest sense of the word, convergent evolution with convergent evolution.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 07 2010,09:42

So WTF is a "biblical boundary"???

You guys/gals do know nothing is going to change this clown's mind, right? He's hermetically sealed.

Good excersize, though... I guess.
Posted by: OWKtree on Jan. 07 2010,14:06

Here's a little piece of bad (or ignorant) geology to toss into the discussion.

< http://finance.yahoo.com/real-es....-at-sea >

Here's the bit that got me wondering who they were talking to:
==
Beyond the Gulf of Mexico, companies have announced big finds off the coasts of Brazil and Ghana, leading some experts to suggest the existence of a massive oil reservoir stretching across the Atlantic from Africa to South America. Production from deepwater projects -- those in water at least 1,000 feet deep -- grew by 67%, or by about 2.3 million barrels a day, between 2005 and 2008, according to PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm.
==

I just have to wonder who these "experts" are who think there would be oil-bearing strata stretching across the Atlantic Ocean given what is known about mid-ocean rifts and seafloor spreading.

Also, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, most oil-drilling would be limited to continental boundaries in any case since you need those strata to support the lifeforms that eventually become the oil.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 07 2010,14:19

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 07 2010,09:42)
So WTF is a "biblical boundary"???

You guys/gals do know nothing is going to change this clown's mind, right? He's hermetically sealed.

Good excersize, though... I guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course we do.  He says he has proved his case when he's done no such thing, and says that everything is the way he sees it because he says it is.  Bubble Boy wasn't sealed in that tight, but this conversation (one-sided that it is) has a kind of curious (or sick) fascination.  Trying to comprehend such willful, nay worshipful, ignorance is astounding.  Do we have a pic of Bobby?  A photoshop of his head on popeye sounds about right "it is 'cuz it is, toot toot!"

And here I thought to sign up and post a link to the creotards on the Pharyngula thread on weiland to get some more amusement.  Not sure it's needed.
Posted by: Reed on Jan. 07 2010,14:33

Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 07 2010,06:48)
This would be nothing, but convergent evolution. You are just trying to disprove, in the loosest sense of the word, convergent evolution with convergent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better yet, his version requires evolution to happen thousands or millions of times faster than it actually did. If you can go from canid to marsupial in a few thousand years (or less, since the claim is that it helped them spread quickly from the ark ) then going from something like a ape to a human in a few million years should be no problem at all.

No matter how many times they do it (and they do it a lot for being so dead set against evolution! ), YECs appealing to impossibly fast evolution to argue against evolution always makes me snicker.

     
Quote (fnxtr @ ,)
Good excersize, though... I guess.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly, he just repeats his "OMG it's true 'cause I say so" over and over. But hey, it's cheap entertainment :)
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 07 2010,16:23

Quote (Reed @ Jan. 07 2010,14:33)
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 07 2010,06:48)
This would be nothing, but convergent evolution. You are just trying to disprove, in the loosest sense of the word, convergent evolution with convergent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better yet, his version requires evolution to happen thousands or millions of times faster than it actually did. If you can go from canid to marsupial in a few thousand years (or less, since the claim is that it helped them spread quickly from the ark ) then going from something like a ape to a human in a few million years should be no problem at all.

No matter how many times they do it (and they do it a lot for being so dead set against evolution! ), YECs appealing to impossibly fast evolution to argue against evolution always makes me snicker.

     
Quote (fnxtr @ ,)
Good excersize, though... I guess.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly, he just repeats his "OMG it's true 'cause I say so" over and over. But hey, it's cheap entertainment :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be honest, he seems to think that there are no major differences between marsupials and placentals, so there is no real need for a lot of changes.  He probably also thinks that the different "kinds" just all became marsupial together since that was his god's plan, as told in his holy book (it's appendix 3: Australia, subsection 2a - marsupials)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 08 2010,15:59

Hey Robert,

So tell me, are arthropods a type kind of plant, or are plants a type kind of arthropod? They both have cuticles, after all, and since convergent evolution is a myth...


Edited to use appropriate creobot terminology. (Or should I have gone with Baramin???)


Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 08 2010,16:11

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 08 2010,13:59)
Hey Robert,

So tell me, are arthropods a type kind of plant, or are plants a type kind of arthropod? They both have cuticles, after all, and since convergent evolution is a myth...


Edited to use appropriate creobot terminology. (Or should I have gone with Baramin???)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To a BobBiologist, not all plants are arthropods.  Just crabgrass, louseworts and spider plants.  On the other hand, duckweed is a bird, horsetails are mammals and pebble plants aren't even alive.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Jan. 08 2010,17:13

So are Tasmanian Devils really Satan's minions?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 08 2010,19:19

Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 08 2010,17:13)
So are Tasmanian Devils really Satan's minions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will Fido fetch a stick insect?

Is a Venus flytrap only seen on Venus?

Is a black widow on her husband's social security?

Will DaveScot eat a puff adder if it has cheese on it?

Have you ever seen a horse fly?
Posted by: rhmc on Jan. 09 2010,10:33

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 08 2010,20:19)
Have you ever seen a horse fly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you ever see an elephant fly?
- Well, I've seen a horsefly.
Ah, I've seen a dragonfly.
I've seen a housefly.
See, I've seen all that too.
I've seen a peanut stand and heard a rubber band.
I seen a needle that winked its eye.
But I be done seen about ever'thing
When I see a elephant fly
- What'd you say, boy?  
- I said when I see a elephant fly
I seen a front porch swing
heard a diamond ring
I seen a polka-dot railroad tie
But I be done seen 'bout ever'thing
When I see a elephant fly
I saw a clotheshorse
He rear up and buck
And they tell me that a man made a vegetable truck
I didn't see that I only heard
Just to be sociable I'll take your word
I heard a fireside chat
I saw a baseball bat
And I just laughed till I thought I'd die
But I be done seen 'bout ever'thing
When I see a elephant fly...
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 09 2010,14:35

I have a dragon tree (Dracaena marginata) in my living room. Now I don't need a fireplace, its flaming transpirations keep us warm.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 11 2010,21:32

Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 07 2010,08:48)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 07 2010,10:51)
 
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 05 2010,03:37)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,11:48)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
     
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land. Then the land was drowned segregating life.
I see the mechanism as needed back then but not later.
It was probably just to maintain a steady reproduction on the fly. There was a rush to fill the earth quick. Its now in a neutral gear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, except for the swimming part, I did get your idea right?

A host of widely different animals migrated to Australia over some hypothetical landbridge and then they did experience the same kind of reproductive stress, which did lead to the development  of a similar  feature, the marsupial reproduction system?

This would be nothing, but convergent evolution. You are just trying to disprove, in the loosest sense of the word, convergent evolution with convergent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your somewhat on target. Yes the niche was the stress or area and the origin of a common adaptation instantly.

Its not convergent evolution by way of mutation/selection.
Just quick draw innate triggered adaptation.
I know its new but the evidence forces this conclusion. Evolution doesn't have the evidence or just interpretation of common data.
Of coarse I also have a witness and boundaries from Genesis.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 11 2010,22:08

a witness huh

bwaahahahahaha

bubba have you ever tried to get a book deal?  this stuff is great.
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 11 2010,22:09

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 07 2010,07:42)
So WTF is a "biblical boundary"???

You guys/gals do know nothing is going to change this clown's mind, right? He's hermetically sealed.

Good excersize, though... I guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this Byers' intro here? He's an interesting guy fer sure.

I'll read the thread now.
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 11 2010,22:20

If you want to read some of his original beauties, search his name on dawkins' forum.
Posted by: Reed on Jan. 12 2010,00:16

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 11 2010,19:32)

Its not convergent evolution by way of mutation/selection.
Just quick draw innate triggered adaptation.
I know its new but the evidence forces this conclusion. Evolution doesn't have the evidence or just interpretation of common data.
Of coarse I also have a witness and boundaries from Genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 12 2010,02:59

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 07 2010,04:12)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 07 2010,03:51)
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know this? Australia is not mentioned in the Bible so where are you getting your information from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you "miss" this question Robert?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 12 2010,13:16

Brian Switek has a post on the "marsupial lion" (Thylacoleo) < here > - pay attention to the skull and foot (the hind foot reconstruction).  Robert, you can look at that, and read what it says, and claim that lions and the Thylacoleo are similar?

Of course, you will say that, but for once try to be intellectually honest.  The skulls are nothing alike, and the hind feet show that the entire structure and method of walking is different.  Throw in the reproduction method (will all attendant physiological differences - hormones and such, plus anatomy), and there is no comparison.  Only someone completely blinded and slavishly dogmatic to their dogma would claim otherwise.  Sadly, we know what you will say.
Posted by: RDK on Jan. 12 2010,13:28

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 12 2010,13:16)
Brian Switek has a post on the "marsupial lion" (Thylacoleo) < here > - pay attention to the skull and foot (the hind foot reconstruction).  Robert, you can look at that, and read what it says, and claim that lions and the Thylacoleo are similar?

Of course, you will say that, but for once try to be intellectually honest.  The skulls are nothing alike, and the hind feet show that the entire structure and method of walking is different.  Throw in the reproduction method (will all attendant physiological differences - hormones and such, plus anatomy), and there is no comparison.  Only someone completely blinded and slavishly dogmatic to their dogma would claim otherwise.  Sadly, we know what you will say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is what you Darwinitwtis don't realize; internal anatomy and genetics are only a small issue; it's the external anatomy that counts.  The truth of creation and the political lie of Darwinism will be revealed.  America deserves the truth.

Equal time.

Bioturgitation.

Jebus.
Posted by: RDK on Jan. 12 2010,13:30

Oh and I forgot about the all-powerful "innate triggers"; can't forget those.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 12 2010,13:36

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 12 2010,11:16)
Of course, you will say that, but for once try to be intellectually honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you lost him right there, Badger.
Posted by: Bjarne on Jan. 12 2010,14:18

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 12 2010,04:32)
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 07 2010,08:48)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 07 2010,10:51)
 
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 05 2010,03:37)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,11:48)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
     
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
     
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land. Then the land was drowned segregating life.
I see the mechanism as needed back then but not later.
It was probably just to maintain a steady reproduction on the fly. There was a rush to fill the earth quick. Its now in a neutral gear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, except for the swimming part, I did get your idea right?

A host of widely different animals migrated to Australia over some hypothetical landbridge and then they did experience the same kind of reproductive stress, which did lead to the development  of a similar  feature, the marsupial reproduction system?

This would be nothing, but convergent evolution. You are just trying to disprove, in the loosest sense of the word, convergent evolution with convergent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your somewhat on target. Yes the niche was the stress or area and the origin of a common adaptation instantly.

Its not convergent evolution by way of mutation/selection.
Just quick draw innate triggered adaptation.
I know its new but the evidence forces this conclusion. Evolution doesn't have the evidence or just interpretation of common data.
Of coarse I also have a witness and boundaries from Genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is highly exciting, Robert.

Can you please give me the chapter and verse of Genesis in which God magically changed the Bauplan of the Australian mammals?

I am sure it is only because of my faulty Bible translations, that I can't find anything of such a claim in the book of Genesis.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 12 2010,14:23

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 12 2010,13:36)
   
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 12 2010,11:16)
Of course, you will say that, but for once try to be intellectually honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you lost him right there, Badger.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As far as he is concerned, he is as honest as can be. After all, what can be dishonest about believing in the Flood, and making up stories to complete the picture? Since there were no thylacines on the Ark, there had to be a way of poofing them into existence.

Innate triggers to our resque.

This is not about honesty, it is only about making the landscape fit the map. Since the map is correct, nothing dishonest about that.

I imagine Robert nodding approvingly now.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 12 2010,16:17

Haven't we established through all of this fun and foolishness that the answer to the question that titles this thread is "no"?

Louis
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 12 2010,20:31

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2010,16:17)
Haven't we established through all of this fun and foolishness that the answer to the question that titles this thread is "no"?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that the title was discussed here and there between visits by creationists. I don't think the question received the attention it deserved though. I think the answer is the other way around. We can do geology without evolution but we can't do evolution without geology. But that is just me...
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 14 2010,02:55

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 12 2010,13:16)
Brian Switek has a post on the "marsupial lion" (Thylacoleo) < here > - pay attention to the skull and foot (the hind foot reconstruction).  Robert, you can look at that, and read what it says, and claim that lions and the Thylacoleo are similar?

Of course, you will say that, but for once try to be intellectually honest.  The skulls are nothing alike, and the hind feet show that the entire structure and method of walking is different.  Throw in the reproduction method (will all attendant physiological differences - hormones and such, plus anatomy), and there is no comparison.  Only someone completely blinded and slavishly dogmatic to their dogma would claim otherwise.  Sadly, we know what you will say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the link. I know this stuff and the analysis on the recent fossil finds. (Also a Nova episode)
By the way some first researchers on the marsupial lion said he used his teeth to open coconuts or something hard. A absurdity but still logical from a premise its just a funny looking wombat).

He said almost nothing about differences of the marsupial lion from our lions although stating it wasn't like our cats. Why?
He brings up about the feet.
He says the claws are retractable. Fine many cats elsewhere are but not all. Its not a defining point. It suits each cat depending on niche.

The only point brought up is about the foot type. This is a minor thing compared to the leg, shoulder, back and everything.
The foot easily can adapt to needs in the area and indeed be like other marsupials simply because of like effects upon colonizing a new area. I also suspect these creatures did not have yet fixed details in regards to seeking food since it was soon after leaving the ark.

This would explain the minor detail of walking flat on the foot. I am sure I have seen other creatures in the fossil record with this type of walking who like bears just have a need for this type of walking.
There is no reason to define creatures by details of walking.

In fact considering the great sameness of the two bodies the fact that only a little point is made about the foot shows the lack of difference in thousands of other points about its anatomy.

This marsupial cat would look exactly like a placental cat from even a close difference.

It is not related to kangaroos, wombats etc. They are not related to each other either.
In fact recent research has confirmed the very cat like nature of this marsupial lion and thrown away a few wrong ideas. a few more to go.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 14 2010,05:43

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 12 2010,02:59)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 07 2010,04:12)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 07 2010,03:51)
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know this? Australia is not mentioned in the Bible so where are you getting your information from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you "miss" this question Robert?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you "miss" this question once again Robert?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 14 2010,05:45

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 14 2010,02:55)
I read the link. I know this stuff and the analysis on the recent fossil finds. (Also a Nova episode)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Presumably the Nova episode said that the fossils were many millions of years old?

Do you disagree with that?

If you do, why agree with everything else the Nova episode said, surely it's all suspect if that central fact is wrong?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 14 2010,05:49

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 14 2010,02:55)
By the way some first researchers on the marsupial lion said he used his teeth to open coconuts or something hard. A absurdity but still logical from a premise its just a funny looking wombat).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think that before the fall animals with sharp teeth used them to open those same coconuts?

Otherwise before the fall why would they need sharp teeth?
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 14 2010,06:28

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 14 2010,10:55)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 12 2010,13:16)
Brian Switek has a post on the "marsupial lion" (Thylacoleo) < here > - pay attention to the skull and foot (the hind foot reconstruction).  Robert, you can look at that, and read what it says, and claim that lions and the Thylacoleo are similar?

Of course, you will say that, but for once try to be intellectually honest.  The skulls are nothing alike, and the hind feet show that the entire structure and method of walking is different.  Throw in the reproduction method (will all attendant physiological differences - hormones and such, plus anatomy), and there is no comparison.  Only someone completely blinded and slavishly dogmatic to their dogma would claim otherwise.  Sadly, we know what you will say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read the link. I know this stuff and the analysis on the recent fossil finds. (Also a Nova episode)
By the way some first researchers on the marsupial lion said he used his teeth to open coconuts or something hard. A absurdity but still logical from a premise its just a funny looking wombat).

He said almost nothing about differences of the marsupial lion from our lions although stating it wasn't like our cats. Why?
He brings up about the feet.
He says the claws are retractable. Fine many cats elsewhere are but not all. Its not a defining point. It suits each cat depending on niche.

The only point brought up is about the foot type. This is a minor thing compared to the leg, shoulder, back and everything.
The foot easily can adapt to needs in the area and indeed be like other marsupials simply because of like effects upon colonizing a new area. I also suspect these creatures did not have yet fixed details in regards to seeking food since it was soon after leaving the ark.

This would explain the minor detail of walking flat on the foot. I am sure I have seen other creatures in the fossil record with this type of walking who like bears just have a need for this type of walking.
There is no reason to define creatures by details of walking.

In fact considering the great sameness of the two bodies the fact that only a little point is made about the foot shows the lack of difference in thousands of other points about its anatomy.

This marsupial cat would look exactly like a placental cat from even a close difference.

It is not related to kangaroos, wombats etc. They are not related to each other either.
In fact recent research has confirmed the very cat like nature of this marsupial lion and thrown away a few wrong ideas. a few more to go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yawn, yeah whateva..

Robert do you believe in the Devil?

...and why did Noah let Tasmanian Devils onto his barge?

..no explanation?

sounds of creationist crickets chirping.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 14 2010,06:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This marsupial cat would look exactly like a placental cat from even a close difference.

It is not related to kangaroos, wombats etc. They are not related to each other either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, please tell us:

Should we determine human, or horse, dog, cow etc. relationships by comparing DNA or by comparing anatomy? Why?

I know your answer won't make sense to anyone but yourself.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 14 2010,10:55

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 14 2010,00:55)
This marsupial cat would look exactly like a placental cat from even a close difference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I ran into one of these at the zoo, I wouldn't be thinking "cat".  I'd be thinking "what the hell is that?"


Posted by: snorkild on Jan. 15 2010,05:56

I see a dead CG kangaroo on that picture.

What is Rubberts non-marsupial version of a kangaroo?
A hare? A rabbit? a pogo stick?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 15 2010,10:31

Quote (snorkild @ Jan. 15 2010,05:56)
I see a dead CG kangaroo on that picture.

What is Rubberts non-marsupial version of a kangaroo?
A hare? A rabbit? a pogo stick?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The very first link I got to when I went to research the anatomy of the Thylacoleo was the interactive < Nova > site.  How any can say that skeleton looks like a cat, if they know anything at all about anatomy, boggles the mind.  

From the first page

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of Australia's most fantastic beasts, the extinct Thylacoleo carnifex, or "meat-cutting marsupial lion," possessed a host of physical traits unseen in any single creature alive today. These included features especially suited to a carnivorous hunter, including retractable, catlike claws, a kangaroo's tail, and jaw muscles that delivered a bite stronger than a lion's. Altogether, says paleontologist Rod Wells, Thylacoleo resembled something designed by committee. In this interactive, learn more about the marsupial lion's singular anatomy and what it reveals of the animal's predatory life in Pleistocene Australia.—Rima Chaddha
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Robert, how does that jibe?  Do lions possess these features, and look as if they were designed by a committee?  Do other felines?  Did YHVH subcontract out the marsupials, and a committee of angels design them, or was your god having a bad day?  

I was going to do more, but I think I'll just stick with a note to Robert - the paper that Laelaps blogged about focused on the foot because that was the new find, and that was a question they were researching.  They found the hind foot was different from felines, which implies that the legs were different as well (different ways of walking require different ankle joints, etc).  The authors probably felt they did not need to describe the entire creature in detail, any more than someone writing about the foot of a lion would need to write out the entire anatomy & physiology - because it is already known and available for those interested.  Why waste the effort?

It is a standard creotard complaint (the "Well, the paper leaves out the fact that the sun is in the sky during the day, so therefore it doesn't exist for that instance" kind of thing) which mainly seeks to cloud the issue with nonsense.

Side note - via Pharyngula, there is an iPhone app with the standard creationist complaints and the refutations, available for $0.99.  Not bad, and it gave me something to read while trying to talk to one of our counselors.  Recommend it.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 15 2010,11:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is Rubberts non-marsupial version of a kangaroo?
A hare? A rabbit? a pogo stick?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Grasshopper, of course.

Like in that joke about a Texan on vacation in Australia.

Henry
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 15 2010,16:28

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 15 2010,11:31)
The very first link I got to when I went to research the anatomy of the Thylacoleo was the interactive < Nova > site.  How any can say that skeleton looks like a cat, if they know anything at all about anatomy anything, boggles the mind.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I may have identified the source of your confusion.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 15 2010,17:57

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2010,14:28)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 15 2010,11:31)
The very first link I got to when I went to research the anatomy of the Thylacoleo was the interactive < Nova > site.  How any can say that skeleton looks like a cat, if they know anything at all about anatomy anything, boggles the mind.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I may have identified the source of your confusion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it says in the Bible* that Thylacoleo is a cat.  So that settles it.



* The Book Of Bruce
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 15 2010,18:12

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 15 2010,17:57)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2010,14:28)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 15 2010,11:31)
The very first link I got to when I went to research the anatomy of the Thylacoleo was the interactive < Nova > site.  How any can say that skeleton looks like a cat, if they know anything at all about anatomy anything, boggles the mind.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I may have identified the source of your confusion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it says in the Bible* that Thylacoleo is a cat.  So that settles it.



* The Book Of Bruce
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that Bruce  or New Bruce?  Rule Number 3?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 15 2010,23:23

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 15 2010,19:12)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 15 2010,17:57)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2010,14:28)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 15 2010,11:31)
The very first link I got to when I went to research the anatomy of the Thylacoleo was the interactive < Nova > site.  How any can say that skeleton looks like a cat, if they know anything at all about anatomy anything, boggles the mind.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I may have identified the source of your confusion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it says in the Bible* that Thylacoleo is a cat.  So that settles it.



* The Book Of Bruce
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that Bruce  or New Bruce?  Rule Number 3?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, well that explains why I couldn't find it. I'd been searching the Book of Spruce.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 16 2010,03:47

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 14 2010,05:49)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 14 2010,02:55)
By the way some first researchers on the marsupial lion said he used his teeth to open coconuts or something hard. A absurdity but still logical from a premise its just a funny looking wombat).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think that before the fall animals with sharp teeth used them to open those same coconuts?

Otherwise before the fall why would they need sharp teeth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little off thread here.
I accept the practical and actual research on the "Nova" dig. Just not the presumptions about things.
Teeth indeed are a thing only to suit a creatures eating habits. I see it as super flexible and not at all as a true trail of relationship.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 16 2010,03:56

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 14 2010,06:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This marsupial cat would look exactly like a placental cat from even a close difference.

It is not related to kangaroos, wombats etc. They are not related to each other either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, please tell us:

Should we determine human, or horse, dog, cow etc. relationships by comparing DNA or by comparing anatomy? Why?

I know your answer won't make sense to anyone but yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DNA is a new study and still very primitive. I see it as not a good trail of relationship. It makes sense that from a common blueprint there would be common DNA scores. so i am close to my father. Yet not to a ape.
its just that like body detail equals like DNA. We look like apes and so have the same Dna. My having very like Dna with my dad is just a special case and not the true equation of things. So a marsupial cat will have the Dna scores for its adapted marsupial features and so like other Marsupials. Yet its still only a cat like other earth cats.

Yes anatomy is the best trail for biological relationship and should trump all comers.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 16 2010,04:01

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 14 2010,10:55)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 14 2010,00:55)
This marsupial cat would look exactly like a placental cat from even a close difference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I ran into one of these at the zoo, I wouldn't be thinking "cat".  I'd be thinking "what the hell is that?"


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pictures are not photographs. Artists are under the influence of concepts and in this case make the marsupial lion as a aggressive possum.
In fact the lion would look like a lion.
The case to observe is the marsupial wolf. its in still and moving pictures before its extinction.
It looks like a wolf save for a few details one can see.
The cat would be the same. this picture is wrong.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 16 2010,04:25

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 15 2010,10:31)
Quote (snorkild @ Jan. 15 2010,05:56)
I see a dead CG kangaroo on that picture.

What is Rubberts non-marsupial version of a kangaroo?
A hare? A rabbit? a pogo stick?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The very first link I got to when I went to research the anatomy of the Thylacoleo was the interactive < Nova > site.  How any can say that skeleton looks like a cat, if they know anything at all about anatomy, boggles the mind.  

From the first page  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of Australia's most fantastic beasts, the extinct Thylacoleo carnifex, or "meat-cutting marsupial lion," possessed a host of physical traits unseen in any single creature alive today. These included features especially suited to a carnivorous hunter, including retractable, catlike claws, a kangaroo's tail, and jaw muscles that delivered a bite stronger than a lion's. Altogether, says paleontologist Rod Wells, Thylacoleo resembled something designed by committee. In this interactive, learn more about the marsupial lion's singular anatomy and what it reveals of the animal's predatory life in Pleistocene Australia.—Rima Chaddha
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Robert, how does that jibe?  Do lions possess these features, and look as if they were designed by a committee?  Do other felines?  Did YHVH subcontract out the marsupials, and a committee of angels design them, or was your god having a bad day?  

I was going to do more, but I think I'll just stick with a note to Robert - the paper that Laelaps blogged about focused on the foot because that was the new find, and that was a question they were researching.  They found the hind foot was different from felines, which implies that the legs were different as well (different ways of walking require different ankle joints, etc).  The authors probably felt they did not need to describe the entire creature in detail, any more than someone writing about the foot of a lion would need to write out the entire anatomy & physiology - because it is already known and available for those interested.  Why waste the effort?

It is a standard creotard complaint (the "Well, the paper leaves out the fact that the sun is in the sky during the day, so therefore it doesn't exist for that instance" kind of thing) which mainly seeks to cloud the issue with nonsense.

Side note - via Pharyngula, there is an iPhone app with the standard creationist complaints and the refutations, available for $0.99.  Not bad, and it gave me something to read while trying to talk to one of our counselors.  Recommend it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.
The marsupial lion is a simple cat creature with a few details.
Its tail is just a common feature of marsupials. In fact the marsupial wolf has a tail as pictures show that is a little different and even let this wolf stand erect for some length of time. The tails were a common adaptation to needs in the new land.
By the way. Otherwise your saying a creature can be so affected  from its simple frame into such diversity of form from niche and YET keep a tail or teeth etc. Why should a tail or teeth be so stickly in restraining evolution. All the marsupial tails, teeth etc should be easiuly as varied as the rest of their bodies from each other!
It shows rather these details of tail, teeth were a common adaptation to a common niche influence. The area or some stress etc.

I suspect these tails were needed to allow the varied creatures to look over high vegatation. A unique problem in original Australia.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 16 2010,04:46

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 16 2010,04:25)
I suspect these tails were needed to allow the varied creatures to look over high vegatation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any ideas how you would go about testing your suspicion and turning it into an empirically supported data point?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 16 2010,04:59

Robert, is anatomy just about the exterior of animals?

What's the purpose of DNA in life?

Please explain "Why's  My having very like Dna with my dad is just a special case and not the true equation of things."

Nobody here understands what it means.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 16 2010,07:22

Robert, so you understand that your DNA is a lot like your dad's DNA. That means that a comparison of your DNA to his will show that you are his son.

How about your dad's DNA to his dad's DNA? It follows that that same test can show that your dad is his dad's son, right?

Do you suppose that same test might be able to tell that you and your brother are siblings?

Do you suppose that same test can tell that your first cousin is your first cousin?
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 16 2010,07:34

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 16 2010,15:22)
Robert, so you understand that your DNA is a lot like your dad's DNA. That means that a comparison of your DNA to his will show that you are his son.

How about your dad's DNA to his dad's DNA? It follows that that same test can show that your dad is his dad's son, right?

Do you suppose that same test might be able to tell that you and your brother are siblings?

Do you suppose that same test can tell that your first cousin is your first cousin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


GET OUT OF HERE, HOMOS!

DNA PHHHHTT.

ROBERT'S FATHER WAS THE MILKMAN AND NOT THE HAIRY APE THAT LIVED IN HIS HOUSE AND SLEPT WITH HIS MOTHER.

...AS FOR THE TALL TALES AND VEGITATION?

HEDGES AND THE NEIGHBORS KIDS WHO SAID SO. d.t.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 16 2010,09:13

Wow it's like someone took Corny Hunter and gave him about half the capacity for self awareness.  

anyone who says that marsupial and placental skeletons are EAXCTLY THE SAME MINNUS A FEW DETAILS ain't really interested in anything except ball scratching
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 16 2010,11:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fact the the appearance of one thing looks kind of like another is superficial. What matters is the anatomy. For example the eye orbits of tarsiers and anthropoids looks quite similar in that they are both closed in the back (something called post-orbital closure) and was considered to be a trait that established a relationship between the two. Closer examination, however, revealed that the trait was not at all the same. Post-orbital closure in tarsiers is accomplished using different bones than in anthropoid post-orbital closure. Consequently, the superficial surface appearance was irrelevant to establishing a relationship between the two. What matters is the actual anatomy and genetics and when you look deeper than the general appearance of forms there is a great difference between marsupial and placental creatures. By your logic the fact that:


Means they are identical and hence the same person. In reality similarity of general form is not enough to establish identity.

Edit to add: or, we could compare the anatomy of a thlacoleo skull:



with that of a lion skull:



Wow, they don't look at all alike. I wonder what that means?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 16 2010,12:43

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 16 2010,11:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fact the the appearance of one thing looks kind of like another is superficial. What matters is the anatomy. For example the eye orbits of tarsiers and anthropoids looks quite similar in that they are both closed in the back (something called post-orbital closure) and was considered to be a trait that established a relationship between the two. Closer examination, however, revealed that the trait was not at all the same. Post-orbital closure in tarsiers is accomplished using different bones than in anthropoid post-orbital closure. Consequently, the superficial surface appearance was irrelevant to establishing a relationship between the two. What matters is the actual anatomy and genetics and when you look deeper than the general appearance of forms there is a great difference between marsupial and placental creatures. By your logic the fact that:


Means they are identical and hence the same person. In reality similarity of general form is not enough to establish identity.

Edit to add: or, we could compare the anatomy of a thlacoleo skull:



with that of a lion skull:



Wow, they don't look at all alike. I wonder what that means?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The real question - who has the pouch, Jeff or Kurt?

Edit - thank you for the edit button!!!!  By pouch I mean one with an opening to the exterior world, not a common sack - perverts!
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 16 2010,12:50

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 16 2010,04:25)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 15 2010,10:31)
Quote (snorkild @ Jan. 15 2010,05:56)
I see a dead CG kangaroo on that picture.

What is Rubberts non-marsupial version of a kangaroo?
A hare? A rabbit? a pogo stick?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The very first link I got to when I went to research the anatomy of the Thylacoleo was the interactive < Nova > site.  How any can say that skeleton looks like a cat, if they know anything at all about anatomy, boggles the mind.  

From the first page  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of Australia's most fantastic beasts, the extinct Thylacoleo carnifex, or "meat-cutting marsupial lion," possessed a host of physical traits unseen in any single creature alive today. These included features especially suited to a carnivorous hunter, including retractable, catlike claws, a kangaroo's tail, and jaw muscles that delivered a bite stronger than a lion's. Altogether, says paleontologist Rod Wells, Thylacoleo resembled something designed by committee. In this interactive, learn more about the marsupial lion's singular anatomy and what it reveals of the animal's predatory life in Pleistocene Australia.—Rima Chaddha
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Robert, how does that jibe?  Do lions possess these features, and look as if they were designed by a committee?  Do other felines?  Did YHVH subcontract out the marsupials, and a committee of angels design them, or was your god having a bad day?  

I was going to do more, but I think I'll just stick with a note to Robert - the paper that Laelaps blogged about focused on the foot because that was the new find, and that was a question they were researching.  They found the hind foot was different from felines, which implies that the legs were different as well (different ways of walking require different ankle joints, etc).  The authors probably felt they did not need to describe the entire creature in detail, any more than someone writing about the foot of a lion would need to write out the entire anatomy & physiology - because it is already known and available for those interested.  Why waste the effort?

It is a standard creotard complaint (the "Well, the paper leaves out the fact that the sun is in the sky during the day, so therefore it doesn't exist for that instance" kind of thing) which mainly seeks to cloud the issue with nonsense.

Side note - via Pharyngula, there is an iPhone app with the standard creationist complaints and the refutations, available for $0.99.  Not bad, and it gave me something to read while trying to talk to one of our counselors.  Recommend it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.
The marsupial lion is a simple cat creature with a few details.
Its tail is just a common feature of marsupials. In fact the marsupial wolf has a tail as pictures show that is a little different and even let this wolf stand erect for some length of time. The tails were a common adaptation to needs in the new land.
By the way. Otherwise your saying a creature can be so affected  from its simple frame into such diversity of form from niche and YET keep a tail or teeth etc. Why should a tail or teeth be so stickly in restraining evolution. All the marsupial tails, teeth etc should be easiuly as varied as the rest of their bodies from each other!
It shows rather these details of tail, teeth were a common adaptation to a common niche influence. The area or some stress etc.

I suspect these tails were needed to allow the varied creatures to look over high vegatation. A unique problem in original Australia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HEADDESK!!!!

Even ignoring the big arguments, when you get to such stupidity as tails being needed to look over high vegetation, a "unique problem in original Australia" - WTF?  Do you mean that over the entire world, there exists no high vegetation?  Seriously?  What do you smoke before you post - or what mental illness do you have?  Have you seen a doctor for this?  Should we alert the authorities and have the men with the rubber coats come to pay you a visit?  Have you seen any pictures of Africa - or anywhere else?

Damn, off all the times to misplace my "The Stupid It Burns" jpeg.  Just imagine it goes here.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 16 2010,13:29

So I was right, then: Stephen Meyer is Jack McBrayer!

("We're not allowed to drink hot beverages. That's The Devil's temperature!")

Thanks, Robert!
Posted by: Reed on Jan. 16 2010,18:04

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 16 2010,02:25)

The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, just a "they looks teh same 'cuz I sez so", without any specific details on what traits are important or how you make the comparison, or why a comparison of some features is more important than others.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All the marsupial tails, teeth etc should be easiuly as varied as the rest of their bodies from each other!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that not only is this a testable hypothesis, it has been tested and found wrong. Which you would know, if you weren't completely ignorant of basic biology (edit: or heck, the last few centuries of domestic animal breeding)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suspect these tails were needed to allow the varied creatures to look over high vegatation. A unique problem in original Australia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As Badger3k points out, this is mindbogglingly stupid even by your usual standards.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 17 2010,04:52

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 16 2010,03:56)
DNA is a new study and still very primitive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, please tell us how new - or old - the study of DNA is? How do you know it is primitive? Do you know anything at all about genetics?

Here is my - not guess, but observation: You don't know anything.  

How far back in time do you think the study of genetic relationships between species began? How does the 'age' of a scientific study matter, and how would you know unless you had studied it?

Now tell us what you know, not what you think. What you think is of no value. Knowledge is the key to understanding.

When you have told us what you think (because you don't know) about my questions, I'll be back and let you in on some facts about the same subject.

Fair enough?
Posted by: bfish on Jan. 17 2010,10:41

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 16 2010,07:13)
anyone who says that marsupial and placental skeletons are EAXCTLY THE SAME MINNUS A FEW DETAILS ain't really interested in anything except ball scratching
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not that there's anything wrong with that....
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 17 2010,15:35

I wonder if Robert would consider dolphins to be kinds of fish, and if not, if he would care to explain why.

I am also curious as to why he cares about marsupials and placentals in the first place. After all, each "kind" is equally unrelated to all others, since it has been specially created.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 17 2010,18:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder if Robert would consider dolphins to be kinds of fish, and if not, if he would care to explain why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've brought up that question more than once.

He side stepped around it every time, once even claiming that something I said "made his case" even though obviously didn't, given that "his case" depends entirely on ignoring corrections from people who know way more about the subject than he does (which appears to include me, even though I'm an amateur in the subject of biology).

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 18 2010,01:17

Quote (bfish @ Jan. 17 2010,11:41)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 16 2010,07:13)
anyone who says that marsupial and placental skeletons are EAXCTLY THE SAME MINNUS A FEW DETAILS ain't really interested in anything except ball scratching
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not that there's anything wrong with that....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No but I think he wants to scratch YOUR balls
Posted by: Richard Simons on Jan. 18 2010,09:33

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 16 2010,04:25)
I suspect these tails were needed to allow the varied creatures to look over high vegatation. A unique problem in original Australia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Marsupial lions had eyes in their tails?
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 18 2010,09:37

Quote (Richard Simons @ Jan. 18 2010,07:33)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 16 2010,04:25)
I suspect these tails were needed to allow the varied creatures to look over high vegatation. A unique problem in original Australia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Marsupial lions had eyes in their tails?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This cracks me up. There was no "high vegetation" anywhere else in the world, for some reason.  Robert really should contribute to Timecube. :-)
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 18 2010,09:38

Sorry, "Vegatation".
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 19 2010,02:11

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 16 2010,04:59)
Robert, is anatomy just about the exterior of animals?

What's the purpose of DNA in life?

Please explain "Why's  My having very like Dna with my dad is just a special case and not the true equation of things."

Nobody here understands what it means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point about DNA is that it is just what it is. A atomic score for life. So since there is, we say, a common blueprint then common Dna scores should be expected if there is a close resemblance between parts.Dna is just a number for the parts department.
So my having the same Dna as a ape or a "marsupial with a marsupial" is not a trail of heritage but simply same, part, same dna.
In being related to my father its just a special case of very alike Dna because we were so close. Yet its not a accurate conclusion to draw back in time from this to other beings on earth just because of sameness in Dna.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 19 2010,02:14

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 16 2010,07:22)
Robert, so you understand that your DNA is a lot like your dad's DNA. That means that a comparison of your DNA to his will show that you are his son.

How about your dad's DNA to his dad's DNA? It follows that that same test can show that your dad is his dad's son, right?

Do you suppose that same test might be able to tell that you and your brother are siblings?

Do you suppose that same test can tell that your first cousin is your first cousin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet its not a logical conclusion, save without presumption, to keep going back. Like parts will make like dNA. Its just a special case with my relatives that it does track heritage.
It could only be that from a common blueprint Dna would be the same for like parts in like order.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 19 2010,02:26

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 16 2010,11:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fact the the appearance of one thing looks kind of like another is superficial. What matters is the anatomy. For example the eye orbits of tarsiers and anthropoids looks quite similar in that they are both closed in the back (something called post-orbital closure) and was considered to be a trait that established a relationship between the two. Closer examination, however, revealed that the trait was not at all the same. Post-orbital closure in tarsiers is accomplished using different bones than in anthropoid post-orbital closure. Consequently, the superficial surface appearance was irrelevant to establishing a relationship between the two. What matters is the actual anatomy and genetics and when you look deeper than the general appearance of forms there is a great difference between marsupial and placental creatures. By your logic the fact that:


Means they are identical and hence the same person. In reality similarity of general form is not enough to establish identity.

Edit to add: or, we could compare the anatomy of a thlacoleo skull:



with that of a lion skull:



Wow, they don't look at all alike. I wonder what that means?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These skulls don't ever do justice to the real looks of creatures. This is why even dinosaurs are still speculative in what they looked like. Yet these skulls are pretty close for skulls.

Your example of the eye thing makes my case. Original conclusions on relationship were wrong . Upon further study differences established better origins. (If this case is true since I find flexibility in nature unrelated to heritage).
Superficiality does not exist in nature. Everything is powerfully made for its survival. If creatures look the same on a profound basis then they probably are the same. Details of difference can be dismissed due to other influences.
To have a series of creatures in one area look like series of other creatures elsewhere in 95% of their body and yet deny a relationship because of 5% is just poor classification ideas.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 19 2010,02:34

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 17 2010,18:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder if Robert would consider dolphins to be kinds of fish, and if not, if he would care to explain why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've brought up that question more than once.

He side stepped around it every time, once even claiming that something I said "made his case" even though obviously didn't, given that "his case" depends entirely on ignoring corrections from people who know way more about the subject than he does (which appears to include me, even though I'm an amateur in the subject of biology).

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I deal with marsupials and placentals and not stray into all life on the planet.
Nobody says dolphins are convergent with fish. Neither do i.
Indeed they rather make my case. They have a same shape of body for a general niche issue of living in a water world. Not niche in particular. its of no concern whether they hunt life of farm carrots. They must have this shape for motion.
In like manner the change to marsupialism was a general niche adaptation for some need.
Upon close look a dolphin is not a fish just as upon close look a marsupial lion is not a koala bear. The pouch etc is a minor point.
The marsupial lion is in fact a LION.
Indeed all of them have living or extinct relatives elsewhere on earth.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 19 2010,02:49

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,02:34)
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 17 2010,18:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder if Robert would consider dolphins to be kinds of fish, and if not, if he would care to explain why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've brought up that question more than once.

He side stepped around it every time, once even claiming that something I said "made his case" even though obviously didn't, given that "his case" depends entirely on ignoring corrections from people who know way more about the subject than he does (which appears to include me, even though I'm an amateur in the subject of biology).

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I deal with marsupials and placentals and not stray into all life on the planet.
Nobody says dolphins are convergent with fish. Neither do i.
Indeed they rather make my case. They have a same shape of body for a general niche issue of living in a water world. Not niche in particular. its of no concern whether they hunt life of farm carrots. They must have this shape for motion.
In like manner the change to marsupialism was a general niche adaptation for some need.
Upon close look a dolphin is not a fish just as upon close look a marsupial lion is not a koala bear. The pouch etc is a minor point.
The marsupial lion is in fact a LION.
Indeed all of them have living or extinct relatives elsewhere on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, so fucking what Robert?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 19 2010,04:11

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,03:14)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 16 2010,07:22)
Robert, so you understand that your DNA is a lot like your dad's DNA. That means that a comparison of your DNA to his will show that you are his son.

How about your dad's DNA to his dad's DNA? It follows that that same test can show that your dad is his dad's son, right?

Do you suppose that same test might be able to tell that you and your brother are siblings?

Do you suppose that same test can tell that your first cousin is your first cousin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet its not a logical conclusion, save without presumption, to keep going back. Like parts will make like dNA. Its just a special case with my relatives that it does track heritage.
It could only be that from a common blueprint Dna would be the same for like parts in like order.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not, Robert? Explain to me why if a DNA comparison can tell that this person is your first cousin, that same type of comparison can't tell that someone else is related to you but more distantly.

Where do you suppose the cut-off is, and why do you suppose that cut-off is at that particular place in history?

Let's say that your great great grandfather has a nucleotide sequence that goes like this:

AAAAAAAAAA

and that same sequence in your great grandfather goes like this:

AAAAAGAAAA

and your grandfather goes like this:

AAAAAGAATA

and your father:

AAAAAGAATT

and you:

AAAACGAATT

Now we look at someone else, and that sequence for them goes:

AAATAAAAAA

What can we say about that person, in relation to you?

Is this person related to you? If so, how distantly? Is this person likely to be your brother? Your first cousin? More distantly related? Could we say that this person might be your great grandfather's brother?

Now how about this person:

TAATAAAAGT

Is this person likely related to you? If so, how distantly? Is this person likely to be your brother? Would it be a great stretch to say that this person is related to you, and probably descended from your great grandfather's brother?

If this person is likely not related to you at all, why not?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 19 2010,04:40

Robert,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Upon close look a dolphin is not a fish just as upon close look a marsupial lion is not a koala bear. The pouch etc is a minor point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please tell, what 'close look' at the dolphin lets you decide it's not a fish?

Does it matter how close you look?  Are your eyes the ultimate instrument in classification of species?

Our eyes are not good enough?

What makes a pouch a 'minor point'?  If your mother had been born with a pouch, would that have been a 'minor point'?

How do you differentiate between minor and major points?

If all marsupials were green, would that also be a 'minor point', to be neglected - a green thylacine would still be a wolf to you?

Or would the fact that all marsupials were green be a 'minor point' to be ignored?
Posted by: Amadan on Jan. 19 2010,05:06

Robert,

Morbid curiosity prompts me to ask whether you have ever had a job in which any one or more people had to place reliance on your reasoning skills?

If so, how did it work out?
Posted by: Bjarne on Jan. 19 2010,05:56

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,09:11)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 16 2010,04:59)
Robert, is anatomy just about the exterior of animals?

What's the purpose of DNA in life?

Please explain "Why's  My having very like Dna with my dad is just a special case and not the true equation of things."

Nobody here understands what it means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point about DNA is that it is just what it is. A atomic score for life. So since there is, we say, a common blueprint then common Dna scores should be expected if there is a close resemblance between parts.Dna is just a number for the parts department.
So my having the same Dna as a ape or a "marsupial with a marsupial" is not a trail of heritage but simply same, part, same dna.
In being related to my father its just a special case of very alike Dna because we were so close. Yet its not a accurate conclusion to draw back in time from this to other beings on earth just because of sameness in Dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,09:14)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 16 2010,07:22)
Robert, so you understand that your DNA is a lot like your dad's DNA. That means that a comparison of your DNA to his will show that you are his son.

How about your dad's DNA to his dad's DNA? It follows that that same test can show that your dad is his dad's son, right?

Do you suppose that same test might be able to tell that you and your brother are siblings?

Do you suppose that same test can tell that your first cousin is your first cousin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet its not a logical conclusion, save without presumption, to keep going back. Like parts will make like dNA. Its just a special case with my relatives that it does track heritage.
It could only be that from a common blueprint Dna would be the same for like parts in like order.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So please explain me then, why we can induce morphological changes by changing the DNA (with a gene knock-out for example), but no changes in the DNA by changing an animal's morphology (by cutting off its tail for example)?

If we follow your idea, that the DNA changes after a morphological change,  we would expect it the other way round.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 19 2010,07:24

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,02:26)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 16 2010,11:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fact the the appearance of one thing looks kind of like another is superficial. What matters is the anatomy. For example the eye orbits of tarsiers and anthropoids looks quite similar in that they are both closed in the back (something called post-orbital closure) and was considered to be a trait that established a relationship between the two. Closer examination, however, revealed that the trait was not at all the same. Post-orbital closure in tarsiers is accomplished using different bones than in anthropoid post-orbital closure. Consequently, the superficial surface appearance was irrelevant to establishing a relationship between the two. What matters is the actual anatomy and genetics and when you look deeper than the general appearance of forms there is a great difference between marsupial and placental creatures. By your logic the fact that:


Means they are identical and hence the same person. In reality similarity of general form is not enough to establish identity.

Edit to add: or, we could compare the anatomy of a thlacoleo skull:



with that of a lion skull:



Wow, they don't look at all alike. I wonder what that means?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These skulls don't ever do justice to the real looks of creatures. This is why even dinosaurs are still speculative in what they looked like. Yet these skulls are pretty close for skulls.

Your example of the eye thing makes my case. Original conclusions on relationship were wrong . Upon further study differences established better origins. (If this case is true since I find flexibility in nature unrelated to heritage).
Superficiality does not exist in nature. Everything is powerfully made for its survival. If creatures look the same on a profound basis then they probably are the same. Details of difference can be dismissed due to other influences.
To have a series of creatures in one area look like series of other creatures elsewhere in 95% of their body and yet deny a relationship because of 5% is just poor classification ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't see how it could make your case since it is the exact opposite of what you are arguing. You claim a superficial resemblance between marsupials and wolves equates to identity. I showed you a case where a superficial appearance of the eye socket did not equate to identity it lead to convergent evolution of form. I also showed you two skulls of animals that you claim are identical and you dodged the point. Being so completely different, how can the two skulls come from identical animals. Considering the superficial outward appearance of two animals as an indicator of identity without looking at the anatomy that makes up that form is meaningless.

I'm not sure where you get pretty close from, perhaps you can expand on that for us. Pretty close how. Are the teeth the same? Do both have a post orbital bar? What about the shape of the mandible? Are the ascending rami the same? How about the corpus, is it as deep in one as the other? What about nasal configuration? Cresting? Foramen size, shape, and placement? Seriously what do you mean by pretty close?
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 19 2010,10:53

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,02:34)
Nobody says dolphins are convergent with fish. Neither do i.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In order to claim that some forms converged you would have to accept evolution, right?
I am pretty sure that every biologist would say that dolphins, fish and also ichtyosaurs are convergent.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 19 2010,10:55

Bobby needs a cluestick.  DNA is "a" atomic score - what the hell does that even mean.  You use sciencey words without any idea of what they refer to.  If you were in elementary school you'd fail.  You claim that the actual anatomy - the skulls, don't do it justice, based on what it looks like, but when given artists rendering (based on anatomy - the same technique that facial reconstruction artists use can be used on animals to give it shape) that show the Thylacoleo and lions look nothing alike, you ignore it.

What about Australia's native placentals?  < here > and < here > to start.  Why was marsupial adaptation necessary for these animals to repopulate, when it was not needed for the placentals native to Australia?  Double standards?  Does God prefer marsupials and held a grudge against the others?  Was he punishing the platypus?

With a level of ignorance such as yours, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children - who knows the damage you'd do to their minds.

Edit - I wonder if Bobby will be called to testify the next time science textbooks and standards come up in Texas.  Our creationist idiot board members would soil themselves to have you speak.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 19 2010,11:01

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,02:26)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 16 2010,11:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fact the the appearance of one thing looks kind of like another is superficial. What matters is the anatomy. For example the eye orbits of tarsiers and anthropoids looks quite similar in that they are both closed in the back (something called post-orbital closure) and was considered to be a trait that established a relationship between the two. Closer examination, however, revealed that the trait was not at all the same. Post-orbital closure in tarsiers is accomplished using different bones than in anthropoid post-orbital closure. Consequently, the superficial surface appearance was irrelevant to establishing a relationship between the two. What matters is the actual anatomy and genetics and when you look deeper than the general appearance of forms there is a great difference between marsupial and placental creatures. By your logic the fact that:


Means they are identical and hence the same person. In reality similarity of general form is not enough to establish identity.

Edit to add: or, we could compare the anatomy of a thlacoleo skull:



with that of a lion skull:



Wow, they don't look at all alike. I wonder what that means?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These skulls don't ever do justice to the real looks of creatures. This is why even dinosaurs are still speculative in what they looked like. Yet these skulls are pretty close for skulls.

Your example of the eye thing makes my case. Original conclusions on relationship were wrong . Upon further study differences established better origins. (If this case is true since I find flexibility in nature unrelated to heritage).
Superficiality does not exist in nature. Everything is powerfully made for its survival. If creatures look the same on a profound basis then they probably are the same. Details of difference can be dismissed due to other influences.
To have a series of creatures in one area look like series of other creatures elsewhere in 95% of their body and yet deny a relationship because of 5% is just poor classification ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You keep asserting that they look alike in 95% (of what, you don't say) - when shown that they are anatomically different (way more than 5%), genetically different (through the anatomy - different genes make different anatomy, but I'm sure the genome project either has marsupials or will, it can be looked at online IIRC).

Ignoring the evidence and continually asserting what you want to believe (the "nuh-uh" gambit) isn't any way to argue, nor is it any way to get to the truth.  But somehow, I'm not sure how, I just don't see you wanting to do that.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 19 2010,11:04

Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 19 2010,10:53)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,02:34)
Nobody says dolphins are convergent with fish. Neither do i.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In order to claim that some forms converged you would have to accept evolution, right?
I am pretty sure that every biologist would say that dolphins, fish and also ichtyosaurs are convergent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good point - were Ichtyosaurs fish, or were they a trick of Satan to confuse people away from God?  Ok, we'll add the third option, that they were reptiles who adapted to water so much that they can be confused with fish by those who are ignorant about them.  Anything I missed?
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 19 2010,11:51

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 18 2010,07:37)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Jan. 18 2010,07:33)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 16 2010,04:25)
I suspect these tails were needed to allow the varied creatures to look over high vegatation. A unique problem in original Australia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Marsupial lions had eyes in their tails?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This cracks me up. There was no "high vegetation" anywhere else in the world, for some reason.  Robert really should contribute to Timecube. :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My Australian friends have confirmed that the high vegetation they smoked was not a native plant.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 19 2010,13:19

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 19 2010,08:55)
I wonder if Bobby will be called to testify the next time science textbooks and standards come up in Texas.  Our creationist idiot board members would soil themselves to have you speak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is a Robert Byers who works in data management at the Province of Ontario Board of Education, but no confirmation that he is this nut.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 19 2010,16:29

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 19 2010,13:19)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 19 2010,08:55)
I wonder if Bobby will be called to testify the next time science textbooks and standards come up in Texas.  Our creationist idiot board members would soil themselves to have you speak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is a Robert Byers who works in data management at the Province of Ontario Board of Education, but no confirmation that he is this nut.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That has been mentioned here before and Robert has not denied it.

Robert, please tell, are you that person or not?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 19 2010,18:45

Robert -
To recapitulate you claim:

1) The similarity in form between tarsier eye orbits and anthropoid eye orbits does not indicate a relationship between the two.

2) The similarity in form between dolphins, ichthysaurs, and sharks does not indicate a relationship between the three groups.

3) The similarity in form between some marsupials and some placentals, does however, indicate a relationship between the two.

Yet all three of these are examples of the exact same phenomena. Furthermore you argue that 1 and 2 support 3 - which makes a claim opposite to 1 and 2. It seems to me that you are being more than a little inconsistent. If 1 and 2 are true - and you admit that they are - then three doesn't look supportable.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 19 2010,21:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well I deal with marsupials and placentals and not stray into all life on the planet.
Nobody says dolphins are convergent with fish. Neither do i.
Indeed they rather make my case. They have a same shape of body for a general niche issue of living in a water world. Not niche in particular. its of no concern whether they hunt life of farm carrots. They must have this shape for motion.
In like manner the change to marsupialism was a general niche adaptation for some need.
Upon close look a dolphin is not a fish just as upon close look a marsupial lion is not a koala bear. The pouch etc is a minor point.
The marsupial lion is in fact a LION.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You just clobbered your own case.

Those marsupials that happen to resemble some placental on another continent evolved that way because that shape helped them move in ways relevant to their lifestyle.

Your argument about marsupials is no different than claiming that dolphins are related to the fish they superficially resemble.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To have a series of creatures in one area look like series of other creatures elsewhere in 95% of their body and yet deny a relationship because of 5% is just poor classification ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it is poor classification to do that, then stop doing it. Marsupial "lions" are mammals, but their differences from placental lions is greater than the differences between lions and squirrels. That's what you're deliberately ignoring.

Henry
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 20 2010,04:22

Robert,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Upon close look a dolphin is not a fish just as upon close look a marsupial lion is not a koala bear. The pouch etc is a minor point.
The marsupial lion is in fact a LION.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yo need to be more accurate in your classification. You don't need to look at a dolphin to know it is not a fish:
Dolphins are mammals, they breathe with lungs.

"a marsupial lion is not a koala bear" is like saying "a thylacine is not a koala" - or "a cat is not a dog". Only an idiot says such things.

There never was a thing like 'marsupial lion. Thylacines were a species in their own right. They were not wolves, tigers or lions. They were just thylacines, like you are no monkey, except with respect to IQ.

Thylacine and Koala are both marsupials.




Take a close look at the  < images here >

Look at the tail - more like a kangaroo than a "lion". The thylacines actually stood on their hind legs supported with the strong tail just like a kangaroo.

How does a thylacine resemble a lion?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 20 2010,17:56

Hope bubba doesn't read < this >; he'll figure that it supports his notions when it really doesn't!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 20 2010,18:28

god damn that is hilarious
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 20 2010,18:46

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 20 2010,17:56)
Hope bubba doesn't read < this >; he'll figure that it supports his notions when it really doesn't!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And just to throttle up the internal incoherence he will also claim that < this supports his claim > too.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 20 2010,20:59

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 19 2010,04:11)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,03:14)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 16 2010,07:22)
Robert, so you understand that your DNA is a lot like your dad's DNA. That means that a comparison of your DNA to his will show that you are his son.

How about your dad's DNA to his dad's DNA? It follows that that same test can show that your dad is his dad's son, right?

Do you suppose that same test might be able to tell that you and your brother are siblings?

Do you suppose that same test can tell that your first cousin is your first cousin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet its not a logical conclusion, save without presumption, to keep going back. Like parts will make like dNA. Its just a special case with my relatives that it does track heritage.
It could only be that from a common blueprint Dna would be the same for like parts in like order.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not, Robert? Explain to me why if a DNA comparison can tell that this person is your first cousin, that same type of comparison can't tell that someone else is related to you but more distantly.

Where do you suppose the cut-off is, and why do you suppose that cut-off is at that particular place in history?

Let's say that your great great grandfather has a nucleotide sequence that goes like this:

AAAAAAAAAA

and that same sequence in your great grandfather goes like this:

AAAAAGAAAA

and your grandfather goes like this:

AAAAAGAATA

and your father:

AAAAAGAATT

and you:

AAAACGAATT

Now we look at someone else, and that sequence for them goes:

AAATAAAAAA

What can we say about that person, in relation to you?

Is this person related to you? If so, how distantly? Is this person likely to be your brother? Your first cousin? More distantly related? Could we say that this person might be your great grandfather's brother?

Now how about this person:

TAATAAAAGT

Is this person likely related to you? If so, how distantly? Is this person likely to be your brother? Would it be a great stretch to say that this person is related to you, and probably descended from your great grandfather's brother?

If this person is likely not related to you at all, why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The cut off point is presuming a DNA connection.
I say its only a special case. I say DNA is not a trail but a parts department number.
Therefore being related to my relatives need only be seen as having VERY close like parts. Yet one should not conclude that its a trail.
In short it could only be that ape parts have the same DNA as humans because of the sameness of the body. Yet it is not evidence of relationship. Just like parts.
So marsupials would have Dna the same after a common change and having the same parts equals same dNA. Yet this is after the great adaptation. They are not related to each other but rather to their cousins in the rest of the planet of whom they have the same anatomy.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 20 2010,21:24

Wait, what?

DNA is an inventory? What the hell for?

So... since all the DNA for a complete individual is there at the moment of conception, before all the 'parts' are there... we have an inventory but no parts.

Where do the parts come from, Bobby?

(This should be good)

Edit: delete lengthy rambling quote
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 20 2010,21:34

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 19 2010,04:40)
Robert,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Upon close look a dolphin is not a fish just as upon close look a marsupial lion is not a koala bear. The pouch etc is a minor point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please tell, what 'close look' at the dolphin lets you decide it's not a fish?

Does it matter how close you look?  Are your eyes the ultimate instrument in classification of species?

Our eyes are not good enough?

What makes a pouch a 'minor point'?  If your mother had been born with a pouch, would that have been a 'minor point'?

How do you differentiate between minor and major points?

If all marsupials were green, would that also be a 'minor point', to be neglected - a green thylacine would still be a wolf to you?

Or would the fact that all marsupials were green be a 'minor point' to be ignored?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Close look means examination and itemizing parts.
It shows features that indicate a former existence on the land and its body shape as a minor adaptation to a water world. A fish is intimately adapted to a water world which just includes its shape.

In fact a pouch is minor so much that some marsupial females don't have it or only develop it upon pregnancy.

Posters here need to remember I presume you understand convergent evolution.
Its not my eyes.
Its the whole point of evolution that profound niche influence created same looking but unrelated creatures.
SAME LOOKING because of same anatomy.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 20 2010,21:40

Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 19 2010,05:56)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,09:11)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 16 2010,04:59)
Robert, is anatomy just about the exterior of animals?

What's the purpose of DNA in life?

Please explain "Why's  My having very like Dna with my dad is just a special case and not the true equation of things."

Nobody here understands what it means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point about DNA is that it is just what it is. A atomic score for life. So since there is, we say, a common blueprint then common Dna scores should be expected if there is a close resemblance between parts.Dna is just a number for the parts department.
So my having the same Dna as a ape or a "marsupial with a marsupial" is not a trail of heritage but simply same, part, same dna.
In being related to my father its just a special case of very alike Dna because we were so close. Yet its not a accurate conclusion to draw back in time from this to other beings on earth just because of sameness in Dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,09:14)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 16 2010,07:22)
Robert, so you understand that your DNA is a lot like your dad's DNA. That means that a comparison of your DNA to his will show that you are his son.

How about your dad's DNA to his dad's DNA? It follows that that same test can show that your dad is his dad's son, right?

Do you suppose that same test might be able to tell that you and your brother are siblings?

Do you suppose that same test can tell that your first cousin is your first cousin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet its not a logical conclusion, save without presumption, to keep going back. Like parts will make like dNA. Its just a special case with my relatives that it does track heritage.
It could only be that from a common blueprint Dna would be the same for like parts in like order.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So please explain me then, why we can induce morphological changes by changing the DNA (with a gene knock-out for example), but no changes in the DNA by changing an animal's morphology (by cutting off its tail for example)?

If we follow your idea, that the DNA changes after a morphological change,  we would expect it the other way round.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fine. A little change will change things. its all from a common blueprint.
Perhaps a little dna change will turn back a marsupial mole to a regular mole.
Know where you can get these moles?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 20 2010,22:11

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 19 2010,07:24)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,02:26)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 16 2010,11:01)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fact the the appearance of one thing looks kind of like another is superficial. What matters is the anatomy. For example the eye orbits of tarsiers and anthropoids looks quite similar in that they are both closed in the back (something called post-orbital closure) and was considered to be a trait that established a relationship between the two. Closer examination, however, revealed that the trait was not at all the same. Post-orbital closure in tarsiers is accomplished using different bones than in anthropoid post-orbital closure. Consequently, the superficial surface appearance was irrelevant to establishing a relationship between the two. What matters is the actual anatomy and genetics and when you look deeper than the general appearance of forms there is a great difference between marsupial and placental creatures. By your logic the fact that:


Means they are identical and hence the same person. In reality similarity of general form is not enough to establish identity.

Edit to add: or, we could compare the anatomy of a thlacoleo skull:



with that of a lion skull:



Wow, they don't look at all alike. I wonder what that means?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These skulls don't ever do justice to the real looks of creatures. This is why even dinosaurs are still speculative in what they looked like. Yet these skulls are pretty close for skulls.

Your example of the eye thing makes my case. Original conclusions on relationship were wrong . Upon further study differences established better origins. (If this case is true since I find flexibility in nature unrelated to heritage).
Superficiality does not exist in nature. Everything is powerfully made for its survival. If creatures look the same on a profound basis then they probably are the same. Details of difference can be dismissed due to other influences.
To have a series of creatures in one area look like series of other creatures elsewhere in 95% of their body and yet deny a relationship because of 5% is just poor classification ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't see how it could make your case since it is the exact opposite of what you are arguing. You claim a superficial resemblance between marsupials and wolves equates to identity. I showed you a case where a superficial appearance of the eye socket did not equate to identity it lead to convergent evolution of form. I also showed you two skulls of animals that you claim are identical and you dodged the point. Being so completely different, how can the two skulls come from identical animals. Considering the superficial outward appearance of two animals as an indicator of identity without looking at the anatomy that makes up that form is meaningless.

I'm not sure where you get pretty close from, perhaps you can expand on that for us. Pretty close how. Are the teeth the same? Do both have a post orbital bar? What about the shape of the mandible? Are the ascending rami the same? How about the corpus, is it as deep in one as the other? What about nasal configuration? Cresting? Foramen size, shape, and placement? Seriously what do you mean by pretty close?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't dodge dnothin'.
Eye sockets are not my study or skulls for that matter.
My study is the written literature on convergent evolution of marsupials with placentals.
They show in their anatomy such likeness of form as the concept of serious  convergent evolution on niche influences must be invoked.
If eye sockets are the same as unrelated creatures eye sockets then this even makes my case that likewise marsupialism occured in unrelated creatures.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 20 2010,22:28

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 20 2010,21:59)
The cut off point is presuming a DNA connection.
I say its only a special case. I say DNA is not a trail but a parts department number.
Therefore being related to my relatives need only be seen as having VERY close like parts. Yet one should not conclude that its a trail.
In short it could only be that ape parts have the same DNA as humans because of the sameness of the body. Yet it is not evidence of relationship. Just like parts.
So marsupials would have Dna the same after a common change and having the same parts equals same dNA. Yet this is after the great adaptation. They are not related to each other but rather to their cousins in the rest of the planet of whom they have the same anatomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So your cut-off is arbitrarily wherever you want it to be because you can't deal with the fact that you're an ape.

Ok, just so we're all clear that I took the time out to make a bonafide effort to drag your dumb ass out of the ignorance hole.

I'm off to wash my hands and finish my homework. Have fun, Bobbydoodles.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 20 2010,22:59

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 19 2010,18:45)
Robert -
To recapitulate you claim:

1) The similarity in form between tarsier eye orbits and anthropoid eye orbits does not indicate a relationship between the two.

2) The similarity in form between dolphins, ichthysaurs, and sharks does not indicate a relationship between the three groups.

3) The similarity in form between some marsupials and some placentals, does however, indicate a relationship between the two.

Yet all three of these are examples of the exact same phenomena. Furthermore you argue that 1 and 2 support 3 - which makes a claim opposite to 1 and 2. It seems to me that you are being more than a little inconsistent. If 1 and 2 are true - and you admit that they are - then three doesn't look supportable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its all about points of anatomy and adding them up to draw relationships.
The likeness of #2 is from a special niche of a water world. For #1 , PERHAPS, some same need made a same eye socket but this is unrelated to the issue and I haven't studied eye sockets.
#3 is from examination of thousands of points of anatomy that force either a conclusion they are the same creatures as elsewhere or a fantastic concept of very closed niches creating like looking creatures from some original model.
The first conclusion should be same looking equals same before unlikely ideas of convergence take root.

The past researchers here simply were overawed by the marsupial traits.
So they classify the creatures by this.
Yet the snakes in like manner also birth by eggs or live birth. Its not a defining point in nature. Other adaptations produced different reproductive methods.
Marsupial moles, tapirs, bears, dogs, cats, mice, etc are just as their namesakes elsewhere on the planet.
Also biblical boundaries push this idea.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 20 2010,23:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say its only a special case. I say DNA is not a trail but a parts department number.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reality, including evolutionary biology, is not under any obligation to take orders from particular humans.

Henry
Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 20 2010,23:33

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 19 2010,21:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well I deal with marsupials and placentals and not stray into all life on the planet.
Nobody says dolphins are convergent with fish. Neither do i.
Indeed they rather make my case. They have a same shape of body for a general niche issue of living in a water world. Not niche in particular. its of no concern whether they hunt life of farm carrots. They must have this shape for motion.
In like manner the change to marsupialism was a general niche adaptation for some need.
Upon close look a dolphin is not a fish just as upon close look a marsupial lion is not a koala bear. The pouch etc is a minor point.
The marsupial lion is in fact a LION.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You just clobbered your own case.

Those marsupials that happen to resemble some placental on another continent evolved that way because that shape helped them move in ways relevant to their lifestyle.

Your argument about marsupials is no different than claiming that dolphins are related to the fish they superficially resemble.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To have a series of creatures in one area look like series of other creatures elsewhere in 95% of their body and yet deny a relationship because of 5% is just poor classification ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it is poor classification to do that, then stop doing it. Marsupial "lions" are mammals, but their differences from placental lions is greater than the differences between lions and squirrels. That's what you're deliberately ignoring.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the dolphin is only alike because of a special niche of living in a water world. Not because of hunting and hiding. Its the only way to move through water fast.
Otherwise dolphins are very different from fish.

The marsupials are just in like manner a adaptation. A great niche need brought a marsupial reproductive change and the same need/area a few other adaptations.
NOt niche made cats and dogs out of some small rat thing because of great generations of anatomical change from selection.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 21 2010,00:08

manta rays don't seem to have any trouble.  or octopi.

bubba you are a trip man.  seek it out.  the help that is
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 21 2010,03:57

Robert please confirm that you are the world's leading  authority on classification of species.

Please do.

I presume your method also is applicable to virus, bacteria, plants, lichens, fungii and all the rest of biology. Please confirm.

Where did you learn how to classify species?

What does the term 'species' mean?

Is your method of classification limited to biology or can it be used on other objects too?

Can you define 'classification'?

What is the use of classifying objects?

How does it matter to you how animals are classified?

Is your classification useful for any purpose?

Is the scientific classification useful for any purpose?

Should veterinarians approach animal medicine based on  your classification - or the scientific one?

Please answer these questions.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 21 2010,07:08

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 20 2010,22:59)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 19 2010,18:45)
Robert -
To recapitulate you claim:

1) The similarity in form between tarsier eye orbits and anthropoid eye orbits does not indicate a relationship between the two.

2) The similarity in form between dolphins, ichthysaurs, and sharks does not indicate a relationship between the three groups.

3) The similarity in form between some marsupials and some placentals, does however, indicate a relationship between the two.

Yet all three of these are examples of the exact same phenomena. Furthermore you argue that 1 and 2 support 3 - which makes a claim opposite to 1 and 2. It seems to me that you are being more than a little inconsistent. If 1 and 2 are true - and you admit that they are - then three doesn't look supportable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its all about points of anatomy and adding them up to draw relationships.
The likeness of #2 is from a special niche of a water world. For #1 , PERHAPS, some same need made a same eye socket but this is unrelated to the issue and I haven't studied eye sockets.
#3 is from examination of thousands of points of anatomy that force either a conclusion they are the same creatures as elsewhere or a fantastic concept of very closed niches creating like looking creatures from some original model.
The first conclusion should be same looking equals same before unlikely ideas of convergence take root.

The past researchers here simply were overawed by the marsupial traits.
So they classify the creatures by this.
Yet the snakes in like manner also birth by eggs or live birth. Its not a defining point in nature. Other adaptations produced different reproductive methods.
Marsupial moles, tapirs, bears, dogs, cats, mice, etc are just as their namesakes elsewhere on the planet.
Also biblical boundaries push this idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like special pleading to me. Moving fast through the water is a niche - one based on hunting I might add. Again you allow that 1 and to are convergence but three is not, one has to ask how we tell the difference between case of similarity that are convergence and cases of similarity that are not?

You keep saying that there are thousands of points of similarity between marsupial and placental wolves. Please do enlighten us and name, say, a couple hundred. Heck, 50 will do, name 50.
Posted by: Bjarne on Jan. 21 2010,07:08

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 21 2010,04:40)
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 19 2010,05:56)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,09:11)
 
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 16 2010,04:59)
Robert, is anatomy just about the exterior of animals?

What's the purpose of DNA in life?

Please explain "Why's  My having very like Dna with my dad is just a special case and not the true equation of things."

Nobody here understands what it means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point about DNA is that it is just what it is. A atomic score for life. So since there is, we say, a common blueprint then common Dna scores should be expected if there is a close resemblance between parts.Dna is just a number for the parts department.
So my having the same Dna as a ape or a "marsupial with a marsupial" is not a trail of heritage but simply same, part, same dna.
In being related to my father its just a special case of very alike Dna because we were so close. Yet its not a accurate conclusion to draw back in time from this to other beings on earth just because of sameness in Dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,09:14)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 16 2010,07:22)
Robert, so you understand that your DNA is a lot like your dad's DNA. That means that a comparison of your DNA to his will show that you are his son.

How about your dad's DNA to his dad's DNA? It follows that that same test can show that your dad is his dad's son, right?

Do you suppose that same test might be able to tell that you and your brother are siblings?

Do you suppose that same test can tell that your first cousin is your first cousin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet its not a logical conclusion, save without presumption, to keep going back. Like parts will make like dNA. Its just a special case with my relatives that it does track heritage.
It could only be that from a common blueprint Dna would be the same for like parts in like order.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So please explain me then, why we can induce morphological changes by changing the DNA (with a gene knock-out for example), but no changes in the DNA by changing an animal's morphology (by cutting off its tail for example)?

If we follow your idea, that the DNA changes after a morphological change,  we would expect it the other way round.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fine. A little change will change things. its all from a common blueprint.
Perhaps a little dna change will turn back a marsupial mole to a regular mole.
Know where you can get these moles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should I get marsupial moles? Its your idea that they are closely related and thus it is your duty to test it.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 21 2010,10:31

Where can you get marsupial moles?

How about Western Australia?

You could start there, maybe they have some.

Tell the Australian ministry of environment you're doing Science! to prove the marsupial mole is a mole first, and a marsupial second. I'm sure they'll fund you.

You still haven't explained where the parts come from, Robbie.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 21 2010,10:37

i think he has a marsupial mole in his butt pouch. and in the moles pouch there is another mole.  and in that moles pouch there is another mole.  and so on, until jesus
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 21 2010,17:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the dolphin is only alike because of a special niche of living in a water world. Not because of hunting and hiding. Its the only way to move through water fast.
Otherwise dolphins are very different from fish.

The marsupials are just in like manner a adaptation. A great niche need brought a marsupial reproductive change and the same need/area a few other adaptations.
Not niche made cats and dogs out of some small rat thing because of great generations of anatomical change from selection.??

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's getting it exactly backwards.

Placental mammals are an adaptation from marsupials, not the other way around. That's the logical conclusion from comparisons of anatomy and genetics. My understanding is that no one marsupial is closer related to one type of placental than it is to any other; if that's wrong somebody that actually knows the subject can correct me.

Marsupial mammals are an adaptation from reptiles, not other mammals.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 21 2010,17:01

afarensis,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You keep saying that there are thousands of points of similarity between marsupial and placental wolves. Please do enlighten us and name, say, a couple hundred. Heck, 50 will do, name 50.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well of course there are - they're both mammals, so anything shared by all mammals will be a point of similarity. :)

Henry
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 21 2010,18:21

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 21 2010,17:01)
afarensis,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You keep saying that there are thousands of points of similarity between marsupial and placental wolves. Please do enlighten us and name, say, a couple hundred. Heck, 50 will do, name 50.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well of course there are - they're both mammals, so anything shared by all mammals will be a point of similarity. :)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I pointed out, there are native placentals in Australia as well as the marsupials.  Not sure why that is if marsupialism is a god-gift for rapid reproduction, but what the heck.  Bobby could use them as a comparison.  Hell, just compare Kangaroos and rats - they share a common link via kangaroo rats - an intermediate species, perhaps.  Maybe they are half-marsupial?  In any case, I'm betting we don't see any list of common features, unless it's like this:

1. hair
2. eyes
3. legs
4. bones
5. blood
50. They look the same!!!!!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 21 2010,18:59

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 21 2010,17:01)
afarensis,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You keep saying that there are thousands of points of similarity between marsupial and placental wolves. Please do enlighten us and name, say, a couple hundred. Heck, 50 will do, name 50.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well of course there are - they're both mammals, so anything shared by all mammals will be a point of similarity. :)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You owe Richard a camera for that remark :p
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 21 2010,21:33

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 21 2010,18:21)
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 21 2010,17:01)
afarensis,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You keep saying that there are thousands of points of similarity between marsupial and placental wolves. Please do enlighten us and name, say, a couple hundred. Heck, 50 will do, name 50.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well of course there are - they're both mammals, so anything shared by all mammals will be a point of similarity. :)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I pointed out, there are native placentals in Australia as well as the marsupials.  Not sure why that is if marsupialism is a god-gift for rapid reproduction, but what the heck.  Bobby could use them as a comparison.  Hell, just compare Kangaroos and rats - they share a common link via kangaroo rats - an intermediate species, perhaps.  Maybe they are half-marsupial?  In any case, I'm betting we don't see any list of common features, unless it's like this:

1. hair
2. eyes
3. legs
4. bones
5. blood
50. They look the same!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think afdave gave us a list something like that in regards to archeopteryx and why it was either a bird or a reptile (I can't remember which he thought it was), but not transitional.  Someone with more google-fu than I might be able to find it...
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 22 2010,19:13

Two days now and no more?  Did we break another one?

Next!

Do you think if we say "Ken Ham is an idiot" three times, we'll summon one of his minions?  Summon Creatard is a first level spell, if I remember my Bibles and Burrows rules. :D
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 22 2010,21:15

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 22 2010,20:13)
Two days now and no more?  Did we break another one?

Next!

Do you think if we say "Ken Ham is an idiot" three times, we'll summon one of his minions?  Summon Creatard is a first level spell, if I remember my Bibles and Burrows rules. :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't get your hopes up. Bobby's an intermittent troll. He's like the wind. Kind of:

Quote (John 3:8 @ second century CE)
The farty wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Robert Byers on Jan. 28 2010,00:14

I saw on another forum that there is this fantastic moving picture video of the marsupial wolf. Youtube. I don't know how to get it but every poster interested or confident enough should see it. its just a few minutes long.
One should watch it several times. It is of one of the last marsupial dogs that ever existed.
Watch with a open mind.
Watch how it walks and lays down and sits upright and scratches and chews something. Remember they say it howled at night.
I say that this creature is a doggie.
It is not a flexible possum or short kangaroo.
It is surely and clearly the first conclusion that it is exactly what its same shaped fellows in other countries are.
A canine with a pouch.
Yes a few minor differences in sloping back/mouth etc. Yet these fit fine in the great diversity of dog types in the world or even in domestic dogs.
(I believe dogs and bears are the same thing but thats beside the point)

I say likewise would a marsupial cat of looked just like our cats.
These are not superficial physical bodies and superficial motions of bodies like other creatures on earth because of convergent evolution.
It has been a great error of classification, done by very few people, to have seen marsupials as a group unrelated to placentals .
They are the same creatures as placentals, according to each type, and simply adapted a marsupial mode of reproduction under some influence and by innate triggers and a wee bit more adaptions of this and that.

This explains the migration of marsupials from a common origin off the biblical ark by showing marsupialism was a last act of a new colonizer.
This happened also in south America by either migration from the north or just adaption in South america. So these marsupials are no more related to Australian marsupials then any other placentals anywhere.

I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.

Pictures can say better then words sometimes.
Posted by: bfish on Jan. 28 2010,01:16

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 27 2010,22:14)
I saw on another forum that there is this fantastic moving picture video of the marsupial wolf. Youtube. I don't know how to get it but every poster interested or confident enough should see it. its just a few minutes long.
One should watch it several times. It is of one of the last marsupial dogs that ever existed.
Watch with a open mind.
Watch how it walks and lays down and sits upright and scratches and chews something. Remember they say it howled at night.
I say that this creature is a doggie.
....
I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.

Pictures can say better then words sometimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here, try < The Thylacine Museum. > Click on the film section and you'll be able to see several very short clips of this animal.

I dunno, Robert. Watching the videos with an open mind, at times it looks sorta like a dog to me, and at other times sorta like a cat. Really, to me, it looks like it's own thing. An interesting animal, and a shame that humans hunted it to extinction. (I admit, I'm hoping that there might be a small population of them hiding out in the wilds of Tasmania - which can be pretty darned wild).

I'm curious, though - what is the placental kangaroo? The placental devil? The placental quoll? The placental bandicoot? Obviously the placental koala is a bear, and the placental platypus is a beaver. (Well, a beaver-duck, anyway. That one's kind of a bastard). But what of the placental numbat and the placental bilby? There must be a placental possum, too. Hell, I have the marsupial version in my backyard - there must be a placental version laying about too, eh?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 28 2010,02:10

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 28 2010,00:14)
I saw on another forum that there is this fantastic moving picture video of the marsupial wolf. Youtube. I don't know how to get it but every poster interested or confident enough should see it. its just a few minutes long.
One should watch it several times. It is of one of the last marsupial dogs that ever existed.
Watch with a open mind.
Watch how it walks and lays down and sits upright and scratches and chews something. Remember they say it howled at night.
I say that this creature is a doggie.
It is not a flexible possum or short kangaroo.
It is surely and clearly the first conclusion that it is exactly what its same shaped fellows in other countries are.
A canine with a pouch.
Yes a few minor differences in sloping back/mouth etc. Yet these fit fine in the great diversity of dog types in the world or even in domestic dogs.
(I believe dogs and bears are the same thing but thats beside the point)

I say likewise would a marsupial cat of looked just like our cats.
These are not superficial physical bodies and superficial motions of bodies like other creatures on earth because of convergent evolution.
It has been a great error of classification, done by very few people, to have seen marsupials as a group unrelated to placentals .
They are the same creatures as placentals, according to each type, and simply adapted a marsupial mode of reproduction under some influence and by innate triggers and a wee bit more adaptions of this and that.

This explains the migration of marsupials from a common origin off the biblical ark by showing marsupialism was a last act of a new colonizer.
This happened also in south America by either migration from the north or just adaption in South america. So these marsupials are no more related to Australian marsupials then any other placentals anywhere.

I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.

Pictures can say better then words sometimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What would you expect it to act like?  Have you ever watched any nature films - Wild America, Wild Kingdom ... Walt Disney films?  Anything?

Have you ever studied animal behavior?  Seen any similarities in even widely divergent species?  A lot of the behaviors are inherited - of course they would be similar.  There are only so many varieties of behavior that are possible, as well.  We also love to look at similarities.

Of course, if you really had an open mind you'd realize that your desire for them to be the same (a dog with a pouch) is clearly making you see what you want.  When I see that clip, and I've seen it hundreds of times, I see a pack animal that is missing it's pack.  It's a behavior that you can see in hundreds of different animals.  It's that pesky "common ancestry" - the relationships that reveal we are all related. We know marsupials are related to us, through a common ancestor millions of years ago, a fact that anatomy and genetics (as well as radiocarbon and radioactive dating, geology and paleontology) shows us.  It's only a few people who want to ignore a vast body of evidence to preserve their child-like belief in the scribblings of some very ignorant bronze and iron-age people.

Why do you persist in looking at the surface, and ignoring all the evidence presented against you.  There are questions that I and others have asked, and you have ignored them, simply repeating your assertions as if they were true.  You persist in doing that now.

We've presented skeletal evidence that completely contradicts your claim that marsupial lions look like placental felines, yet you persist in saying they would look the same.  They don't.  It's a fact.  You do know what a fact is, don't you?  A fact is not just what supports your religious beliefs, but something that often contradicts your religious beliefs, especially if what you believe is so pathetic as your descendant of the Atrahasis legend of < Sumeria >.  

How about native placentals in Australia?  Why did they not need to breed rapidly and so become marsupials?  Why was it only a select few?    If marsupial lions and lions are related, they should possess the same genetics, and we should be able, with genetic engineering, to activate the marsupial genes and make us a marsupial lion from an african one, right?  Any bets on whether this is really possible (hey, stop laughing back there, I can hear you)?  

Pictures can indeed "say better then (sic) words sometimes" - but intelligence, thinking, and evidence are much better all the time.  Try it for once.

However, why not try to watch a video of < chimpanzees > sometime, keeping a real open mind, and leave your dogma on the shelf.  You might see the thousands of similarities in their behavior with our own.  You'd see the close relationship of our two species.  Maybe pictures are worth a thousand words.

more, just because they are interesting:
< bonobo tool use >
< NSFW - Bonobo Sex >
< Self-Recognition in apes >

(try looking up Jane Goodall - In The Shadow of Man was one of the first books I bought with my own money, and I still have it.  Franz van der Waal - his Inner Ape, IIRC, was very good. - I'd post a link to my scientific papers I've collected, but after a hard drive crash, I've got to have my program relearn all of them, and that is taking a lot of time, and I'm not sure of the legality of posting papers I've downloaded through my school, so maybe later)

Sorry if this is disjointed, but after a long day dealing with students and parents, coming home to the same broken record...I'll just take a page from python "< My Brain Hurts! >"
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 28 2010,08:36

oh it howled at night huh.

horses fuck other horses, but sometimes people fuck horses too.  clearly horse = people.

< TARD >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 28 2010,09:13

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 28 2010,08:36)
oh it howled at night huh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Grasshopper mice > howl at night too.

Q.E.D. Mouse=wolf

Therefore jebus.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 28 2010,11:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, why aren't you interested in what all serious posters here, and that means all of us except the odd creationist like yourself and just a couple of others, think and see when we read the excrement of your brain?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dna is just a number for the parts department.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That’s right, brother! The manufacturing process, i.e. the development from fertilized egg to full born animal is determined by the parts numbers. Different number, different part. All the parts of a body are made using parts numbers. The parts numbers contain the blueprint for making all the different parts!

Like, say carburettors. There are plenty of different carburettors, each with their own unique part number.

So you want a new carburettor for your car? I don’t think it is enough saying it is a 2003 Ford Focus. Unless you have the exact model number, which points to the exact part number, you won’t get it.

Therefore, my dear friend, it is the part numbers that tells us what is related to what, who is related to whom. You just look at the outside and say that's all you need know, but checking the parts numbers you'll see that they are different.

You see, bodies are built just the way you build cars: By collecting and assembling parts by the part numbers.

We do not build cars first and then assign arbitrary part numbers to its parts! So why do you say that? Do you understand that you are dead wrong?

If you compare the parts numbers of a marsupial with another marsupial you’ll find that the share a lot of the parts in common, but if you try to compare a marsupial with a placental you’ll find a lot of differences.  (Parts numbers = DNA codes!)

But comparing two placentals, you’ll again find they share a lot of the same part numbers.

Therefore, parts numbers are the only reliable method of identifying similarities, and determine origins. Different factories use different parts. Ford cars don’t roll off GM assembly lines.

Proper identification of a car’s origins is to check the parts numbers, not just look at the exterior.

Do you think that parts departments store parts according to looks or according to parts number?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 28 2010,23:58

Sorry to go back to the "look at how similar they are" bit - but now we have < Chimpcam! >

If we make movies, and they make movies....will chimp creationists be next?

Edit - I tried to find the clip from planet of the apes where the ape scoffs at the idea that they evolved from men, but my skillz must not be up to the task, assuming my memory is correct.  Anyone remember if it happened and what movie it was in?
Posted by: Reed on Jan. 29 2010,04:23

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 27 2010,22:14)
I saw on another forum that there is this fantastic moving picture video of the marsupial wolf. Youtube. I don't know how to get it but every poster interested or confident enough should see it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey if you actually read the replies here, you could have watched the five I linked < way back on page 28 >. Not really  interested in learning or testing your "theory" are you ?
Posted by: Bjarne on Jan. 29 2010,05:01

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 28 2010,16:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 28 2010,08:36)
oh it howled at night huh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Grasshopper mice > howl at night too.

Q.E.D. Mouse=wolf

Therefore jebus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But is it a vertebrate or an insect?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 29 2010,16:21

Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 29 2010,05:01)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 28 2010,16:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 28 2010,08:36)
oh it howled at night huh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Grasshopper mice > howl at night too.

Q.E.D. Mouse=wolf

Therefore jebus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But is it a vertebrate or an insect?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's in the Insectivertebrate Kind, of course.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 01 2010,03:51

Quote (bfish @ Jan. 28 2010,01:16)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 27 2010,22:14)
I saw on another forum that there is this fantastic moving picture video of the marsupial wolf. Youtube. I don't know how to get it but every poster interested or confident enough should see it. its just a few minutes long.
One should watch it several times. It is of one of the last marsupial dogs that ever existed.
Watch with a open mind.
Watch how it walks and lays down and sits upright and scratches and chews something. Remember they say it howled at night.
I say that this creature is a doggie.
....
I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.

Pictures can say better then words sometimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here, try < The Thylacine Museum. > Click on the film section and you'll be able to see several very short clips of this animal.

I dunno, Robert. Watching the videos with an open mind, at times it looks sorta like a dog to me, and at other times sorta like a cat. Really, to me, it looks like it's own thing. An interesting animal, and a shame that humans hunted it to extinction. (I admit, I'm hoping that there might be a small population of them hiding out in the wilds of Tasmania - which can be pretty darned wild).

I'm curious, though - what is the placental kangaroo? The placental devil? The placental quoll? The placental bandicoot? Obviously the placental koala is a bear, and the placental platypus is a beaver. (Well, a beaver-duck, anyway. That one's kind of a bastard). But what of the placental numbat and the placental bilby? There must be a placental possum, too. Hell, I have the marsupial version in my backyard - there must be a placental version laying about too, eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A cat?!! What cats are in your neighborhood ?!
Notice in its walk, sit, scratch, chew chasing mailmen how alike it is the the dog types of the earth. In fact one can see here why a desperate grasp for convergent evolution must be invoked to explain this wolf looking kangaroo.
I'm only by these moving pictures trying to stir a  common sense about biology. If this creature was alone in its sameness to wolves etc elsewhere then by a extreme possibility(surely extremely extreme) one could say its just a niche driven possum. Yet this is a common theme in Australia and South America. There are marsupial lions, tapirs, moles, mice and the others alike creatures now extinct everywhere on earth.
I also say the anatomy of this marsupial dog means thousands of points of anatomy must be in alignment in like manner with placental dogs to force our vision to see the great convergence.
Come on this a puppy with a few minor differences due to location.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 01 2010,04:05

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 28 2010,02:10)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 28 2010,00:14)
I saw on another forum that there is this fantastic moving picture video of the marsupial wolf. Youtube. I don't know how to get it but every poster interested or confident enough should see it. its just a few minutes long.
One should watch it several times. It is of one of the last marsupial dogs that ever existed.
Watch with a open mind.
Watch how it walks and lays down and sits upright and scratches and chews something. Remember they say it howled at night.
I say that this creature is a doggie.
It is not a flexible possum or short kangaroo.
It is surely and clearly the first conclusion that it is exactly what its same shaped fellows in other countries are.
A canine with a pouch.
Yes a few minor differences in sloping back/mouth etc. Yet these fit fine in the great diversity of dog types in the world or even in domestic dogs.
(I believe dogs and bears are the same thing but thats beside the point)

I say likewise would a marsupial cat of looked just like our cats.
These are not superficial physical bodies and superficial motions of bodies like other creatures on earth because of convergent evolution.
It has been a great error of classification, done by very few people, to have seen marsupials as a group unrelated to placentals .
They are the same creatures as placentals, according to each type, and simply adapted a marsupial mode of reproduction under some influence and by innate triggers and a wee bit more adaptions of this and that.

This explains the migration of marsupials from a common origin off the biblical ark by showing marsupialism was a last act of a new colonizer.
This happened also in south America by either migration from the north or just adaption in South america. So these marsupials are no more related to Australian marsupials then any other placentals anywhere.

I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.

Pictures can say better then words sometimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What would you expect it to act like?  Have you ever watched any nature films - Wild America, Wild Kingdom ... Walt Disney films?  Anything?

Have you ever studied animal behavior?  Seen any similarities in even widely divergent species?  A lot of the behaviors are inherited - of course they would be similar.  There are only so many varieties of behavior that are possible, as well.  We also love to look at similarities.

Of course, if you really had an open mind you'd realize that your desire for them to be the same (a dog with a pouch) is clearly making you see what you want.  When I see that clip, and I've seen it hundreds of times, I see a pack animal that is missing it's pack.  It's a behavior that you can see in hundreds of different animals.  It's that pesky "common ancestry" - the relationships that reveal we are all related. We know marsupials are related to us, through a common ancestor millions of years ago, a fact that anatomy and genetics (as well as radiocarbon and radioactive dating, geology and paleontology) shows us.  It's only a few people who want to ignore a vast body of evidence to preserve their child-like belief in the scribblings of some very ignorant bronze and iron-age people.

Why do you persist in looking at the surface, and ignoring all the evidence presented against you.  There are questions that I and others have asked, and you have ignored them, simply repeating your assertions as if they were true.  You persist in doing that now.

We've presented skeletal evidence that completely contradicts your claim that marsupial lions look like placental felines, yet you persist in saying they would look the same.  They don't.  It's a fact.  You do know what a fact is, don't you?  A fact is not just what supports your religious beliefs, but something that often contradicts your religious beliefs, especially if what you believe is so pathetic as your descendant of the Atrahasis legend of < Sumeria >.  

How about native placentals in Australia?  Why did they not need to breed rapidly and so become marsupials?  Why was it only a select few?    If marsupial lions and lions are related, they should possess the same genetics, and we should be able, with genetic engineering, to activate the marsupial genes and make us a marsupial lion from an african one, right?  Any bets on whether this is really possible (hey, stop laughing back there, I can hear you)?  

Pictures can indeed "say better then (sic) words sometimes" - but intelligence, thinking, and evidence are much better all the time.  Try it for once.

However, why not try to watch a video of < chimpanzees > sometime, keeping a real open mind, and leave your dogma on the shelf.  You might see the thousands of similarities in their behavior with our own.  You'd see the close relationship of our two species.  Maybe pictures are worth a thousand words.

more, just because they are interesting:
< bonobo tool use >
< NSFW - Bonobo Sex >
< Self-Recognition in apes >

(try looking up Jane Goodall - In The Shadow of Man was one of the first books I bought with my own money, and I still have it.  Franz van der Waal - his Inner Ape, IIRC, was very good. - I'd post a link to my scientific papers I've collected, but after a hard drive crash, I've got to have my program relearn all of them, and that is taking a lot of time, and I'm not sure of the legality of posting papers I've downloaded through my school, so maybe later)

Sorry if this is disjointed, but after a long day dealing with students and parents, coming home to the same broken record...I'll just take a page from python "< My Brain Hurts! >"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't mean its pack behaivor. I mean the way it moves about is a great visual for why one and myself should conclude or start a careful investigation into ,that this is a wolf like any wolf anywhere. It has to one's vision all the visual aspects of form and motion of a canine.
Not the form and motion of possums or wallabys with some difference in the snout.

Likewise in looking at this marsupial wolf one can see the thousands of points of anatomy in order to see such sameness of form that therefore calls for convergent evolution concepts to explain the remarable likeness.

The minor points of difference are so little as either to be invisable in the pictures here or easily dismissed as a product of a different area.

Yes there is more slope to the back or wider mouth but this is not to confuse one about heritage. its not niche that made this critter like a dog but niche that made it marsupial and a few other collective adaptations.

Seeing this creature with a open mind would surely suggest at least a option that clasification systems have been incompetent on these matters.
I say its a common theme in the fossil record.
They have cats galore from unrelated orders just like the case here.

I see a typical wolf of the world. I'm sure the marsupial lion would look likewise like a regular lion in form and motion
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 01 2010,04:26

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 28 2010,11:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, why aren't you interested in what all serious posters here, and that means all of us except the odd creationist like yourself and just a couple of others, think and see when we read the excrement of your brain?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dna is just a number for the parts department.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That’s right, brother! The manufacturing process, i.e. the development from fertilized egg to full born animal is determined by the parts numbers. Different number, different part. All the parts of a body are made using parts numbers. The parts numbers contain the blueprint for making all the different parts!

Like, say carburettors. There are plenty of different carburettors, each with their own unique part number.

So you want a new carburettor for your car? I don’t think it is enough saying it is a 2003 Ford Focus. Unless you have the exact model number, which points to the exact part number, you won’t get it.

Therefore, my dear friend, it is the part numbers that tells us what is related to what, who is related to whom. You just look at the outside and say that's all you need know, but checking the parts numbers you'll see that they are different.

You see, bodies are built just the way you build cars: By collecting and assembling parts by the part numbers.

We do not build cars first and then assign arbitrary part numbers to its parts! So why do you say that? Do you understand that you are dead wrong?

If you compare the parts numbers of a marsupial with another marsupial you’ll find that the share a lot of the parts in common, but if you try to compare a marsupial with a placental you’ll find a lot of differences.  (Parts numbers = DNA codes!)

But comparing two placentals, you’ll again find they share a lot of the same part numbers.

Therefore, parts numbers are the only reliable method of identifying similarities, and determine origins. Different factories use different parts. Ford cars don’t roll off GM assembly lines.

Proper identification of a car’s origins is to check the parts numbers, not just look at the exterior.

Do you think that parts departments store parts according to looks or according to parts number?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fine about parts numbers.
I say the parts of a marsupial wolf and our wolves are the same and have the original same number.
Now with a change from a new area there is a new part and a new number that also probably affects other numbers.
likewise the other line from the original may of changed some numbers too.
Yes I think there is a common blueprint and parts department.
So like part gives like number. Becoming marsupialized gives unrelated creatures the same dna number. Yet one would be wrong to conclude a marsupial mole is related to a marsupial bear just because of the marsupial number.
In my idea it could also only be that marsupials have like dna but only because of a like reaction to some need.
likewise people with apes need not be seen as related because of dna since the dna need only be seen as representing like parts.
Like dna is not a trail of relationship.
Us being so close to our parents is just a special case of dna because of no reason to change much. yet don't think we are related to apes based on this line of reasoning.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 01 2010,04:33

No Robert, no!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say the parts of a marsupial wolf and our wolves are the same and have the original same number.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You said < DNA = parts numbers >

The part numbers and therefore the parts, they are NOT the same.

We could take any part out of a thylacine and compare it with the same part of a wolf and we would find that they are different, they are not the same! kidneys, liver, eyes, lungs heart and so on - not a single part is identical and with the same 'DNA part number'

Just as I have tried time and again to tell you: superficial similarity is not evidence of sameness.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like dna is not a trail of relationship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But that is just what it is!! DNA contains all the part numbers, and what the factory assembly line (the female womb) use when making the parts.

You see, dear Robert, there is something going on inside a female when a body is built. From a single cell, the fertilized egg, the production proceeds according to the blueprint stored in the DNA.

The blueprints for thylacines and wolves are very different, that's why the animals are different too.

Just as the blueprints for two different cars might make two cars that looked like identical twins on the outside but still wouldn't have a single part in common.

Just as it impossible to determine that you are an idiot just by looking at you, instead it is what you write that tells us that.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 01 2010,07:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seeing this creature with a open mind would surely suggest at least a option that clasification systems have been incompetent on these matters.
I say its a common theme in the fossil record.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I say it's chocolatey!  and maybe really quiet too.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 01 2010,07:17

H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 01 2010,11:50

"How do you know she's a witch?"


"Well, she looks like one!"
Posted by: Bjarne on Feb. 01 2010,13:35

Mr.Byers, I've read in this discussion, that the quoll is of the 'cat kind'. It seems like the reason for this is, that quolls are also called 'marsupial cats'.

Do you agree with that?
Posted by: Nerull on Feb. 01 2010,13:54

Wow. I'd mostly been ignoring this thread, but the TARD is strong with this one.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 01 2010,14:56

Since marsupial mammals came first and placental mammals are an offshoot from one branch of marsupials, how many of those early branches still have living descendants? I'm just wondering if there are living marsupials that have been diverging from each other for longer than any placental mammals have been around. (Or to put it another way, if placental mammals are a subclass of the mammal class, do living marsupials form one or several subclasses?)

Henry
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 01 2010,18:48

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 01 2010,14:56)
Since marsupial mammals came first and placental mammals are an offshoot from one branch of marsupials, how many of those early branches still have living descendants? I'm just wondering if there are living marsupials that have been diverging from each other for longer than any placental mammals have been around. (Or to put it another way, if placental mammals are a subclass of the mammal class, do living marsupials form one or several subclasses?)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does this help?



Technically, marsupials are in the infraclass metatheria, which is part of the subclass theria (in the most common classification). The other infraclass is the eutheria. Other classifications get more esoteric (see< here for more details) >
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 01 2010,20:40

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 01 2010,04:05)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 28 2010,02:10)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 28 2010,00:14)
I saw on another forum that there is this fantastic moving picture video of the marsupial wolf. Youtube. I don't know how to get it but every poster interested or confident enough should see it. its just a few minutes long.
One should watch it several times. It is of one of the last marsupial dogs that ever existed.
Watch with a open mind.
Watch how it walks and lays down and sits upright and scratches and chews something. Remember they say it howled at night.
I say that this creature is a doggie.
It is not a flexible possum or short kangaroo.
It is surely and clearly the first conclusion that it is exactly what its same shaped fellows in other countries are.
A canine with a pouch.
Yes a few minor differences in sloping back/mouth etc. Yet these fit fine in the great diversity of dog types in the world or even in domestic dogs.
(I believe dogs and bears are the same thing but thats beside the point)

I say likewise would a marsupial cat of looked just like our cats.
These are not superficial physical bodies and superficial motions of bodies like other creatures on earth because of convergent evolution.
It has been a great error of classification, done by very few people, to have seen marsupials as a group unrelated to placentals .
They are the same creatures as placentals, according to each type, and simply adapted a marsupial mode of reproduction under some influence and by innate triggers and a wee bit more adaptions of this and that.

This explains the migration of marsupials from a common origin off the biblical ark by showing marsupialism was a last act of a new colonizer.
This happened also in south America by either migration from the north or just adaption in South america. So these marsupials are no more related to Australian marsupials then any other placentals anywhere.

I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.

Pictures can say better then words sometimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What would you expect it to act like?  Have you ever watched any nature films - Wild America, Wild Kingdom ... Walt Disney films?  Anything?

Have you ever studied animal behavior?  Seen any similarities in even widely divergent species?  A lot of the behaviors are inherited - of course they would be similar.  There are only so many varieties of behavior that are possible, as well.  We also love to look at similarities.

Of course, if you really had an open mind you'd realize that your desire for them to be the same (a dog with a pouch) is clearly making you see what you want.  When I see that clip, and I've seen it hundreds of times, I see a pack animal that is missing it's pack.  It's a behavior that you can see in hundreds of different animals.  It's that pesky "common ancestry" - the relationships that reveal we are all related. We know marsupials are related to us, through a common ancestor millions of years ago, a fact that anatomy and genetics (as well as radiocarbon and radioactive dating, geology and paleontology) shows us.  It's only a few people who want to ignore a vast body of evidence to preserve their child-like belief in the scribblings of some very ignorant bronze and iron-age people.

Why do you persist in looking at the surface, and ignoring all the evidence presented against you.  There are questions that I and others have asked, and you have ignored them, simply repeating your assertions as if they were true.  You persist in doing that now.

We've presented skeletal evidence that completely contradicts your claim that marsupial lions look like placental felines, yet you persist in saying they would look the same.  They don't.  It's a fact.  You do know what a fact is, don't you?  A fact is not just what supports your religious beliefs, but something that often contradicts your religious beliefs, especially if what you believe is so pathetic as your descendant of the Atrahasis legend of < Sumeria >.  

How about native placentals in Australia?  Why did they not need to breed rapidly and so become marsupials?  Why was it only a select few?    If marsupial lions and lions are related, they should possess the same genetics, and we should be able, with genetic engineering, to activate the marsupial genes and make us a marsupial lion from an african one, right?  Any bets on whether this is really possible (hey, stop laughing back there, I can hear you)?  

Pictures can indeed "say better then (sic) words sometimes" - but intelligence, thinking, and evidence are much better all the time.  Try it for once.

However, why not try to watch a video of < chimpanzees > sometime, keeping a real open mind, and leave your dogma on the shelf.  You might see the thousands of similarities in their behavior with our own.  You'd see the close relationship of our two species.  Maybe pictures are worth a thousand words.

more, just because they are interesting:
< bonobo tool use >
< NSFW - Bonobo Sex >
< Self-Recognition in apes >

(try looking up Jane Goodall - In The Shadow of Man was one of the first books I bought with my own money, and I still have it.  Franz van der Waal - his Inner Ape, IIRC, was very good. - I'd post a link to my scientific papers I've collected, but after a hard drive crash, I've got to have my program relearn all of them, and that is taking a lot of time, and I'm not sure of the legality of posting papers I've downloaded through my school, so maybe later)

Sorry if this is disjointed, but after a long day dealing with students and parents, coming home to the same broken record...I'll just take a page from python "< My Brain Hurts! >"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't mean its pack behaivor. I mean the way it moves about is a great visual for why one and myself should conclude or start a careful investigation into ,that this is a wolf like any wolf anywhere. It has to one's vision all the visual aspects of form and motion of a canine.
Not the form and motion of possums or wallabys with some difference in the snout.

Likewise in looking at this marsupial wolf one can see the thousands of points of anatomy in order to see such sameness of form that therefore calls for convergent evolution concepts to explain the remarable likeness.

The minor points of difference are so little as either to be invisable in the pictures here or easily dismissed as a product of a different area.

Yes there is more slope to the back or wider mouth but this is not to confuse one about heritage. its not niche that made this critter like a dog but niche that made it marsupial and a few other collective adaptations.

Seeing this creature with a open mind would surely suggest at least a option that clasification systems have been incompetent on these matters.
I say its a common theme in the fossil record.
They have cats galore from unrelated orders just like the case here.

I see a typical wolf of the world. I'm sure the marsupial lion would look likewise like a regular lion in form and motion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, basically, you agree with me that chimpanzees and humans are related, right?  They look and act the same in so many ways, that there must be very few differences, right?  

What about my other questions - the ones on native placentals in Australia, perhaps?  Heck, what about all the other questions in this thread you've ignored?
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 01 2010,20:42

Yeah, that says that marsupials are all in one branch, and so all equidistant from placentals. That's what I wasn't sure about.

Then there's also the monotremes, that branched off first before the others diverged from each other.

Henry
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 01 2010,22:09

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 01 2010,20:42)
Yeah, that says that marsupials are all in one branch, and so all equidistant from placentals. That's what I wasn't sure about.

Then there's also the monotremes, that branched off first before the others diverged from each other.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The picture came from < Transformation and diversification in early mammal evolution >. Luo has all sorts of interesting papers relevant to this thread available for download < at his website >.
Posted by: bfish on Feb. 02 2010,01:45

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 01 2010,01:51)
A cat?!! What cats are in your neighborhood ?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool cats, of course.

Look, Robert, you asked people to look at the video with an open mind. I did. Then I told you what I saw. Now you're telling me that I saw wrong, because I didn't see what you saw. You say potato, I say potahto. I've got an idea, though. Let's take these subjective viewpoints out of the picture. Let's instead objectively list as many characteristics of the animal as we can find, and then compare those characteristics to other animals, and see which animals have the most characteristics in common. Maybe we can even trace those characteristics back in time to sketch up a proposed family tree.

But you already know what happens when you do that, don't you? You've had this explained to you on this forum, and on < Theology Web >, and on Thor knows how many other sites. You aren't interested in any of that evidence, as we all know. Your mind is hardly open.

Anyway, do you know the other name for a thylacine? It's called a Tasmanian Tiger. That's right. Tiger. A cat. Now, I know what you're saying. You're saying that they call it a Tasmanian Tiger just because it has stripes. Well, I say the stripes are exactly what shows that it was a member of the Tiger kind. All this other stuff is just adaptation that don't mean anything. Does it have tiger stripes? Well, by crackey, it's a goddamned tiger in my book.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 02 2010,04:59

Robert, if you look at < this > post from afarensis you will see how normal people classify all animals.

If you can understand a diagram, you should understand that the connecting lines indicate the hereditary relationships. That is, the lines show from what parental stock a particular group descended.

It is all an unbroken mother/father -> son/daughter relationship.

In the same way as you are descended from your parents, grandparents, grand-grandparents a so on backwards in time through nearly 4 billion years.

Just as your family tree have a lot of branches; you may have cousins, third cousins and farther removed relative as well, but at some point in times past there will have to be a common ancestor, i.e. a father or mother that are in the direct lineage leading both to yourself as well as other people living somewhere on the planet right now, unless that branch happened to go 'extinct' because somewhere along the line a person died without leaving any children.

Your classification method based on superficial similarity determined just by looking at exterior features is misleading and is of no practical use. It is useless nonsense, like trying to establish a connection between car manufacturers because their cars look like. How could they not? They are made for the same purpose, have four wheel and a steering wheel and so on: Same purpose, same looks. But not same factory, not same parts.

When you study the diagrams offered by afarensis you will see that there is no connection between marsupials and placentals since the branches numbered 5 and 6.

Do you understand that? No copulation has ever taken place between members from on branch with a member of the other branch. Therefore, the only relationship is the connection between branches 5 and 6.

Therefore, any similarities with respect anatomical features are simply the effect of some similarity remaining from the 5/6 connection, and the affect of similarities of lifestyle.

In the case of the thylacine and the wolf, they are both carnivorous predators.

Now I have wasted more time than you are worth. I know if you respond to this that you will just make more of the incoherent babble we know so well. There is something wrong with you.

Do you know one other person in this whole world that agree with you on the nonsense you believe?

When you say "We will win", it is like I would say "We will win" with reference to the US democratic party. As an European I do not represent them. As an idiot, you do not represent creationists. I know only one classification or group you rightly belong to.

You do not represent creationists any more than I represent US democrats.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 02 2010,05:56

Afarensis, thanks for that phylogeny. It raises a question.

Were all those critters above the placentals and marsupials egg-laying mammals like the monotremes?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 02 2010,06:58

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 02 2010,05:56)
Afarensis, thanks for that phylogeny. It raises a question.

Were all those critters above the placentals and marsupials egg-laying mammals like the monotremes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My understanding of the situation is that everything in 4 would be egg laying, but I could be wrong...
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 03 2010,03:44

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 01 2010,04:33)
No Robert, no!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say the parts of a marsupial wolf and our wolves are the same and have the original same number.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You said < DNA = parts numbers >

The part numbers and therefore the parts, they are NOT the same.

We could take any part out of a thylacine and compare it with the same part of a wolf and we would find that they are different, they are not the same! kidneys, liver, eyes, lungs heart and so on - not a single part is identical and with the same 'DNA part number'

Just as I have tried time and again to tell you: superficial similarity is not evidence of sameness.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like dna is not a trail of relationship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But that is just what it is!! DNA contains all the part numbers, and what the factory assembly line (the female womb) use when making the parts.

You see, dear Robert, there is something going on inside a female when a body is built. From a single cell, the fertilized egg, the production proceeds according to the blueprint stored in the DNA.

The blueprints for thylacines and wolves are very different, that's why the animals are different too.

Just as the blueprints for two different cars might make two cars that looked like identical twins on the outside but still wouldn't have a single part in common.

Just as it impossible to determine that you are an idiot just by looking at you, instead it is what you write that tells us that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I say heart and lungs and kidney and eyes would be the same or almost relative to early(post flood) divergence save in a case where there was a general adaptation of the creatures living in some area. Perhaps the kidney would be tinkered with because of reproductive changes from the marsupialism change.

The video makes my case and does not hurt it.
it is reasonable, more then that, to conclude that this is a regular wolf with adaptations from a general niche stress that affected all the creatures in the area. The creatures are simply the same ones as covering the rest of earth and all were affected in like manner.

Well if your saying the inner parts of the marsupial wolf are different enough from regular wolves then how so?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 03 2010,03:50

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 03 2010,03:54

Quote (Bjarne @ Feb. 01 2010,13:35)
Mr.Byers, I've read in this discussion, that the quoll is of the 'cat kind'. It seems like the reason for this is, that quolls are also called 'marsupial cats'.

Do you agree with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The quoll is not said to be convergent with cats by evolution. So i don't either and don't know it well.
Today or in the fossil record there were many types of creatures the quoll could be cousin to. If its cat-like it could be like a gannet or fossa or any other type of these creatures.
Its not about words. Its about likeness of anatomy that EVOLUTION folks say is from a very real niche pressure influence over time by way of evolutionary processes.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 03 2010,04:35

Quote (bfish @ Feb. 02 2010,01:45)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 01 2010,01:51)
A cat?!! What cats are in your neighborhood ?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool cats, of course.

Look, Robert, you asked people to look at the video with an open mind. I did. Then I told you what I saw. Now you're telling me that I saw wrong, because I didn't see what you saw. You say potato, I say potahto. I've got an idea, though. Let's take these subjective viewpoints out of the picture. Let's instead objectively list as many characteristics of the animal as we can find, and then compare those characteristics to other animals, and see which animals have the most characteristics in common. Maybe we can even trace those characteristics back in time to sketch up a proposed family tree.

But you already know what happens when you do that, don't you? You've had this explained to you on this forum, and on < Theology Web >, and on Thor knows how many other sites. You aren't interested in any of that evidence, as we all know. Your mind is hardly open.

Anyway, do you know the other name for a thylacine? It's called a Tasmanian Tiger. That's right. Tiger. A cat. Now, I know what you're saying. You're saying that they call it a Tasmanian Tiger just because it has stripes. Well, I say the stripes are exactly what shows that it was a member of the Tiger kind. All this other stuff is just adaptation that don't mean anything. Does it have tiger stripes? Well, by crackey, it's a goddamned tiger in my book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its not a tiger. Look at the video again. Pictures do talk.
I always have stress with evolutionists how evolution is the one with a very precise conclusion on why a mar/wolf looks like a regular wolf.
its from generations of mutation/selection in niches that produced the likeness of form.
Powerful biological forces are invoked by evolution to explain the list of marsupials that are dead on lookalikes to placentals.
Its not about stripes on the fur/skin.
This is a common thing.

Convergent evolution is false but it does force evolution fans to accept real biological principals on how alike creatures are in this case.

Trying to say marsupial wolves are cats or zebras is poor criticism.
If I mat say so.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 03 2010,06:09

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:54)
If its cat-like it could be like a gannet or fossa or any other type of these creatures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


quoll



gannet



fossa



Yep, they sure look the same to me. The scales have been lifted from my eyes!
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 03 2010,06:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well if your saying the inner parts of the marsupial wolf are different enough from regular wolves then how so?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I note that you are avoiding all of my arguments and/or questions. I therefore ask you to study my post again and properly address the issues raised and answer the questions!

When you have done that, I may reply to your question.

Do you understand that? Robert, I am talking to you. I ought not. Nobody ought to bother with you.

Tip: If you knew what you are talking about you wouldn't have to ask that question above. You'd know the answer. That fact that you don't is real time evidence that you don't know anything at all about biology. Biology is the science of life. Animals are life.

I must presume you didn't know that.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Feb. 03 2010,06:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
accept real biological principals
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Until somone can build a robot that perform the duties of the head of a school, we all must accept real biological principals.  Oh, you must have meant principles, I get it.  Is there a language you do write coherently?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 03 2010,07:25

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there are quite a few anatomical differences between  marsupials and wolves, just not as many as between dolphins and fish. Which is the point. If dolphins can converge on a fish shape and not be the same as fish why can't marsupials converge on a wolf shape and not be the same as wolves. You are being inconsistent.
Posted by: khan on Feb. 03 2010,08:16

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,04:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sig worthy.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 03 2010,10:19

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2010,07:25)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there are quite a few anatomical differences between  marsupials and wolves, just not as many as between dolphins and fish. Which is the point. If dolphins can converge on a fish shape and not be the same as fish why can't marsupials converge on a wolf shape and not be the same as wolves. You are being inconsistent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course he's inconsistent - he still avoided the chimpanzee-man comparison, for instance.  Of course, we don't say convergent evolution, just evolution, but he's still denying their "sameness" all the...uhr...same.

But, when you're Lying For Jeebus, there is no such thing as being inconsistent - it's reality that is lying.
Posted by: Lowell on Feb. 03 2010,10:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert should use this as the title for his Ph.D. dissertation at Patriot University.

The first line could be, "Hello, my name is Robert Byers." Just like < Kent Hovind's "dissertation." >
Posted by: bfish on Feb. 03 2010,11:18

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 03 2010,04:09)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:54)
If its cat-like it could be like a gannet or fossa or any other type of these creatures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


quoll



gannet



fossa



Yep, they sure look the same to me. The scales have been lifted from my eyes!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice try, Albatrossity!

The quoll is covered in spots. The gannett has speckly black on white and the fossa has just one solid color. Obviously they are not related.
Posted by: bfish on Feb. 03 2010,11:21

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,02:35)
Quote (bfish @ Feb. 02 2010,01:45)

Anyway, do you know the other name for a thylacine? It's called a Tasmanian Tiger. That's right. Tiger. A cat. Now, I know what you're saying. You're saying that they call it a Tasmanian Tiger just because it has stripes. Well, I say the stripes are exactly what shows that it was a member of the Tiger kind. All this other stuff is just adaptation that don't mean anything. Does it have tiger stripes? Well, by crackey, it's a goddamned tiger in my book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its not a tiger. Look at the video again. Pictures do talk.
I always have stress with evolutionists how evolution is the one with a very precise conclusion on why a mar/wolf looks like a regular wolf.
its from generations of mutation/selection in niches that produced the likeness of form.
Powerful biological forces are invoked by evolution to explain the list of marsupials that are dead on lookalikes to placentals.
Its not about stripes on the fur/skin.
This is a common thing.

Convergent evolution is false but it does force evolution fans to accept real biological principals on how alike creatures are in this case.

Trying to say marsupial wolves are cats or zebras is poor criticism.
If I mat say so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm saying that all animals with stripes are related. Or spots. You're telling me I'm wrong because subjectively, to you, the stripes don't seem very important. They're common, you say. Well, I say they are all-important. I mean, how would you even go about making a stripe? So it's your subjective belief against mine.

If only we had some objective way to measure these things. Something that didn't depend just on what you believed and what I believed. You even said that a thylacine is 95% a canis lupus, whereas a dolphin is just 5% of a fish, so clearly you think there must be some objective way to score sameness and relatedness.

If only someone had ever done such a comparison.

[Edited to remove cheap shot against someone who doesn't have an edit button].
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 03 2010,11:22

My new sig:
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 03 2010,11:23

Quote (Lowell @ Feb. 03 2010,08:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert should use this as the title for his Ph.D. dissertation at Patriot University.

The first line could be, "Hello, my name is Robert Byers." Just like < Kent Hovind's "dissertation." >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did anyone keep a copy of Kent's opus? I only see an error message from the wikileaks page.
Posted by: Bjarne on Feb. 03 2010,12:01

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 03 2010,18:23)
Quote (Lowell @ Feb. 03 2010,08:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert should use this as the title for his Ph.D. dissertation at Patriot University.

The first line could be, "Hello, my name is Robert Byers." Just like < Kent Hovind's "dissertation." >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did anyone keep a copy of Kent's opus? I only see an error message from the wikileaks page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I still have one. Is it possible to send pdf files by PM on this board?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 03 2010,14:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did anyone keep a copy of Kent's opus? I only see an error message from the wikileaks page.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have a PDF at home. I'm (slowly) converting it to text. It's scans fairly well via ocr, but I'm trying for a line by line, page by page text conversion.
Posted by: khan on Feb. 03 2010,14:47

New Page?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Feb. 03 2010,18:30

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 03 2010,06:09)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:54)
If its cat-like it could be like a gannet or fossa or any other type of these creatures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


quoll



gannet



fossa



Yep, they sure look the same to me. The scales have been lifted from my eyes!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can I get the one without the gannet?  I don't like them.  They wet their nests.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 03 2010,19:21

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hard to say given that wolves are pack animals and thylacines were as well. We do not really see a good range of thylacine behavior, rather we see the same pacing behavior displayed by a lot of animals kept in captivity without the benefit of enrichment. In the video we only see one thylacine so we can't tell whether it related to its fellow thylacines in the same way wolves related to each other. Interesting that in the close up of the face the thylacine it looks more like a kangaroo face than a wolf face. Also interesting is the way the tail was held mostly horizontal and only occasionally bent down and never curled over the back. Not a very wolf-like way to carry a tail. One suspects that there might almost be structural reasons for it. At any rate, it didn't look terribly wolf-like to me and the more I watched it the less wolf-like it became.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 05 2010,02:34

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2010,07:25)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there are quite a few anatomical differences between  marsupials and wolves, just not as many as between dolphins and fish. Which is the point. If dolphins can converge on a fish shape and not be the same as fish why can't marsupials converge on a wolf shape and not be the same as wolves. You are being inconsistent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not inconsistent.
its convergent evolution concepts that marsupial wolves, for example, are lookalikes with placental wolves because of the same niche driven evolution factors.
So they are very alike.
The dolphin is like the fish in only the need to swim in a special water envirorment. otherwise it is not like a fish.
so its only about 5% like a fish while a mar/wolf is 90% or so like a placental wolf.
So i say the dolphin shape in fact is the same thing as the detail of marsupialism amongst, I say, unrelated creatures.

The dolphin makes my case. not opposes it.
Its a minor detail, however important, that dolphins have streamlined bodies. Otherwise they are not fishy.
A marsupial wolf body is not for a general niche pressure like water but is detailed for a very particular hunting/hiding life.
The dolphin would be its shape if it was just farming carrots.

The dolphin is not a case for intimate niche evolution as needed for marsupials with placentals but is a special case that indicates how a few details can be adapted by unrelated creatures..Just like my marsupials.

Its not inconsistent. its a analysis on data.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 05 2010,02:56

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2010,19:21)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hard to say given that wolves are pack animals and thylacines were as well. We do not really see a good range of thylacine behavior, rather we see the same pacing behavior displayed by a lot of animals kept in captivity without the benefit of enrichment. In the video we only see one thylacine so we can't tell whether it related to its fellow thylacines in the same way wolves related to each other. Interesting that in the close up of the face the thylacine it looks more like a kangaroo face than a wolf face. Also interesting is the way the tail was held mostly horizontal and only occasionally bent down and never curled over the back. Not a very wolf-like way to carry a tail. One suspects that there might almost be structural reasons for it. At any rate, it didn't look terribly wolf-like to me and the more I watched it the less wolf-like it became.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I leave it to the public to vote on whether this cute marsupial wolf looks like a wolf or a kangaroo (face).
In fact its head is so dog like it alone makes my case.
Its tail is different and it could use it for better unright action. So could a marsupial cat. Yet its either a adaptation from some original type of tail upon immigration or a general need to have this.

Its not the pacing but its sitting, scratching, chewing and general doggy actions that should say to the observation that this is very likely another dog. Its a prompt to the conscience.
Then ones thinking can deal with the differences.

Remember convergent evolution demands great mutation/selection on these creatures in order to make it look like a dog.
So you must accept evolution itself is saying its not a superficial result.
Its a resulf from profound influences.
I say the minor differences are just from influence.
The same with the rest.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 05 2010,03:00

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 05 2010,02:56)
I say the minor differences are just from influence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When can we expect to see your paper published regarding this claim?
Posted by: snorkild on Feb. 05 2010,05:32

[quote=Robert Byers,Feb. 05 2010,02:56][/quote]
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Well I leave it to the public to vote on whether this cute marsupial wolf looks like a wolf or a kangaroo (face).
In fact its head is so dog like it alone makes my case.
Its tail is different and it could use it for better unright action. So could a marsupial cat. Yet its either a adaptation from some original type of tail upon immigration or a general need to have this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are differences to the head important and differences to the tail unimportant?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
doggy actions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol. All science!
Posted by: khan on Feb. 05 2010,09:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Its not the pacing but its sitting, scratching, chewing and general doggy actions that should say to the observation that this is very likely another dog. Its a prompt to the conscience.
Then ones thinking can deal with the differences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can someone translate this?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 05 2010,09:05

Quote (khan @ Feb. 05 2010,09:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Its not the pacing but its sitting, scratching, chewing and general doggy actions that should say to the observation that this is very likely another dog. Its a prompt to the conscience.
Then ones thinking can deal with the differences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can someone translate this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Quack on Feb. 05 2010,09:46

Robert, since no thylacines are around for the experiment we'll have to rely on your expertise. Please let the world know:

Would mating a wolf with a thylacine have provided offspring? Would the offspring be marsupial, placental or something in between?

Since there are reasons also to call the thylacine a tiger, maybe
mating one with a tiger might also have been possible?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Feb. 05 2010,16:05

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 05 2010,15:46)
Robert, since no thylacines are around for the experiment we'll have to rely on your expertise. Please let the world know:

Would mating a wolf with a thylacine have provided offspring? Would the offspring be marsupial, placental or something in between?

Since there are reasons also to call the thylacine a tiger, maybe
mating one with a tiger might also have been possible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rhoooo! You crafty, crafty man!

Can't wait for the outcome of this one :D
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 05 2010,18:46

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 05 2010,16:05)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 05 2010,15:46)
Robert, since no thylacines are around for the experiment we'll have to rely on your expertise. Please let the world know:

Would mating a wolf with a thylacine have provided offspring? Would the offspring be marsupial, placental or something in between?

Since there are reasons also to call the thylacine a tiger, maybe
mating one with a tiger might also have been possible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rhoooo! You crafty, crafty man!

Can't wait for the outcome of this one :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, what if we mated a tiger and a wolf?  Would they make a marsupial wolf that has tiger stripes - a thylacine?

We could also do the chimp-human cross, but someone would have to be really, really drunk.  Or desperate.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Feb. 05 2010,19:50

Option 1 seems fine by me...

Or option two...whatever....as long as getting drunk is involved....

Yeah, you know the drift...
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 05 2010,20:08

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 05 2010,02:56)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2010,19:21)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hard to say given that wolves are pack animals and thylacines were as well. We do not really see a good range of thylacine behavior, rather we see the same pacing behavior displayed by a lot of animals kept in captivity without the benefit of enrichment. In the video we only see one thylacine so we can't tell whether it related to its fellow thylacines in the same way wolves related to each other. Interesting that in the close up of the face the thylacine it looks more like a kangaroo face than a wolf face. Also interesting is the way the tail was held mostly horizontal and only occasionally bent down and never curled over the back. Not a very wolf-like way to carry a tail. One suspects that there might almost be structural reasons for it. At any rate, it didn't look terribly wolf-like to me and the more I watched it the less wolf-like it became.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I leave it to the public to vote on whether this cute marsupial wolf looks like a wolf or a kangaroo (face).
In fact its head is so dog like it alone makes my case.
Its tail is different and it could use it for better unright action. So could a marsupial cat. Yet its either a adaptation from some original type of tail upon immigration or a general need to have this.

Its not the pacing but its sitting, scratching, chewing and general doggy actions that should say to the observation that this is very likely another dog. Its a prompt to the conscience.
Then ones thinking can deal with the differences.

Remember convergent evolution demands great mutation/selection on these creatures in order to make it look like a dog.
So you must accept evolution itself is saying its not a superficial result.
Its a resulf from profound influences.
I say the minor differences are just from influence.
The same with the rest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, lets vote. Here is a picture of a thylacine - it's actually a still from the movie:



and here are two wolves in a similar view:



Other than some basic, primitive ancestral traits I'm not seeing much in the way of similarity here.

Apparently, thylacines also hopped on two legs occasionally - I don't think wolves do that, but I coulded be wrong.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 05 2010,21:21

So this kangaroo and this zebra go to a bar...
Posted by: Amadan on Feb. 06 2010,13:21

... and the kangaroo asks for a tequila with a jumping bean in it.

The zebra turns to the barman and says

"Wow! A talking kangaroo!"




This joke brought to you by Give An Old Joke A Home Week.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 06 2010,13:31

And sometimes in ID science research you just have a fragment of the joke, so you have to re-create design it from just a fragment:

... So, O'Leary says, "Rectum?  Hell, it damn near killed him".
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 06 2010,19:14

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 06 2010,11:31)
And sometimes in ID science research you just have a fragment of the joke, so you have to re-create design it from just a fragment:

... So, O'Leary says, "Rectum?  Hell, it damn near killed him".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Honey, this one's eating my popcorn!"

"So I just gave him my shorts!"

"No, that's just ice cream."

etc...
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 06 2010,22:11

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 06 2010,11:31)
And sometimes in ID science research you just have a fragment of the joke, so you have to re-create design it from just a fragment:

... So, O'Leary says, "Rectum?  Hell, it damn near killed him".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr. Bennet? Naw, he nearly broke it.
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Feb. 07 2010,08:57

Apparently the problems with flood geology have been solved with the publication of Snelling's latest book:

< http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs....+Ham%29 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Earth’s Catastrophic Past
This next week, AiG will be sending a press release out that is similar to the following concerning Dr. Andrew Snelling’s new book on creationist geology:

Dr. Andrew Snelling, one of the world’s leading creation geologists, is the author of the new “Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and the Flood,” released recently from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). It details the current geological evidence validating the authority and accuracy of the biblical accounts of the Creation and the Flood. In its 1,100 pages, it also provides a compelling case to rebut the evolutionary timeline of millions/billions of years.

Snelling, a former professor of geology and researcher at ICR, serves as the Director of Research at Answers in Genesis (AiG) and is editor-in-chief of AiG’s Answers Research Journal.

“I believe in the convergence of scientific study and biblical truth,” Snelling said. “A literal reading of the events of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is confirmed by science. The Creation and the Flood, are real events in history.”

Snelling uses the two-volume set as an opportunity to share the earth’s history and the science of geology from a biblical perspective. In “Earth’s Catastrophic Past,” Snelling discusses geological elements in the Genesis record, as well as the latest scientific data on sedimentation, fossilization, plate tectonics, radioisotope dating, and more. Much of his decades of research has been summarized inside AiG’s popular Creation Museum, which has welcomed over 945,000 visitors since opening  May 2007.

I want to add that the great thing about this set is that it gives non-scientist readers access to the geological and scientific evidence that supports the global Flood and a young earth view of creation. By making this research available to the Christian community, believers will be able to defend their views. For secularists, this two-volume set will address their problems with the Creation and Flood accounts in the Bible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 07 2010,10:35

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Feb. 07 2010,09:57)
Apparently the problems with flood geology have been solved with the publication of Snelling's latest book:

< http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs....+Ham%29 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“I believe in the convergence of scientific study and biblical truth,” Snelling said. “A literal reading of the events of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is confirmed by science. The Creation and the Flood, are real events in history.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I look forward to reading the paper(s). Any idea if they'll be in Science or Nature? I'll gladly pay the fees for the articles in whichever one he publishes his research.

Oh, a book and AIG's fake journal. Surprise, surprise.
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Feb. 07 2010,12:31

Someone needs to have a look at Lou. The YECs are convinced this is peer reviewed science.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 07 2010,13:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snelling, a former professor of geology and researcher at ICR, serves as the Director of Research at Answers in Genesis (AiG) and is editor-in-chief of AiG’s Answers Research Journal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did I mention I was president of The Hermit Club? Oh, and founder of Anarchists for Responsible Government.

AIG "Research", indeed.

"Former professor of geology" reminds me of that old SNL skit: "This is John Belushi. He was an aspiring actor until drugs destroyed his mind. But now, thanks to a special rehabilitation program, he recognizes shadows, and can name three countries. Go ahead, John."

"Belgium.... Belgium... and Kansas City."
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 07 2010,17:07

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Feb. 07 2010,13:31)
Someone needs to have a look at Lou. The YECs are convinced this is peer reviewed science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I could have just said, "Hey YEC fucktards! Any fucking douchebag with a computer can publish a book. When he can get his bullshit published in Nature or Science, then maybe someone who knows their ass from a hole in the ground might take him seriously. Until then, he's just got one hand on your wallet, and the other on your cocks."

But I was going for slightly more subtle snark.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 08 2010,01:45

Just in case someone should be unaware of it:
< Snelling vs. Snelling >
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Feb. 08 2010,05:30

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,01:45)
Just in case someone should be unaware of it:
< Snelling vs. Snelling >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well aware of it Quack but does Ken Ham know ? It seems not.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 08 2010,08:04

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Feb. 08 2010,05:30)
 
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,01:45)
Just in case someone should be unaware of it:
< Snelling vs. Snelling >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well aware of it Quack but does Ken Ham know ? It seems not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would he care?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 09 2010,18:52

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 05 2010,20:08)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 05 2010,02:56)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2010,19:21)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hard to say given that wolves are pack animals and thylacines were as well. We do not really see a good range of thylacine behavior, rather we see the same pacing behavior displayed by a lot of animals kept in captivity without the benefit of enrichment. In the video we only see one thylacine so we can't tell whether it related to its fellow thylacines in the same way wolves related to each other. Interesting that in the close up of the face the thylacine it looks more like a kangaroo face than a wolf face. Also interesting is the way the tail was held mostly horizontal and only occasionally bent down and never curled over the back. Not a very wolf-like way to carry a tail. One suspects that there might almost be structural reasons for it. At any rate, it didn't look terribly wolf-like to me and the more I watched it the less wolf-like it became.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I leave it to the public to vote on whether this cute marsupial wolf looks like a wolf or a kangaroo (face).
In fact its head is so dog like it alone makes my case.
Its tail is different and it could use it for better unright action. So could a marsupial cat. Yet its either a adaptation from some original type of tail upon immigration or a general need to have this.

Its not the pacing but its sitting, scratching, chewing and general doggy actions that should say to the observation that this is very likely another dog. Its a prompt to the conscience.
Then ones thinking can deal with the differences.

Remember convergent evolution demands great mutation/selection on these creatures in order to make it look like a dog.
So you must accept evolution itself is saying its not a superficial result.
Its a resulf from profound influences.
I say the minor differences are just from influence.
The same with the rest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, lets vote. Here is a picture of a thylacine - it's actually a still from the movie:



and here are two wolves in a similar view:



Other than some basic, primitive ancestral traits I'm not seeing much in the way of similarity here.

Apparently, thylacines also hopped on two legs occasionally - I don't think wolves do that, but I coulded be wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AMEN. Let the world vote.
My vote is that these are pictures of the same dog type. The marsupial one looks like any number of breeds of present domestic dogs.
Not kangaroos. They didn't hop but do have a greater ability to use their tail to be upright. Actually so did the marsupial cat.
This is a minor useful point.
There is a cat called the fishing cat (indonesia I think) that otherwise looks like a cat but has a tail with a more solid structure in orde to aid in snatching fish ut of the water. Tails are very adaptable and not reflective of heritage.

A bigger picture. Imagine being in a area where you have these marsupial wolves, lions, tapirs, bears, moles, mice and so on.
Would one not simply say these are the same creatures as everywhere else on earth with a few details of common in difference?
Would one otherwise suspect they are from a common non descript marsupial rodent-ish creature and by the wonder of convergent evolution just came to look like other creatures elsewhere on earth?

I insist that these old classification systems were just plain wrong and unnessessary and even counter intutive.
I say this can be brought to bear on all kinds of ideas in classification.
I don't think dinosaurs exist as different orders of creatures but are simply creatures with like details for like needs. perhaps , not sure, a rhino and a triceratops are of the same kind. A triceratops is not more related to a t-rex.
ILikewise birds are not dinos but simply have like structures for like needs.
How one groups creatures is just in need of serious revision. so a biblical creationist must be the first to do it.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 09 2010,20:04

Huh, really! From < The Thylacine Museum >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The other method was a bipedal hop. As can be seen in the film, the animal can stand upright with its front limbs in the air, resting on its elongated back feet, and using the end of its tail as an additional support. In this posture, it takes on a very kangaroo-like appearance and sometimes hops a short distance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 09 2010,20:09

Robert Byers:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[...] a biblical creationist must be the first to do it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ever hear of "binomial nomenclature"?

Well, apparently not.

Karl von Linne' thought that the marsupial/placental split was more than minor accommodation. He certainly believed in the creation stories of the bible. Why should we prefer your unfounded armchair handwaving over his painstaking research?
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 10 2010,02:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How one groups creatures is just in need of serious revision. so a biblical creationist must be the first to do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would have to be you! You are the only person in the whole world that can do it! You have our go ahead!

You'll have a formidable task ahead of you though, overturning the entire framework laid down by < Linnaeus >, tachonomy,  and cladistics up to this day!

You'll also have to forget words like 'I think', 'perhaps' and such - you'll have to be declare the why all the time. What you think perhaps might be is not a definition of what is.

You obviously are the only person in the world who understand it, shouldn't you be the right person? You are obliged to do the best you can for God, aren't you?

BTW, you have yet to answer the questions I put to you a while back. I'll be back with a repeat, I wont' let you get away with just ignoring questions you cannot answer.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 10 2010,20:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should we prefer your unfounded armchair handwaving over his painstaking research?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BECAUSE!!11!!!one!!!!

Henry
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 11 2010,04:44

Robert Byers,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like dna is not a trail of relationship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tell that to the judges ruling in paternity cases! You think you could get away with that?
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 11 2010,13:15

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2010,04:44)
Robert Byers,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like dna is not a trail of relationship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tell that to the judges ruling in paternity cases! You think you could get away with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If DNA was proof of paternity, then that would imply that YHWH had DNA, and since that can't be the case, sic ergo waffle, therefore and thereby, ahem, per se, and suchlike, DNA can't be related to paternity and relationships.  See?  Crystal clear with your patented BibleGoggles!
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 11 2010,16:45

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 11 2010,13:15)
 
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2010,04:44)
Robert Byers,
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like dna is not a trail of relationship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tell that to the judges ruling in paternity cases! You think you could get away with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If DNA was proof of paternity, then that would imply that YHWH had DNA, and since that can't be the case, sic ergo waffle, therefore and thereby, ahem, per se, and suchlike, DNA can't be related to paternity and relationships.  See?  Crystal clear with your patented BibleGoggles!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's too bad, they cant even get the relationship between God and Jesus right.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 12 2010,00:10

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 09 2010,20:04)
Huh, really! From < The Thylacine Museum >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The other method was a bipedal hop. As can be seen in the film, the animal can stand upright with its front limbs in the air, resting on its elongated back feet, and using the end of its tail as an additional support. In this posture, it takes on a very kangaroo-like appearance and sometimes hops a short distance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are wrong and its silly.
It would not look like a kangaroo just because its upright. it would look like the creature in these pictures standing on its hind legs a little better then other dogs.
It could not hop in any way like a kangaroo. Its absurd to see the great hopping abilities of Kan's and see connection here.
In fact the marsupial lion also could stand upright like the wolf but it had nothing to do with hopping about.
By the way.
Are you trying to say the mar/wolf once hopped and lost the ability or that it was evolving toward hopping and didn't quite make it?
or it retained some early common tail/back anatomy that just coincedently allowed it to stand upright?

What is the origin of this trait ? Whats the evolution timeline.

I say its clearly just a common adaptation that many of these marsupial creatures got to deal with particular issues in the area.
They all needed a little heads up.
But define them by it.

Dogs having webbed feet don't make them and  ducks related.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 12 2010,00:35

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 09 2010,20:09)
Robert Byers:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[...] a biblical creationist must be the first to do it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ever hear of "binomial nomenclature"?

Well, apparently not.

Karl von Linne' thought that the marsupial/placental split was more than minor accommodation. He certainly believed in the creation stories of the bible. Why should we prefer your unfounded armchair handwaving over his painstaking research?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The merits of the case. The merits of my arguments based on research .
The confident, logical, use of documented research and conclusions of workers in these areas and then a re-interpretation following logical lines of reason and observation.
In short. Good old fashioned thinking and not caring about previous conclusions.
I always find from acjeivers in knowledge like the famous Arab scientists of ancient days or albert Einstein that one is not to be impressed by what humans have concluded unless it founded on solid evidence.
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 12 2010,01:45

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 09 2010,18:52)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 05 2010,20:08)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 05 2010,02:56)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2010,19:21)
     
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
     
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hard to say given that wolves are pack animals and thylacines were as well. We do not really see a good range of thylacine behavior, rather we see the same pacing behavior displayed by a lot of animals kept in captivity without the benefit of enrichment. In the video we only see one thylacine so we can't tell whether it related to its fellow thylacines in the same way wolves related to each other. Interesting that in the close up of the face the thylacine it looks more like a kangaroo face than a wolf face. Also interesting is the way the tail was held mostly horizontal and only occasionally bent down and never curled over the back. Not a very wolf-like way to carry a tail. One suspects that there might almost be structural reasons for it. At any rate, it didn't look terribly wolf-like to me and the more I watched it the less wolf-like it became.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I leave it to the public to vote on whether this cute marsupial wolf looks like a wolf or a kangaroo (face).
In fact its head is so dog like it alone makes my case.
Its tail is different and it could use it for better unright action. So could a marsupial cat. Yet its either a adaptation from some original type of tail upon immigration or a general need to have this.

Its not the pacing but its sitting, scratching, chewing and general doggy actions that should say to the observation that this is very likely another dog. Its a prompt to the conscience.
Then ones thinking can deal with the differences.

Remember convergent evolution demands great mutation/selection on these creatures in order to make it look like a dog.
So you must accept evolution itself is saying its not a superficial result.
Its a resulf from profound influences.
I say the minor differences are just from influence.
The same with the rest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, lets vote. Here is a picture of a thylacine - it's actually a still from the movie:



and here are two wolves in a similar view:



Other than some basic, primitive ancestral traits I'm not seeing much in the way of similarity here.

Apparently, thylacines also hopped on two legs occasionally - I don't think wolves do that, but I coulded be wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AMEN. Let the world vote.
My vote is that these are pictures of the same dog type. The marsupial one looks like any number of breeds of present domestic dogs.
Not kangaroos. They didn't hop but do have a greater ability to use their tail to be upright. Actually so did the marsupial cat.
This is a minor useful point.
There is a cat called the fishing cat (indonesia I think) that otherwise looks like a cat but has a tail with a more solid structure in orde to aid in snatching fish ut of the water. Tails are very adaptable and not reflective of heritage.

A bigger picture. Imagine being in a area where you have these marsupial wolves, lions, tapirs, bears, moles, mice and so on.
Would one not simply say these are the same creatures as everywhere else on earth with a few details of common in difference?
Would one otherwise suspect they are from a common non descript marsupial rodent-ish creature and by the wonder of convergent evolution just came to look like other creatures elsewhere on earth?

I insist that these old classification systems were just plain wrong and unnessessary and even counter intutive.
I say this can be brought to bear on all kinds of ideas in classification.
I don't think dinosaurs exist as different orders of creatures but are simply creatures with like details for like needs. perhaps , not sure, a rhino and a triceratops are of the same kind. A triceratops is not more related to a t-rex.
ILikewise birds are not dinos but simply have like structures for like needs.
How one groups creatures is just in need of serious revision. so a biblical creationist must be the first to do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert I just looked at my arm and saw I have hair on it then I realized i have two lungs, two eyes, a central brain and a mouth and anus.

OMG I"m a wolf!!!

Here's the silver bullet shoot me before sundown
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 12 2010,02:00

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 12 2010,00:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 09 2010,20:04)
Huh, really! From < The Thylacine Museum >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The other method was a bipedal hop. As can be seen in the film, the animal can stand upright with its front limbs in the air, resting on its elongated back feet, and using the end of its tail as an additional support. In this posture, it takes on a very kangaroo-like appearance and sometimes hops a short distance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are wrong and its silly.
It would not look like a kangaroo just because its upright. it would look like the creature in these pictures standing on its hind legs a little better then other dogs.
It could not hop in any way like a kangaroo. Its absurd to see the great hopping abilities of Kan's and see connection here.
In fact the marsupial lion also could stand upright like the wolf but it had nothing to do with hopping about.
By the way.
Are you trying to say the mar/wolf once hopped and lost the ability or that it was evolving toward hopping and didn't quite make it?
or it retained some early common tail/back anatomy that just coincedently allowed it to stand upright?

What is the origin of this trait ? Whats the evolution timeline.

I say its clearly just a common adaptation that many of these marsupial creatures got to deal with particular issues in the area.
They all needed a little heads up.
But define them by it.

Dogs having webbed feet don't make them and  ducks related.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert, why don't you actually look at the fricken pictures, you moron.  Crap, I've known MHMR kids who possess more innate intelligence than you.  The only reason to keep you talking is to show how intellectually bankrupt you and your ilk are.  

Your very last line blew away all irony meters south of Idaho - "Dogs having webbed feet doesn't make them and ducks related", but that's the whole of your argument over marsupials.  But I'm glad you agree that the few miniscule differences between chimpanzees and humans is strong evidence for common ancestry.

I'm still trying to determine whether you are supremely ignorant and proud of it, stupid and proud of it, or just a pathological liar who just wants to tell the most outrageous lies for the hell of it.  In any case, it's not good to be any of those.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 12 2010,02:11

Looking at the video, I was struck by how unlike a do it is.  I can tell that its back is different in structure - not only the bump in the middle, but the way it moves its front relative to its rear.  Is seems more like a rodent in behavior, and that's from spending most of my 42 years with dogs of one breed or another.  But then again, I'm not seeing them through Jeebus Goggles, so I must be letting my biases get in the way of objective reasoning (when the object is clearly to confirm that the myths of genesis and the rantings of a loon are true).
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 12 2010,06:10

Robert Byers:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The merits of the case.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yours has none. We've been pointing that out and you've been ignoring that.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The merits of my arguments based on research .

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You make assertions, not arguments, and there is no evidence that you have accomplished any research. We've been pointing that out and you've been ignoring that.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The confident, logical, use of documented research and conclusions of workers in these areas and then a re-interpretation following logical lines of reason and observation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have not provided logic, which is part of you making assertions instead of arguments. You have not provided observations. I haven't noticed citation of research being part of your output, either. We've been pointing that out and you've been ignoring that.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In short. Good old fashioned thinking and not caring about previous conclusions.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is no evidence of thought in your ignoring correction on any number of blunders that you have made. We've been pointing that out and you've been ignoring that.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I always find from acjeivers in knowledge like the famous Arab scientists of ancient days or albert Einstein that one is not to be impressed by what humans have concluded unless it founded on solid evidence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You haven't provided evidence for your views. We've been pointing that out and you've been ignoring that.

Like here, you've managed to get through another post without addressing the point, which was why should we prefer your armchair handwaving over Karl von Linne's painstaking research. You have done nothing to compare and contrast your views with his, nothing to show that your views do a better job of explaining the available evidence, and nothing to show that you even know who Karl von Linne' is. Why is it that biblical creationists differ on such fundamental issues as whether the marsupial/placental mammal split is substantial or trivial? Your post gives no insight into this. In fact, all of your posts lack insight. We've been pointing that out and you've been ignoring that.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Feb. 12 2010,06:48

Robert is still here and not saying anything new. He does mention that we should let the people decide. Well I think that they have. There are two < Facebook Sites >. One pro-Evolution and One-Pro creation each trying to get a million fans. The evolution site is beating the creationist site 5 to 1. Compare this to the general US public where 40% of the population believes in Creationism of some kind.

I think that this is pretty clear that given exposure to both arguments, evolution comes up trumps.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 12 2010,09:32

Robert svp, what is this:

Merci beaucoup.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 12 2010,09:46

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 11 2010,22:35)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 09 2010,20:09)
Robert Byers:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[...] a biblical creationist must be the first to do it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ever hear of "binomial nomenclature"?

Well, apparently not.

Karl von Linne' thought that the marsupial/placental split was more than minor accommodation. He certainly believed in the creation stories of the bible. Why should we prefer your unfounded armchair handwaving over his painstaking research?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The merits of the case. The merits of my arguments based on research .
The confident, logical, use of documented research and conclusions of workers in these areas and then a re-interpretation following logical lines of reason and observation.
In short. Good old fashioned thinking and not caring about previous conclusions.
I always find from acjeivers in knowledge like the famous Arab scientists of ancient days or albert Einstein that one is not to be impressed by what humans have concluded unless it founded on solid evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, Aristotlean mind-wanking.

What you are doing is not science, Robert Byers.

There is a technical scientific/psychological term for what you are doing.

It's called "Making Shit Up".
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 12 2010,09:48

Oh, and the accepted contraction of 'kangaroo' is 'roo', not 'kan'.

I thought you were an expert on marsupials, Robert Byers.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 12 2010,13:49

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 12 2010,09:48)
Oh, and the accepted contraction of 'kangaroo' is 'roo', not 'kan'.

I thought you were an expert on marsupials, Robert Byers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That name comes from the noise they make "That thing sure Can-Go-'Roooo!'"
:D

(It's Biblically-Based, dontcha' know, The Book of Bruce, I think, maybe New Bruce)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 13 2010,00:21

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 09 2010,21:09)
Robert Byers:

 [quote]
[...]  Why should we prefer your unfounded armchair handwaving over his painstaking research?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oooh, me me me me! me! me!

because this fool is WAAAAAAAY more entertaining!
Posted by: Bjarne on Feb. 13 2010,11:02

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 12 2010,07:10)
Are you trying to say the mar/wolf once hopped and lost the ability or that it was evolving toward hopping and didn't quite make it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, yes. It once hopped and then lost this trait due to the species' extinction. Being dead greatly reduces one's hopping ability.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 14 2010,04:31

Robert, you say  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The confident, logical, use of documented research and conclusions of workers in these areas
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide references for 'documents', 'research', 'conclusions' and 'workers' in these areas.

Where are the documents?
What kind of research, where, when, by whom?
What conclusions were drawn by whom, when, and documented where?

You do know the answers, don't you? You are not pulling stuff out of your behind, are you? You made the claims, we want to read the same documents that you have read. Especially concerning the origins of the thylacine.

Fair enough? Be a good sport and let's have something more than hand-waving this time!
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 15 2010,11:54

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 14 2010,04:31)
Robert, you say  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The confident, logical, use of documented research and conclusions of workers in these areas
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide references for 'documents', 'research', 'conclusions' and 'workers' in these areas.

Where are the documents?
What kind of research, where, when, by whom?
What conclusions were drawn by whom, when, and documented where?

You do know the answers, don't you? You are not pulling stuff out of your behind, are you? You made the claims, we want to read the same documents that you have read. Especially concerning the origins of the thylacine.

Fair enough? Be a good sport and let's have something more than hand-waving this time!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, for the record, when dealing with any science - any science at all - reading the Bible is not research.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 15 2010,19:56

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 12 2010,00:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 09 2010,20:04)
Huh, really! From < The Thylacine Museum >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The other method was a bipedal hop. As can be seen in the film, the animal can stand upright with its front limbs in the air, resting on its elongated back feet, and using the end of its tail as an additional support. In this posture, it takes on a very kangaroo-like appearance and sometimes hops a short distance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are wrong and its silly.
It would not look like a kangaroo just because its upright. it would look like the creature in these pictures standing on its hind legs a little better then other dogs.
It could not hop in any way like a kangaroo. Its absurd to see the great hopping abilities of Kan's and see connection here.
In fact the marsupial lion also could stand upright like the wolf but it had nothing to do with hopping about.
By the way.
Are you trying to say the mar/wolf once hopped and lost the ability or that it was evolving toward hopping and didn't quite make it?
or it retained some early common tail/back anatomy that just coincedently allowed it to stand upright?

What is the origin of this trait ? Whats the evolution timeline.

I say its clearly just a common adaptation that many of these marsupial creatures got to deal with particular issues in the area.
They all needed a little heads up.
But define them by it.

Dogs having webbed feet don't make them and  ducks related.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet there are first hand accounts of thylacines hopping. People actually saw them engage in  hopping behavior. So, leaving aside the anatomical evidence that indicates they were capable of the behavior - to a limited extent - why should we take your word over that of eyewitnesses?

To answer your other question, the thylacines closest living relative is, apparently the tasmanian devil. Thylacines are part of the Dasyuromorphia. Consequently, I suspect that hopping is a symplesiomorphy, but I could be wrong.  

Say, have you ever seen a wolf open its mouth this wide:



I haven't. I wonder what it means? I think it indicates the the jaw and the way the jaw connects to the skull in thylacines is quite a bit different from the jaw joint in wolves.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 15 2010,20:59

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 15 2010,17:56)
Say, have you ever seen a wolf open its mouth this wide:



I haven't. I wonder what it means? I think it indicates the the jaw and the way the jaw connects to the skull in thylacines is quite a bit different from the jaw joint in wolves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whoah! That's some freaky shit.  Ass like a kangaroo, jaws like a snake, striped like a zebra.

Wolf, indeed.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 16 2010,07:08

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 15 2010,20:59)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 15 2010,17:56)
Say, have you ever seen a wolf open its mouth this wide:

blah, blah, blah
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whoah! That's some freaky shit.  Ass like a kangaroo, jaws like a snake, striped like a zebra.

Wolf, indeed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anecdotally, that is the reaction of most people on seeing pictures of thylacines. They do not go "ahhh, look at the pretty wolf." Not that anecdotal evidence means much in the cosmic scheme of things...
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 17 2010,03:29

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 14 2010,04:31)
Robert, you say  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The confident, logical, use of documented research and conclusions of workers in these areas
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide references for 'documents', 'research', 'conclusions' and 'workers' in these areas.

Where are the documents?
What kind of research, where, when, by whom?
What conclusions were drawn by whom, when, and documented where?

You do know the answers, don't you? You are not pulling stuff out of your behind, are you? You made the claims, we want to read the same documents that you have read. Especially concerning the origins of the thylacine.

Fair enough? Be a good sport and let's have something more than hand-waving this time!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I mean general researchers and not creationist ones (even if some are).
I mean the literature on marsupials and fossil marsupials.
I used this and then improved upon it in conclusions.
I'm just saying my research and study is as solid as anyones.
i'm confident I'm right.
The opposition here simply lists a few details of differences and repeats what they have read in books.
Citing authorities is not making a personal case.

Case in point. Excellent pictures here of the marsupial wolf and still posters here do not see, or admit to seeing, a dog but instead wallabys or bandicoots who just like to howl at the moon.
I'll wait for the public vote.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 17 2010,03:52

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 15 2010,19:56)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 12 2010,00:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 09 2010,20:04)
Huh, really! From < The Thylacine Museum >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The other method was a bipedal hop. As can be seen in the film, the animal can stand upright with its front limbs in the air, resting on its elongated back feet, and using the end of its tail as an additional support. In this posture, it takes on a very kangaroo-like appearance and sometimes hops a short distance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are wrong and its silly.
It would not look like a kangaroo just because its upright. it would look like the creature in these pictures standing on its hind legs a little better then other dogs.
It could not hop in any way like a kangaroo. Its absurd to see the great hopping abilities of Kan's and see connection here.
In fact the marsupial lion also could stand upright like the wolf but it had nothing to do with hopping about.
By the way.
Are you trying to say the mar/wolf once hopped and lost the ability or that it was evolving toward hopping and didn't quite make it?
or it retained some early common tail/back anatomy that just coincedently allowed it to stand upright?

What is the origin of this trait ? Whats the evolution timeline.

I say its clearly just a common adaptation that many of these marsupial creatures got to deal with particular issues in the area.
They all needed a little heads up.
But define them by it.

Dogs having webbed feet don't make them and  ducks related.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet there are first hand accounts of thylacines hopping. People actually saw them engage in  hopping behavior. So, leaving aside the anatomical evidence that indicates they were capable of the behavior - to a limited extent - why should we take your word over that of eyewitnesses?

To answer your other question, the thylacines closest living relative is, apparently the tasmanian devil. Thylacines are part of the Dasyuromorphia. Consequently, I suspect that hopping is a symplesiomorphy, but I could be wrong.  

Say, have you ever seen a wolf open its mouth this wide:



I haven't. I wonder what it means? I think it indicates the the jaw and the way the jaw connects to the skull in thylacines is quite a bit different from the jaw joint in wolves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No they didn't hop with purpose from point a to pont b. They just could balance upright and perhaps propel forward a little. My grandpas dogs would stand stand upright over the field grass and also jump forward but they not a threat to rabbitdom.

the yawn.
This is a point I make.
Your side has great convergent results from niche driven selection on a original marsupial creature with the result of past/modern diversity.
WHY should this big mouth be such a enduring point of anatomy while everything else changed? Likewise with other 'marsupial" jaws?
Whats so sticky?
I say it rather follows that the big jaw is a important point to the creatures life. In fact evolution must likewise say this to get the big jaws in the first place and keep them.

Many or all of the creatures needed this kind of jaw for original needs and simply adapted it. The jaw can be seen as a mimic like one finds in the insect world. Its not a trail of heritage.

I also suspect that the original immigrants to the areas, soon after the flood, were not yet fixed in details that affected eating. The big yawn is not , maybe, a big change from other wolves but all wolves were not yet committed to fixed jaw types.

Posters here are missing the claim that evolution makes to explain convergent evolution results.
Niche by selection/mutation is acting upon creatures and so profoundly that a likeness in form with unrelated creatures is taking place.
Therefore the likeness is not superficial or a trite resemblance but as profound as the reason for its likeness looking that way.
A marsupial wolf looks like a wolf for the same reasons a wolf looks like a wolf. Both are the producr of like niche. Not our wolves are the real deal and the marsupial one a bad copy.

Note th pictures here carefully. Not the stripes of sloping back. Not its head and form and how it gives in looks and in motion/looks a real duplicate of a canine.
I say because it is a canine. The same with the others.
The little difference are more easily explained away by convergent adaption.
I really do not see a good case can be made, by the picturesm that marsupials are related biologically.
iTS NOT IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IN THIS CASE.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 17 2010,04:26

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 17 2010,03:52)
Niche by selection/mutation is acting upon creatures and so profoundly that a likeness in form with unrelated creatures is taking place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When can we expect to see your paper with the full details of your claim?

Where and when will it be published?
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 17 2010,04:33

Robert,
thanks for another great answer.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I mean general researchers and not creationist ones (even if some are).
I mean the literature on marsupials and fossil marsupials.
I used this and then improved upon it in conclusions.
I'm just saying my research and study is as solid as anyones.
i'm confident I'm right.
The opposition here simply lists a few details of differences and repeats what they have read in books.
Citing authorities is not making a personal case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it is not quite complete.
You say your research and studies are solid. Good, now just fill in the details, please!
What general researchers, names?
What literature, titles?
What is the method you use when improving conclusions?
You are not going to quote authorities, are you?

So far you have only supplied words, words, lots of words. Now is the time to give those words some body, some content. We don't care about what you believe, we want to know what you know. Like knowledge, as something different from belief.

We want to see evidence that you know something. Do you understand the difference? I don't think you do, I think you are an ignorant idiot. Prove me wrong!
Posted by: Bjarne on Feb. 17 2010,05:23

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 17 2010,10:52)
iTS NOT IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IN THIS CASE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is. Right next to the cone of cold and the ray of disintegration.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 17 2010,06:01

Quote (Bjarne @ Feb. 17 2010,05:23)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 17 2010,10:52)
iTS NOT IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IN THIS CASE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is. Right next to the cone of cold and the ray of disintegration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Check the walls for cracks. Often the best stuff is behind them!
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 17 2010,10:20

Damn, that is way too stupid to address.  Bobby, forget your meds?  You can't even be consistent from one post to the next.  Hell, I'm not even sure you're consistent within a post.  You claim that others have done research (thereby saying you haven't, by implication, which is what we asked about), yet provide no evidence for the first (while plenty for the latter).  You say that you want the individual members of the public to decide, but say that the issue is not "in the eyes of the beholder", which it is if we want to rely on what a person sees.

Seriously, when all of anatomy & physiology, genetics, geology, physics - to name a few - indicate that wolves are not related to thylacines, and which you deny, it surely is in the eye of the beholder (or to alter Joy's favorite phrase "eye tyrant"?).  First marsupialism is not a major change to a creature.  Now the jaws are nothing alike, but you claim that this is evidence that supports your laughable claims - if you weren't so deluded I'd give you props for brass balls, but in your case it's not chutzpah, it's brain-dead ignoramity.

When are you going to respond to my Chimpanzee challenge - I showed far more evidence than you in video format that showed clear relationships between them and human beings.  I assume by your continued silence that you do in fact agree, no?
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 17 2010,10:47

Quote (Bjarne @ Feb. 17 2010,03:23)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 17 2010,10:52)
iTS NOT IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IN THIS CASE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is. Right next to the cone of cold and the ray of disintegration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just keep thinking of "lower the cone of silence" from Get Smart.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 17 2010,18:59

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 17 2010,10:47)
Quote (Bjarne @ Feb. 17 2010,03:23)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 17 2010,10:52)
iTS NOT IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IN THIS CASE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is. Right next to the cone of cold and the ray of disintegration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just keep thinking of "lower the cone of silence" from Get Smart.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More like the Cone of Idiocy.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 17 2010,19:37

coney island

good lord Bubba won't ICR or AIG print your drivel?  do you write letters to the editor?  your stuff needs to be beholden by a wider set of eyes, me thinks.  you could make millions traveling to conferences and charging 5 bucks for a peek into the tent.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 17 2010,19:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WHY should this big mouth be such a enduring point of anatomy while everything else changed? Likewise with other 'marsupial" jaws?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's not a big mouth, it is just a mouth that can open really wide (120 degrees in point of fact). I has to do with the structure of the jaw joint - which is different from that of canines. Why hasn't it changed. I think that is an assumption that would require examining the thylacine fossil record to verify. This bit from the abstract of < this paper > should help:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We conclude that relative prey size may have been comparable where both species acted as solitary predators, but that the dingo is better adapted to withstand the high extrinsic loads likely to accompany social hunting of relatively large prey. It is probable that there was considerable ecological overlap. As a large mammalian hypercarnivore adapted to taking small-medium sized prey, the thylacine may have been particularly vulnerable to disturbance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) as others on this thread have mentioned is a subspecies of the grey wolf and helped the thylacine go extinct. Which is kind of odd if they are the same species.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Posters here are missing the claim that evolution makes to explain convergent evolution results.
Niche by selection/mutation is acting upon creatures and so profoundly that a likeness in form with unrelated creatures is taking place.
Therefore the likeness is not superficial or a trite resemblance but as profound as the reason for its likeness looking that way.
A marsupial wolf looks like a wolf for the same reasons a wolf looks like a wolf. Both are the producr of like niche. Not our wolves are the real deal and the marsupial one a bad copy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not really sure what all that means but if you are saying that evolutionist think that wolves and marsupials have been acted on by selection as they adapt to roughly similar niches and consequently have some similarity in traits then yes that is exactly what we think.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I really do not see a good case can be made, by the picturesm that marsupials are related biologically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet this is exactly what you are arguing for in the case of canine and marsupial wolves. Evolutionists argue that all marsupials are related to each other to the exclusion of other groups on the basis of the anatomy of skeletal and soft tissue traits.

So, although you claim that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder you have offered us nothing in the way of anatomy that would support your point - rather you just keep asserting that some superficial resemblance between the two means they are the same.

I wonder why the thylacine has different limb proportions than the wolf does?
Posted by: She-devil on Feb. 17 2010,21:58

Hi i'm new here. I'm a biology major and minoring in geology. (my passion is paleontology) and I just want to mention how I too am baffled by how many biology AND geology majors are creationists and IDists. Its just wierd to me.

hello  :)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 17 2010,22:03

Quote (She-devil @ Feb. 17 2010,22:58)
Hi i'm new here. I'm a biology major and minoring in geology. (my passion is paleontology) and I just want to mention how I too am baffled by how many biology AND geology majors are creationists and IDists. Its just wierd to me.

hello  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi!

That really is bizarre, when it happens. I wonder how many of them are still creationists when they graduate, though.

In my limited experience, I've bumped into exactly one creationist in any science class at my school, and she wasn't a biology major.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 17 2010,22:03

Hi,
Welcome!

ETA: We had one in the anthro dept but didn't know it till afterwards - at least us students didn't.
Posted by: She-devil on Feb. 17 2010,22:13

my bio professor assigned us a tutor (mandatory), and when I went to him he spouted ID and said that evolution goes backwards and totally randomly, etc (using whales "returning" to the ocean as an example) . I refuse to get bio tutoring from someone who doesn't even believe what they are suppposed to be teaching. And I had an english 101 prefessor who said that evolution asserts that when your car gets older it gets better, not worse :O
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 18 2010,00:18

Quote (She-devil @ Feb. 17 2010,20:13)
my bio professor assigned us a tutor (mandatory), and when I went to him he spouted ID and said that evolution goes backwards and totally randomly, etc (using whales "returning" to the ocean as an example) . I refuse to get bio tutoring from someone who doesn't even believe what they are suppposed to be teaching. And I had an english 101 prefessor who said that evolution asserts that when your car gets older it gets better, not worse :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does your prof know your tutor is a waste of space in the department?

Oh, and welcome! (Ex-arts major layman/dabbler here, from the land of the winter Olympics.)
Posted by: ppb on Feb. 18 2010,08:07

Quote (She-devil @ Feb. 17 2010,23:13)
my bio professor assigned us a tutor (mandatory), and when I went to him he spouted ID and said that evolution goes backwards and totally randomly, etc (using whales "returning" to the ocean as an example) . I refuse to get bio tutoring from someone who doesn't even believe what they are suppposed to be teaching. And I had an english 101 prefessor who said that evolution asserts that when your car gets older it gets better, not worse :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I got my Bachelors degree in Biology from a state university, one of my Biology professors was actually a YEC.  He came to it late in life, I gathered, after going from a mild mannered Methodist to a rolling in the aisles Assembly of God pentecostal.  

He was near retirement and relegated to teaching microbiology lab.  He didn't talk about creationism in class, but talked with students outside the classroom.  I got my first exposure to creationism from him.  He told me that biologists date fossils from the rocks they are found in, and geologists date rocks by the fossils found in them.  Circular reasoning!!!

Even as a freshman biology student I knew it was crap.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 18 2010,10:59

Quote (She-devil @ Feb. 17 2010,19:58)
Hi i'm new here. I'm a biology major and minoring in geology. (my passion is paleontology) and I just want to mention how I too am baffled by how many biology AND geology majors are creationists and IDists. Its just wierd to me.

hello  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Howdy,

I had a colleague, Paul Langenwalter, who has a masters from Cal State University Fullerton, is a certified paleontologist, and a creationist. He is also an ultra-conservative even on the Orange County scale of right-wing nuttery.

What this means to his scientific work is that he is a radical "splitter" who sees in tiny variations of morphology major differences in taxonomy.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 19 2010,02:17

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 17 2010,19:38)
m

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WHY should this big mouth be such a enduring point of anatomy while everything else changed? Likewise with other 'marsupial" jaws?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's not a big mouth, it is just a mouth that can open really wide (120 degrees in point of fact). I has to do with the structure of the jaw joint - which is different from that of canines. Why hasn't it changed. I think that is an assumption that would require examining the thylacine fossil record to verify. This bit from the abstract of < this paper > should help:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We conclude that relative prey size may have been comparable where both species acted as solitary predators, but that the dingo is better adapted to withstand the high extrinsic loads likely to accompany social hunting of relatively large prey. It is probable that there was considerable ecological overlap. As a large mammalian hypercarnivore adapted to taking small-medium sized prey, the thylacine may have been particularly vulnerable to disturbance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) as others on this thread have mentioned is a subspecies of the grey wolf and helped the thylacine go extinct. Which is kind of odd if they are the same species.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Posters here are missing the claim that evolution makes to explain convergent evolution results.
Niche by selection/mutation is acting upon creatures and so profoundly that a likeness in form with unrelated creatures is taking place.
Therefore the likeness is not superficial or a trite resemblance but as profound as the reason for its likeness looking that way.
A marsupial wolf looks like a wolf for the same reasons a wolf looks like a wolf. Both are the producr of like niche. Not our wolves are the real deal and the marsupial one a bad copy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not really sure what all that means but if you are saying that evolutionist think that wolves and marsupials have been acted on by selection as they adapt to roughly similar niches and consequently have some similarity in traits then yes that is exactly what we think.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I really do not see a good case can be made, by the picturesm that marsupials are related biologically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet this is exactly what you are arguing for in the case of canine and marsupial wolves. Evolutionists argue that all marsupials are related to each other to the exclusion of other groups on the basis of the anatomy of skeletal and soft tissue traits.

So, although you claim that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder you have offered us nothing in the way of anatomy that would support your point - rather you just keep asserting that some superficial resemblance between the two means they are the same.

I wonder why the thylacine has different limb proportions than the wolf does?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


many living wolves have different limb equations. There are wolves in s america with long legs and elsewhere have shorter legs. limb details are trivial details. yet the shape of the leg from top to ground is the same as a wolf leg largely. Thats the point that matters.

Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 19 2010,02:49

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 19 2010,02:17)
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When will you be publishing your paper correcting the errors of workers in these areas? Where are you intending to submit it?
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 19 2010,04:12

Robert,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is superficial similarity all that counts?

What about dogs? Are all dogs dogs? What makes a dog a dog? Do you say a Bulldog and a Chihuahua both are dogs?

Can you describe your classification system? What methods do you use to determine "sameness"? How do you define sameness?

What is the purpose of your classification? Is it useful for anything?

You have not answered some very relevant questions we have asked? Why don't you answer them before posting more of the same idiotic nonsense again and again?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 19 2010,13:49

I don't know if I can handle reading through all of Rob's posts.

Did he ever answer the question about whether Kylie has a pouch or not and why or why not?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 19 2010,18:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is 100% wrong. Here are two examples. < The authors of this study > looked at 230 characters divided into 545 character states, as well as 3 nuclear and 5 mitochondrial genes in 31 different taxa.

< This study looked at > the entire mitochondrial genome. Others can be found. In reality large data sets spanning hundreds of traits and large numbers of species are the rule.

As far as limb proportions go, the point of that question was not about phylogeny.

ETA: To fix a typo.
ETA again to say that the mitochondrial genome looked at was that of the thylacine.
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 19 2010,21:05

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 19 2010,11:49)
I don't know if I can handle reading through all of Rob's posts.

Did he ever answer the question about whether Kylie has a pouch or not and why or why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just read one, then just skim for any especially awesome new stupidity. Works pretty well since he mostly just says the same moronic crap over and over.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 20 2010,04:19

I believe Robert has made it clear that phylogeny is irrelevant, DNA is just another of those minor details we need not bother with.

I believe I've tried that route but he just ignore it. It looks as there is no thinking intellect at the other end, it seems more like some funny computer program making up replies.

Computers can make poetry, Rob's prose replies look very similar.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 20 2010,11:00

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 20 2010,04:19)
I believe Robert has made it clear that phylogeny is irrelevant, DNA is just another of those minor details we need not bother with.

I believe I've tried that route but he just ignore it. It looks as there is no thinking intellect at the other end, it seems more like some funny computer program making up replies.

Computers can make poetry, Rob's prose replies look very similar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even anatomy and physiology are irrelevant once you get beyond "it looks similar if I squint hard enough."
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 20 2010,11:28

I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)?

Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.)

Henry
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 20 2010,13:59

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2010,11:28)
I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)?

Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< This is an interesting article on that issue >
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 20 2010,16:39

Yep, that's interesting. That article shows bats and tree shrews as more distant from primates than does the tree shown in < http://tolweb.org/Eutheria/15997 > but otherwise they agree as far as I can tell.
Posted by: moropus on Feb. 20 2010,20:56

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 20 2010,13:59)
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2010,11:28)
I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)?

Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< This is an interesting article on that issue >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Innaresting article indeed, but somewhat dated (2001). In light of the authors' remarks on mitochondrial DNA:

The value and accuracy of decades of morphological study
have been discounted recently by mitochondrial DNA inference,
which has reinvigorated Gregory’s claim that monotremes are
highly-derived marsupials (Gregory 1947; Janke et al. 1997; Penny
et al. 1999).


I wonder if more recent studies have helped to resolve the issue?

BTW I'm new to this board. Nice to meet ya!
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 21 2010,01:26

Howdy
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 21 2010,09:14

Quote (moropus @ Feb. 20 2010,20:56)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 20 2010,13:59)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2010,11:28)
I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)?

Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< This is an interesting article on that issue >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Innaresting article indeed, but somewhat dated (2001). In light of the authors' remarks on mitochondrial DNA:

The value and accuracy of decades of morphological study
have been discounted recently by mitochondrial DNA inference,
which has reinvigorated Gregory’s claim that monotremes are
highly-derived marsupials (Gregory 1947; Janke et al. 1997; Penny
et al. 1999).


I wonder if more recent studies have helped to resolve the issue?

BTW I'm new to this board. Nice to meet ya!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They may have, but that is the most recent paper I have on the subject in my files.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 21 2010,10:16

That Killian et al. paper was cited in this more recent pub:

Title: Confirming the phylogeny of mammals by use of large comparative sequence data sets
Author(s): Prasad AB, Allard MW, Green ED
Source: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION   Volume: 25   Issue: 9   Pages: 1795-1808   Published: SEP 2008

They use the region around the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CTFR) and come up with a pretty similar phylogeny, at least as far as my non-expert eye can ascertain.

If you want a copy of this in PDF format, send me a personal message here, including your email address, and I'll be happy to send it along.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 22 2010,03:18

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 19 2010,18:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is 100% wrong. Here are two examples. < The authors of this study > looked at 230 characters divided into 545 character states, as well as 3 nuclear and 5 mitochondrial genes in 31 different taxa.

< This study looked at > the entire mitochondrial genome. Others can be found. In reality large data sets spanning hundreds of traits and large numbers of species are the rule.

As far as limb proportions go, the point of that question was not about phylogeny.

ETA: To fix a typo.
ETA again to say that the mitochondrial genome looked at was that of the thylacine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read it and note a few points to my gain.
They make statements like "marsupial systematics" are complex and "many contradictory hypothesis". Challenge etc.
AMEN.
This is because their presumptions and conclusions are wrong and have no enduring value.

Theyclaim in marsupials that points evolved independently and how plasticity is also invoked.
This makes my case how details about marsupials are not relevant to a original one and then despite evolution creativity yet still keeping a few common details from which their are all defined.
Bingo.

They make a point about these "peramelions" being unique in having a different kind of placenta-like thing from other marsupials. Indeed they state its "similar to living eutherians in this reproductive trait"
Well I would say its simply of no relevance in defining relationships based on any reproductive trait.  These traits did not evolve differently but rather were slight variations on a general area adaption to a stress to increase reproduction.

Anyways you make a point about many points that are alike between marsupials.
If you break it up into hundreds of points then likewise thousands or more points are similar between marsupials and placentals.
The listing of points on creatures is great indeed.
this makes my case that like form demands thousands of points of likeness and is not superficial in any context.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 22 2010,03:25

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2010,11:28)
I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)?

Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I say there is no mammal division. Creatures just have some like details because of like needs and limited options in nature.
Monotremes just show a more accurate orbit here that anything can have anything if it needs it.
There are snakes that give birth by eggs or live. Not a big defining point in understanding they are snakes.

The classification system done by the few workers has just been plain wrong.
Nature simply changes creatures a little to allow survival and not a lot to recreate likeness in unrelated critters.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 22 2010,03:40

Quote (moropus @ Feb. 20 2010,20:56)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 20 2010,13:59)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2010,11:28)
I'm wondering if placentals evolved from something we'd call a marsupial, or if marsupials and placentals each evolved separately from monotremes (egg layers)?

Either way, placentals are a separate branch, and any marsupial you name is equidistant from all orders of placentals - not related to one of them in particular over the others. (Though of course they are all mammals, and all of them share the stuff that's shared by all mammals - and that's what causes the similarities that Byer's likes to harp on.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< This is an interesting article on that issue >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Innaresting article indeed, but somewhat dated (2001). In light of the authors' remarks on mitochondrial DNA:

The value and accuracy of decades of morphological study
have been discounted recently by mitochondrial DNA inference,
which has reinvigorated Gregory’s claim that monotremes are
highly-derived marsupials (Gregory 1947; Janke et al. 1997; Penny
et al. 1999).


I wonder if more recent studies have helped to resolve the issue?

BTW I'm new to this board. Nice to meet ya!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome to the search for truth.

Nope. "the value and accuracy of decades of morphological study..."
have not been discounted by dna dreams.
It is discounted by creationists like me based on morphology, reason, and biblical boundaries.

Likewise Dna concepts also are shown, though not the original goal, to be wrongly interpretated.
Dna is not a trail of heritage but only shows what one sees. If there is a like part or part/concept then there is a like dna score.
So placentals changing instantly into marsupial modes will all have the same dna on these points of marsupialism.

Anatomical study is a better and worthy trail for biological relationships despite errors.
Th errors are not from dna studies but better study of morphology.
I wrote an essay called called "Post Flood Marsupial migration Explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.
I show how same shaped creatures must be seen as the same creatures. Marsupials are a case in point.

Don't throw the baby out with bath water is a classic concept in research on any subject.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 22 2010,06:45

So many sig-worthy sentences, it's impossible to choose!


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 22 2010,09:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't throw the baby out with bath water is a classic concept in research on any subject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



oh jeez thassa nuther goodun
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 22 2010,09:35

dammit albie beat me to it
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 22 2010,11:49

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 22 2010,01:18)
This makes my case how details about marsupials are not relevant to a original one and then despite evolution creativity yet still keeping a few common details from which their are all defined.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it me, or is Bobby getting even less coherent?  He was never exactly Mr Elegant Prose, but this is straight out of English As She Is Spoke.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 22 2010,14:39

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 22 2010,03:18)
This is because their presumptions and conclusions are wrong and have no enduring value.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When will you be publishing your paper formally showing this to be the case?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 22 2010,19:54

Babysteps. We have gone from :



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyways you make a point about many points that are alike between marsupials.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now if we can only get specific details on this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you break it up into hundreds of points then likewise thousands or more points are similar between marsupials and placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Robert Byers on Feb. 26 2010,00:09

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 22 2010,19:54)
Babysteps. We have gone from :



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyways you make a point about many points that are alike between marsupials.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now if we can only get specific details on this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you break it up into hundreds of points then likewise thousands or more points are similar between marsupials and placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I only mean there are a few points alike between marsupials. As I always said. I still insist, for example, a marsupial wolf and our wolves are some 90-95 % the same. While a marsupial wolf with other marsupials is only 1-5% the same.
It all comes down to how one groups biological life.
Its been a error of the past to ignore the great likeness between same shaped creatures and instead focus on minor, relative, points for classification.
I'm confident in the future modern biology will agree with this biblical creationist.
Stay tuned folks.
Posted by: Acipenser on Feb. 26 2010,00:52

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 26 2010,00:09)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 22 2010,19:54)
Babysteps. We have gone from :

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyways you make a point about many points that are alike between marsupials.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now if we can only get specific details on this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you break it up into hundreds of points then likewise thousands or more points are similar between marsupials and placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I only mean there are a few points alike between marsupials. As I always said. I still insist, for example, a marsupial wolf and our wolves are some 90-95 % the same. While a marsupial wolf with other marsupials is only 1-5% the same.
It all comes down to how one groups biological life.
Its been a error of the past to ignore the great likeness between same shaped creatures and instead focus on minor, relative, points for classification.
I'm confident in the future modern biology will agree with this biblical creationist.
Stay tuned folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 26 2010,01:01

Quote (Acipenser @ Feb. 26 2010,00:52)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 26 2010,00:09)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 22 2010,19:54)
Babysteps. We have gone from :

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyways you make a point about many points that are alike between marsupials.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now if we can only get specific details on this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you break it up into hundreds of points then likewise thousands or more points are similar between marsupials and placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I only mean there are a few points alike between marsupials. As I always said. I still insist, for example, a marsupial wolf and our wolves are some 90-95 % the same. While a marsupial wolf with other marsupials is only 1-5% the same.
It all comes down to how one groups biological life.
Its been a error of the past to ignore the great likeness between same shaped creatures and instead focus on minor, relative, points for classification.
I'm confident in the future modern biology will agree with this biblical creationist.
Stay tuned folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still waiting for his evidence that marsupial wolves and placental wolves are related - I won't even ask for his 90-95% range.  Any evidence, not just assertions, not just saying "look at the videos (but only if you agree with me)".  Come on Bobby!  Let's see some actual evidence - data we can look at objectively.  Morphology, physiology, genetics...what have you got?  

You still ignore the chimpanzee-human comparisons that "anyone can see if they watch the videos" (to paraphrase).  I wonder why that is?

edit - although, after reading the tardgasm thread (and others), I kinda feel lost without hearing something about butts.  It just doesn't feel right without an "asshole" for some reason.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 26 2010,02:59

Robert,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I only mean there are a few points alike between marsupials. As I always said. I still insist, for example, a marsupial wolf and our wolves are some 90-95 % the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not 100%? How many % are you 'the same' as your father?

What exactly do your classification term 'same' mean, can you please let us know how the definition?

Since we are already dealing with wolves, could you apply your method to dogs? How many % sameness do schäfer, St. Bernard, and Chihuahua have with wolves? Or just between themselves?
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 26 2010,12:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It all comes down to how one groups biological life.
Its been a error of the past to ignore the great likeness between same shaped creatures and instead focus on minor, relative, points for classification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, how dare biologists put more importance on internal details and DNA than they do on outward shape!

(Sort of like how they decided that whales aren't fish.)

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 26 2010,12:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm still waiting for his evidence that marsupial wolves and placental wolves are related - I won't even ask for his 90-95% range.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're both mammals!!111!!one!!

(I.e., it's not whether or not they're related, since all mammals are related to each other, it's whether a given marsupial is more related to one particular placental than to any other placental.)

Henry
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 26 2010,12:26

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 25 2010,22:09)
<snip> I still insist <snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how he says this as though he's actually done anything else...ever.  Dogged insistence is all you got, Robby.
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 26 2010,12:29

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 25 2010,23:01)
I'm still waiting for his evidence that marsupial wolves and placental wolves are related - I won't even ask for his 90-95% range.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, dude, they're like nearly identical, what with them both having all that carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and, um, like, carbon and you know....like that.  And stuff. Air?  They got that, right?
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 26 2010,13:26

Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,12:29)
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 25 2010,23:01)
I'm still waiting for his evidence that marsupial wolves and placental wolves are related - I won't even ask for his 90-95% range.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, dude, they're like nearly identical, what with them both having all that carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and, um, like, carbon and you know....like that.  And stuff. Air?  They got that, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you ever really, I mean, really, looked at a thylacine paw?  It's HUGE!  Dude....  And a Wolf paw?  Dude!  Now I got the munchies...do Thylacines like get the munchies too?  Wow.  The colors....
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 26 2010,19:36

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 26 2010,00:09)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 22 2010,19:54)
Babysteps. We have gone from :

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyways you make a point about many points that are alike between marsupials.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now if we can only get specific details on this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you break it up into hundreds of points then likewise thousands or more points are similar between marsupials and placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I only mean there are a few points alike between marsupials. As I always said. I still insist, for example, a marsupial wolf and our wolves are some 90-95 % the same. While a marsupial wolf with other marsupials is only 1-5% the same.
It all comes down to how one groups biological life.
Its been a error of the past to ignore the great likeness between same shaped creatures and instead focus on minor, relative, points for classification.
I'm confident in the future modern biology will agree with this biblical creationist.
Stay tuned folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, again this is 100% dead wrong. As mentioned earlier a wide variety of traits are used, over and above that care is taken to make sure that such traits are not linked developmentally so that duplicate signals do not override the true relationship.

Also, as mentioned above, similarities of form are not ignored, they are examined, like in the case of the similarity in eye orbits between tarsiers and anthropoids above, to see if the similarities arose because of similar anatomy and developmental process of if, like in the tarsier/anthropoid case, they are based on a completely different anatomy.

Let's make the question simpler. In what anatomical features is the thylacine not like other marsupials? This should be easy for you to answer since you claim only a 1-5% similarity between it and marsupials?
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on Mar. 01 2010,04:02

Just dropping in on a thread that involves geology, I have wasted an inordinate amount of time reading the first 17 pages and had to skip to the end because I have to get to work in about 5 hours.

It is very entertaining to read various people's responses to the creotards inanities but I have to admit I don't have the fortitude for it. Life is too short. That is not so say I do not have a kind of grudging respect for the many here who actually choose to remain in the trenches risking intellectual damage to themselves out of the sheer obstinacy of the the stupidity and dishonesty of a Byers. If life was just, you all should be rewarded.

But I would like to try to bring the thread, perhaps in parallel back to the original question which is what caught my attention in the first place.  The question that was broached if memory serves me, was something to the effect, is it possible to be a geologist and deny evolution?

The obvious answer is of course yes. I am sure many of my colleagues think evolution is bunk.  Why they think so I cannot very well elaborate on because frankly I haven't much opportunity and even less interest in discussing it with them.  Or much of anything else for that matter.

While it is quite true that in my own field for example evolution is not a factor at all, my grounding in geology is far broader than my own field, and I have some limited knowledge of many of its other disciplines.  Something that is not overly obvious to one outside the scientific envioronment that is very important is having a sense of confidence in and trust of the motives and efforts and intentions of ones fellows (pts), which gives an ability to rely on other's work in trying to further your own. In a word trust.

After 35 years of effort trying to learn a very narrow and specific subset of geology within its overall context to the science as a whole and the the society in which I pursue it, I have not made much of any contribution, but everything I have contributed to the best of my ability has always been honest.  And for my confidence in my own honesty to be at least reasonably high, I have to make an effort to critically understand what others in that field are finding. To a great extent I have to trust that they too are making their best effort.

I will go away from the evolution question for a moment and portray instead a different motivation that I think corrupts the science - money. It is similar to creationism but I won't address that. Money can corrupt good science and produce phony science in abundance.  It happens all the time. In my specific field it happens mainly on stock exchanges where mineral properties that are probably worthless are touted as the next great gold rush. The scientists who provide the information that is turned into hype rationalize the dishonesty of it in some way. Often I am sure it is simply a matter of a marginally negative assessment being turned into a big winner because that is the only way to move investors.

So my conclusion is that yes indeed one can be a 'geologist' and still hold beliefs that are contradictory to the premise of the whole discipline,  and at the same time demonstrably of spurious origins.  I do not at all mean to imply that most scientists, in any field, are corrupt. But obviously, some are in every field, because of things like money, and self-serving beliefs.

Just as in this forum, you have to learn whom you can trust.

I want to make one last observation. I think that the purpose of attacking science, whether it be by political or polemical or other means, is intended solely and entirely to try to discredit its results.  The purveyors of the snake oil of faith realize that if the body politic understands the power of science they are doomed. Because they rely entirely on superstition.

I for one never cared whether someone clung to superstition or not, until they began to try to impose it on me.

My circumstances are such that I am able to communicate only for a few hours late in the day but I would like to continue the discussion of the threats and condition of science both academic and applied with those here who are serious about it.

That is to say to the creotards I intend to ignore you.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 01 2010,08:12

Quote (Krubozumo Nyankoye @ Mar. 01 2010,04:02)
That is to say to the creotards I intend to ignore you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well said (well, written...) and welcome!
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on Mar. 02 2010,00:18

Thank you Jdog,

Since this thread has survived this long I will keep coming back to see if some interesting conversation arises.

Ciao,
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 02 2010,02:43

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 26 2010,02:59)
Robert,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I only mean there are a few points alike between marsupials. As I always said. I still insist, for example, a marsupial wolf and our wolves are some 90-95 % the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not 100%? How many % are you 'the same' as your father?

What exactly do your classification term 'same' mean, can you please let us know how the definition?

Since we are already dealing with wolves, could you apply your method to dogs? How many % sameness do schäfer, St. Bernard, and Chihuahua have with wolves? Or just between themselves?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All dogs are about 98% or better the same in domestic breeds.
The classification of seeing dog types, wolves, foxes, etc as the same kind is fine. I say one can add living or fossil creatures to it who have a few details of difference that are now used to classify them as unrelated.
In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark. another issue.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 02 2010,02:48

Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 26 2010,19:36)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 26 2010,00:09)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 22 2010,19:54)
Babysteps. We have gone from :

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyways you make a point about many points that are alike between marsupials.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now if we can only get specific details on this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you break it up into hundreds of points then likewise thousands or more points are similar between marsupials and placentals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I only mean there are a few points alike between marsupials. As I always said. I still insist, for example, a marsupial wolf and our wolves are some 90-95 % the same. While a marsupial wolf with other marsupials is only 1-5% the same.
It all comes down to how one groups biological life.
Its been a error of the past to ignore the great likeness between same shaped creatures and instead focus on minor, relative, points for classification.
I'm confident in the future modern biology will agree with this biblical creationist.
Stay tuned folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, again this is 100% dead wrong. As mentioned earlier a wide variety of traits are used, over and above that care is taken to make sure that such traits are not linked developmentally so that duplicate signals do not override the true relationship.

Also, as mentioned above, similarities of form are not ignored, they are examined, like in the case of the similarity in eye orbits between tarsiers and anthropoids above, to see if the similarities arose because of similar anatomy and developmental process of if, like in the tarsier/anthropoid case, they are based on a completely different anatomy.

Let's make the question simpler. In what anatomical features is the thylacine not like other marsupials? This should be easy for you to answer since you claim only a 1-5% similarity between it and marsupials?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Marsupials are not related as indicated by the thousands of points of anatomy that produce the twists and turns of form that indicates to ones observation very different creatures. so different that a different concept of convergent evolution must be invoked to explain how they came to look like placental types elsewhere on the planet.

The marsupial wolf does not look like a marsupial mole. Even if it has a few details like the reproductive system or this or that.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 02 2010,03:00

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43)
In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why?
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 02 2010,03:06

Quote (Krubozumo Nyankoye @ Mar. 01 2010,04:02)
Just dropping in on a thread that involves geology, I have wasted an inordinate amount of time reading the first 17 pages and had to skip to the end because I have to get to work in about 5 hours.

It is very entertaining to read various people's responses to the creotards inanities but I have to admit I don't have the fortitude for it. Life is too short. That is not so say I do not have a kind of grudging respect for the many here who actually choose to remain in the trenches risking intellectual damage to themselves out of the sheer obstinacy of the the stupidity and dishonesty of a Byers. If life was just, you all should be rewarded.

But I would like to try to bring the thread, perhaps in parallel back to the original question which is what caught my attention in the first place.  The question that was broached if memory serves me, was something to the effect, is it possible to be a geologist and deny evolution?

The obvious answer is of course yes. I am sure many of my colleagues think evolution is bunk.  Why they think so I cannot very well elaborate on because frankly I haven't much opportunity and even less interest in discussing it with them.  Or much of anything else for that matter.

While it is quite true that in my own field for example evolution is not a factor at all, my grounding in geology is far broader than my own field, and I have some limited knowledge of many of its other disciplines.  Something that is not overly obvious to one outside the scientific envioronment that is very important is having a sense of confidence in and trust of the motives and efforts and intentions of ones fellows (pts), which gives an ability to rely on other's work in trying to further your own. In a word trust.

After 35 years of effort trying to learn a very narrow and specific subset of geology within its overall context to the science as a whole and the the society in which I pursue it, I have not made much of any contribution, but everything I have contributed to the best of my ability has always been honest.  And for my confidence in my own honesty to be at least reasonably high, I have to make an effort to critically understand what others in that field are finding. To a great extent I have to trust that they too are making their best effort.

I will go away from the evolution question for a moment and portray instead a different motivation that I think corrupts the science - money. It is similar to creationism but I won't address that. Money can corrupt good science and produce phony science in abundance.  It happens all the time. In my specific field it happens mainly on stock exchanges where mineral properties that are probably worthless are touted as the next great gold rush. The scientists who provide the information that is turned into hype rationalize the dishonesty of it in some way. Often I am sure it is simply a matter of a marginally negative assessment being turned into a big winner because that is the only way to move investors.

So my conclusion is that yes indeed one can be a 'geologist' and still hold beliefs that are contradictory to the premise of the whole discipline,  and at the same time demonstrably of spurious origins.  I do not at all mean to imply that most scientists, in any field, are corrupt. But obviously, some are in every field, because of things like money, and self-serving beliefs.

Just as in this forum, you have to learn whom you can trust.

I want to make one last observation. I think that the purpose of attacking science, whether it be by political or polemical or other means, is intended solely and entirely to try to discredit its results.  The purveyors of the snake oil of faith realize that if the body politic understands the power of science they are doomed. Because they rely entirely on superstition.

I for one never cared whether someone clung to superstition or not, until they began to try to impose it on me.

My circumstances are such that I am able to communicate only for a few hours late in the day but I would like to continue the discussion of the threats and condition of science both academic and applied with those here who are serious about it.

That is to say to the creotards I intend to ignore you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You admit geologists have false motives. AMEN. When origin issues touch on religion its obvious to all creationisms that there is more going on then mere scholarship.
We agree that some geologists can't be trusted.
You say you contributed nothing to your field. Why not? why should a creationist be impressed with your conclusions?
I'm not stupid or dishonest. Of coarse if I was I wouldn't know it or honestly admit it. A line of reasoning.

You wrote that you will ignore creationists.
Yet these are forums to discuss these things?!
Ignoring creationism will not save the side of error.
Contribute here where your expertise in geology is relevant.
.Unless you truly are  ignoring us.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 02 2010,04:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not stupid or dishonest. Of coarse if I was I wouldn't know it or honestly admit it. A line of reasoning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Foot. Aim. Shoot. Hit. Sic transit ...
Posted by: Amadan on Mar. 02 2010,08:25

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:48)
The marsupial wolf does not look like a marsupial mole. Even if it has a few details like the reproductive system or this or that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Stoned Baby . . .


. . . says "Dude, ah, whut?"
Posted by: ppb on Mar. 02 2010,09:02

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43)
In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not?  It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said.

It's easy when you're just makin' shit up.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 02 2010,10:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even if it has a few details like the reproductive system or this or that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since you obviously are an expert, please tell us more about those this and that's. How many this or that's have you identified? How do you differentiate between relevant and irrelevant this or that?

I hate it when details are left hanging in the air. What would you say to a car mechanic that refused to bother with "a few details like the carburettor and other this's and that's" in your car? Do your employer know about your sloppiness, how you think details doesn't matter?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 02 2010,12:15

Maybe the devil's in those details!

Henry
Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 02 2010,17:28

Robert doesn't think he needs to match our pathetic level of detail.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 02 2010,19:02

Yeah, internal details don't seem to matter to him. Just the outer shape, which is the aspect on which small changes can add up to streamlining in water or faster running on land or better grip on things with its jaws, or other such things. But any of those can result from accumulation of small changes, each of which produces a slight increase in efficiency or effectiveness. Internal details are less apt to change in a given time frame than outer shape, which makes them more reliable as indicators of relatedness. At least that's my understanding of the current theory.

One thing I don't get is why all the concern about marsupial classification; I don't see what he would gain from winning that argument. Even if each type of marsupial were a closer relative to a particular order of placentals rather than to other marsupials, it's still evolution.

Henry
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on Mar. 02 2010,22:18

On the topic of professional dishonesty, it happens in all fields. There are dishonest judges, dishonest doctors, etc. etc. In most cases this may not involve intellectual dishonesty except in some narrow context  where it is easier and more lucrative to sell snakeoil than succeed in a competitive marketplace. There are many examples.

What is odd is that there are only a few fields in which dishonesty appears to be an actual requirement. As Huckleberry Finn so aptly put it - "Faith is believin' what you know ain't so."

Another worthy quote is Feynman in Louis' signature line.  In my experience one of the most difficult things to do in science is to maintain a reasonably objective perspective on whether or not what you are working on leads to something, or is just flat wrong. Unfortunately, obtaining a meaningful answer to such questions can take decades of work and still be a dissapointment.  If you can manage to avoid fooling yourself, about the only option upon discovering you have been pursuing a dead end, is to go back and start over.

I am not an academic geologist doing research per se. I am more of an economic geologist, but to provide any service of value to my clients I have to stay aware of the current pertinent research, and I have to treat my own efforts and results as if they too are research. In a way this is more difficult that research in academia because what the explorationist seeks is some more efficacious method of detecting the very weak and complex signals of an undiscovered deposit,  or the discovery of entirely new kinds of deposits that are economically viable.  In my specialty pursuit of the former is more promising than pursuit of the latter.

After 35 years of effort investigating a fairly straightforward hypothesis to enhance the resolution of exploration methods such that identifyable targets  can be more highly constrained as to the probability they are viable for production, there is no conclusive result. This is far from a unique idea, I have many colleagues both in and out of academia who are working on the exact same problem though in different ways.  

I trust their intellectual honesty. Often in the passage of time we have encountered one another and argued with earnestness inf favor of our approaches. In the field of proprietary work it is not often that we get to share our results in detail but after a time everyone comes to know whether or not a particular undertaking has succeeded or not. And of course you can always simply ask, and depend upon getting an intellectually honest answer. "Did it work?" "No it didn't." Often because of the competitiveness and secrecy of exploration, you don't even know what "it" was.

Surrounding the small constellation of colleagues whom you trust is a much larger assortment of others who in some way touch upon the same aims. Some are professionals of otherwise good repute but who have some taint that pushes them off the main track and into the bush.  That group grades smoothly into hacks and cranks who have nothing but claim everything and whom, I guess manage to make a buck at it. Which is their only motive. Farther out still you have those who enrobe themselves in a science-like costume and then go forth to spew massive lies and defamation of anyone who disagrees with their foregone conclusions.  They seek to trade on the credibility of real science. As Russell put it so clearly, "For years we were told that faith could move mountains, and no one believed it. Now we are told that atom bombs can move mountains, and everyone believes it.

To some extent, I think the most irksome thing about the dialog with creotards is simply the fact that they have no skin in the game. They are essentially reading from a script.

So the topic I offer up is essentially this, is it possible to believe in something and not be a liar?
Posted by: someotherguy on Mar. 02 2010,23:30

just bumping the page
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 02 2010,23:41

Quote (ppb @ Mar. 02 2010,07:02)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43)
In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not?  It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said.

It's easy when you're just makin' shit up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He probably heard that bears are caniforms somewhere and because he's an idiot, that was taken as proof that they're "of the same kind".
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 03 2010,00:00

Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,23:41)
Quote (ppb @ Mar. 02 2010,07:02)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43)
In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not?  It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said.

It's easy when you're just makin' shit up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He probably heard that bears are caniforms somewhere and because he's an idiot, that was taken as proof that they're "of the same kind".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever seen Yogi Bear and Scooby Doo?  They're like - 95% similar.  That says it all.  Besides, I'm sure Booby has the evidence, but he can't provide it to us godless heathens, and if we only would convert, why then his god would make us see that he was correct all along.  Or else make us drink the kool-aid and wait for the space aliens.  After a while, they all look alike to me.  Which one was Booby again?

And what about those Chimpanzee videos?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 03 2010,21:44

Hey, bears and dogs are in the same order - what more do ya'll want? :)

Henry
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 03 2010,22:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Marsupials are not related as indicated by the thousands of points of anatomy that produce the twists and turns of form that indicates to ones observation very different creatures. so different that a different concept of convergent evolution must be invoked to explain how they came to look like placental types elsewhere on the planet.

The marsupial wolf does not look like a marsupial mole. Even if it has a few details like the reproductive system or this or that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As I demonstrated above this is wrong.

You keep asserting a similarity between thylacines and wolves so tell us, we have been asking now for quite awhile, what features or traits the two share in common. It should be easy for you since you think there are thousands of similarities. Don't just tell us they "look similar" we want details.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 05 2010,00:54

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 02 2010,19:02)
Yeah, internal details don't seem to matter to him. Just the outer shape, which is the aspect on which small changes can add up to streamlining in water or faster running on land or better grip on things with its jaws, or other such things. But any of those can result from accumulation of small changes, each of which produces a slight increase in efficiency or effectiveness. Internal details are less apt to change in a given time frame than outer shape, which makes them more reliable as indicators of relatedness. At least that's my understanding of the current theory.

One thing I don't get is why all the concern about marsupial classification; I don't see what he would gain from winning that argument. Even if each type of marsupial were a closer relative to a particular order of placentals rather than to other marsupials, it's still evolution.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It answers a issue about post flood marsupial exclusive migration to Australia. Then it furthers explains much of the fossil record in saying same shaped creatures are the same. Constantly whole orders of creatures are said to have existed but in fact are the same creatures as what we now have. Its about reducing creatures into a few kinds.
It also takes a shot at genetic concepts. Gentics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.
This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.

Marsupials being placentals wouldn't kill evolution but it would be a kick in to the head and the fall break a lot of bones.

its also nice to contribed important discovery's to man's knowledge.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 05 2010,02:57

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 05 2010,00:54)
its also nice to contribed important discovery's to man's knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By posting here you are not doing that. This is a forum.

When will you be publishing your findings? Where and when?

If not, why not? You are right, after all yeah? So why not publish?
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 05 2010,03:19

Robert, you have diagnosed yourself (slightly edited quote):

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not stupid or dishonest. If I was I wouldn't know it or honestly admit it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's what you wrote. Do you understand what you yourself have written? You have admitted that you wouldn't know if you were stupid. Now read carefully:

You are stupid. Beacuse you are stupid, you don't know it. Because you are stupid, you won't admit it.

That's the meaning of the words you wrote. They are your own words, not mine. You've said it yourself. I agree with you. We all know that you are stupid, but you are too stupid to understand.

It is a well known observation, it is already mentioned in the bible: You think everybody else is stupid when they disagree with you, at the same time are blind to your own stupidity.

WRT contribution: You have contributed nothing to man's knowledge. That thylacines and wolves look somewhat similar is not news to us. We know, we knew, we have seen it, we know why, we understand why. We have a huge amount of knowledge contributed by intelligent, non-stupid people. While you just  babble like an idiot about it.

Now please go away. Why don't you register at the
< Evolution Fairytale forum? Click here! >
That forum is made for people like you. They are brethren of yours and need your special knowledge. Now you have saved us, go and save your brethren in faith!

Over a long time I have done my best to help you, why don't you ever thank me?

Edit: typo.
Posted by: bfish on Mar. 05 2010,11:12

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 05 2010,13:14

Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like some kind of Bible-Based Lamarckism, which makes sense if you go by how to get spotted goats (IIRC) - just have them mate (or is it live?) near spotted sticks, and Bam!  DNA changes to match, and you have spotted goats.

Completely reverses cause and effect, but then, just about everything else he says is completely back-asswards.  If I go bald later in life, does that mean that my genetic code has changed to look as if I never had hair at all?  I was trying to think what this would do for his argument that thylacines and wolves are related, then realized that it doesn't matter - genetics is not part of his argument, any more than any evidence other than his beliefs.
Posted by: RDK on Mar. 05 2010,13:20

Bubba's still goin at it, eh?

However I do admire him for his ability to type up entire paragraphs without actually saying jack shit.
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 05 2010,13:21

Quote (RDK @ Mar. 05 2010,13:20)
Bubba's still goin at it, eh?

However I do admire him for his ability to type up entire paragraphs without actually saying jack shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's like a Weeble - he may wobble, but he won't fall down!
Posted by: RDK on Mar. 05 2010,13:40

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 05 2010,13:21)
Quote (RDK @ Mar. 05 2010,13:20)
Bubba's still goin at it, eh?

However I do admire him for his ability to type up entire paragraphs without actually saying jack shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's like a Weeble - he may wobble, but he won't fall down!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I always picture him as Boppo.  Full of air, and just keeps on coming back!


Posted by: MichaelJ on Mar. 05 2010,15:54

I think that the guy has serious problems and feel a little guilty about poking fun at the guy
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 05 2010,16:07

Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 05 2010,15:54)
I think that the guy has serious problems and feel a little guilty about poking fun at the guy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mentally-wise, he must be completely teflon-ized. Whatever I have said, he just come back with more of the same nonsense as if nothing happened. Remarkable. If he's got a problem, he doesn't  seem to be aware of it. He must be < the happiest man in the world >
Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 05 2010,17:25

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 05 2010,00:54)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 02 2010,19:02)
Yeah, internal details don't seem to matter to him. Just the outer shape, which is the aspect on which small changes can add up to streamlining in water or faster running on land or better grip on things with its jaws, or other such things. But any of those can result from accumulation of small changes, each of which produces a slight increase in efficiency or effectiveness. Internal details are less apt to change in a given time frame than outer shape, which makes them more reliable as indicators of relatedness. At least that's my understanding of the current theory.

One thing I don't get is why all the concern about marsupial classification; I don't see what he would gain from winning that argument. Even if each type of marsupial were a closer relative to a particular order of placentals rather than to other marsupials, it's still evolution.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It answers a issue about post flood marsupial exclusive migration to Australia. Then it furthers explains much of the fossil record in saying same shaped creatures are the same. Constantly whole orders of creatures are said to have existed but in fact are the same creatures as what we now have. Its about reducing creatures into a few kinds.
It also takes a shot at genetic concepts. Gentics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.
This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.

Marsupials being placentals wouldn't kill evolution but it would be a kick in to the head and the fall break a lot of bones.

its also nice to contribed important discovery's to man's knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr Byers, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

< link >
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 09 2010,00:12

Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 09 2010,00:28

(poke, poke...)

Okay, Byers.

Which anatomical principles? Exactly?

Length of femur? Size of trochanters? How about relative musculature?

Show us your measurements, or you're just a bag of wind.

"They look the same" is for five-year-olds.
Posted by: Reed on Mar. 09 2010,02:12

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 08 2010,22:12)
 Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.

Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your theory (to use the term loosely) of genetics is trivially wrong*. Your posts demonstrate that you are completely ignorant of the subject, and anyone who is not similarly ignorant can plainly see you are just bullshitting.

Some advice from a fellow believer:
     
Quote (Thomas Aquinas @ a long smeggin time ago)
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



* Here's some hints: ERVs, observed mutation rates, neutral mutations.
Posted by: Bjarne on Mar. 09 2010,04:01

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?


And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 09 2010,09:22

I know you are incompetent, Robert, but anyway:

What you claim about biology and DNA  is like saying that if the builders build something different than the architect's drawings, the blueprint for the building, the the drawings, the blueprint will change accordingly?

You mean the blueprint is useless, real life doesn't bother with made up plans for what to build? So the people at one of Ford's assembly lines may build any car they like and miraculously, Ford's research and design department will have a new set of blueprints?

So what do they use the blueprints for, they are irrelevant.

That's what you say about DNA. What do you think is responsible for the development of a foetus? Are you familiar with the processes called copulation and fertilization? You know about sperm and the double helix?

No, you don't know nothing, that's a fact.

Please disappear from here, you're not even funny, just pathetic. Go to evolutionfairytale, they need to learn the wonderful knowledge that you are in possession of!

Another ten minutes wasted. Allright, for a while it took my mind of the stuff I am working on these days.
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 09 2010,12:01

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 09 2010,09:22)
Are you familiar with the processes called copulation and fertilization? You know about sperm and the double helix?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think we all hope that he isn't.
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 09 2010,14:35

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 09 2010,10:01)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 09 2010,09:22)
Are you familiar with the processes called copulation and fertilization? You know about sperm and the double helix?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think we all hope that he isn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So long as it was restricted to inanimate objects (or himself),  I'd be OK with it.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 09 2010,18:55

You all mock, but I think Byers is on to something when he says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this is true we can mold and shape creatures like silly putty. Why we can shape them and change them into human-like creatures. Think of the theological implications of that - the great commission can be extended to the entire animal kingdom. Think of the shock when all the wombat-men and kangaroo women stand before Jesus to be judged. I imagine the conversation will go something like this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Jesus: What is the law? >
Sayer of the Law: Not to eat meat, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Jesus: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to go on all fours, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Jesus: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to spill blood, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It will be great!!
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 09 2010,23:55

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 09 2010,16:55)
You all mock, but I think Byers is on to something when he says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this is true we can mold and shape creatures like silly putty. Why we can shape them and change them into human-like creatures. Think of the theological implications of that - the great commission can be extended to the entire animal kingdom. Think of the shock when all the wombat-men and kangaroo women stand before Jesus to be judged. I imagine the conversation will go something like this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Jesus: What is the law? >
Sayer of the Law: Not to eat meat, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Jesus: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to go on all fours, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Jesus: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to spill blood, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It will be great!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... and then they'll all dance to "Jocko Homo".
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 10 2010,07:14

I would like everyone here to observe a minute's silence in memory of all the brave neurones that fell, victims of Bobby's unfathomable stupidity.

Hell, 10 bottles of Jamesson in a row would do less damage then this reading!
Posted by: lkeithlu on Mar. 10 2010,17:07

I don't know how you do it.

I can't even figure out what Mr. Byers is trying to say.
His command of the written word is more like an 8 year old.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 11 2010,01:11

Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?


And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change.
I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points.
As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 11 2010,01:22

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 09 2010,18:55)
You all mock, but I think Byers is on to something when he says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this is true we can mold and shape creatures like silly putty. Why we can shape them and change them into human-like creatures. Think of the theological implications of that - the great commission can be extended to the entire animal kingdom. Think of the shock when all the wombat-men and kangaroo women stand before Jesus to be judged. I imagine the conversation will go something like this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Jesus: What is the law? >
Sayer of the Law: Not to eat meat, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Jesus: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to go on all fours, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Jesus: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to spill blood, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It will be great!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do think creatures could be changed by man by fiddleing with the Dna.
if mans knowledge was that great. No  there yet by far.
I see physical change in nature as having innate triggers.
The example could be breeds of dogs.
They show how diverse one get from a few original types.
Yet i don't see this as showing mere selection on random traits but rather the tip of the ice berg.
The diversity of traits is so much a part of nature and dogs that it easily just slips over the side allowing artificial selection to bring about the breeds.
Dog breeds are not from unnatural mutations selected on.
There is a greater flow in creatures going on to allow adaptation instantly where the right triggers are hit.
Otherwise they stay the same but mere slippage is noticed and breeders use it for the breeds.
yet in fact the breeds are not showing errors in the dogs bodies but the great flow of ability to diversify.

The origin of breeds in dogs etc is not from errors in the dna but the great ability of dna to change a creature from its parents.
Posted by: Reed on Mar. 11 2010,02:34

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 10 2010,23:22)
I do think creatures could be changed by man by fiddleing with the Dna. if mans knowledge was that great. No  there yet by far.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong. It has already been done many times.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I see physical change in nature as having innate triggers.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may "see" this but without evidence, it's just a pointless statement.
                   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The example could be breeds of dogs.
They show how diverse one get from a few original types.
Yet i don't see this as showing mere selection on random traits but rather the tip of the ice berg.
The diversity of traits is so much a part of nature and dogs that it easily just slips over the side allowing artificial selection to bring about the breeds.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is wrong, and has been proven wrong many times over by experiment. We have in many cases identified the exact mutations responsible for things like specific traits of dog breeds. We understand the mechanisms behind the mutations, we have observed these mechanisms in nature and reproduced them in the lab. We know they are essentially random in nature, and have abundant evidence the same mechanisms were present in the past. We know how frequently mutations happen today, and understanding the mechanisms, we can make reasonable assumptions about their rates in the past. This leads to predictions which are broadly confirmed by many independent lines of evidence.

Isn't it time to admit (to yourself at least) that you have absolutely no idea what the last 50 years of molecular biology has accomplished ? That, lacking such knowledge, you are in no position to pass judgment on whether it's conclusions are correct ?
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 11 2010,05:13

I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.
Posted by: Bjarne on Mar. 11 2010,07:53

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)
 
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?


And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change.
I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points.
As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes?

And, how are proteins produced in cells?
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 11 2010,09:44

Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 11 2010,07:53)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)
 
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?


And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change.
I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points.
As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes?

And, how are proteins produced in cells?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm more concerned how DNA changes at "atomic points" - does that mean DNA is the same size as atoms?  Is DNA a new elementary particle?   Does this mean DNA is produced in the furnace of stars like heavier elements?  

Robert sounds like he gets his genetics from bad sci fi or horrible comic books.  

Robert, in science, let alone just English, words have specific meanings.  I know your crew likes to toss words out as if they can mean whatever you want them to mean, but they can't.  We call it "using sciency words" - using scientific terms in completely wrong usages in order to give a crackpot idea some illusion of science to the rubes.  I doubt you even know the meaning of half the words you use, and like Quack said, it's probably useless to try to teach you, since you are both unwilling and probably unable to learn.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 12 2010,01:32

Quote (Reed @ Mar. 11 2010,02:34)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 10 2010,23:22)
I do think creatures could be changed by man by fiddleing with the Dna. if mans knowledge was that great. No  there yet by far.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong. It has already been done many times.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I see physical change in nature as having innate triggers.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may "see" this but without evidence, it's just a pointless statement.
                   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The example could be breeds of dogs.
They show how diverse one get from a few original types.
Yet i don't see this as showing mere selection on random traits but rather the tip of the ice berg.
The diversity of traits is so much a part of nature and dogs that it easily just slips over the side allowing artificial selection to bring about the breeds.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is wrong, and has been proven wrong many times over by experiment. We have in many cases identified the exact mutations responsible for things like specific traits of dog breeds. We understand the mechanisms behind the mutations, we have observed these mechanisms in nature and reproduced them in the lab. We know they are essentially random in nature, and have abundant evidence the same mechanisms were present in the past. We know how frequently mutations happen today, and understanding the mechanisms, we can make reasonable assumptions about their rates in the past. This leads to predictions which are broadly confirmed by many independent lines of evidence.

Isn't it time to admit (to yourself at least) that you have absolutely no idea what the last 50 years of molecular biology has accomplished ? That, lacking such knowledge, you are in no position to pass judgment on whether it's conclusions are correct ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whether in breeds or in nature I'm saying the evidence is better that its all just spill over from a greater orbit or equation that genes have great diversity potential that is triggered by great need especially in the past.
So breeds of dogs today is just showing what can be instantly done in nature. Even webbed feet can show how the origin of water mammals came. In fact probably seals are from, perhaps, the same kind as dogs.
Mutations is in fact not what happens. They are not errors but simply over flow options in the genetics.
The great evidence for this is the great post flood diversity.
Living and fossil creatures is the great guide to understanding diversity in biology.

As i said I think its been a classic error to see mutations as a real thing in nature. Its rather just showing genetic power. Its not errors but mere slippage.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 12 2010,01:38

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 11 2010,09:44)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 11 2010,07:53)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11)
 
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)
   
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?


And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change.
I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points.
As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes?

And, how are proteins produced in cells?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm more concerned how DNA changes at "atomic points" - does that mean DNA is the same size as atoms?  Is DNA a new elementary particle?   Does this mean DNA is produced in the furnace of stars like heavier elements?  

Robert sounds like he gets his genetics from bad sci fi or horrible comic books.  

Robert, in science, let alone just English, words have specific meanings.  I know your crew likes to toss words out as if they can mean whatever you want them to mean, but they can't.  We call it "using sciency words" - using scientific terms in completely wrong usages in order to give a crackpot idea some illusion of science to the rubes.  I doubt you even know the meaning of half the words you use, and like Quack said, it's probably useless to try to teach you, since you are both unwilling and probably unable to learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do see DNA as a atomic thing. I mean the smallness of nature revealing itself.
Dna is still  a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives.
The evidence shows quick instant adaptation. So Dna must be flexible to aid in this.
I know marsupials and other orders of creatures are just placentals of creatures we have everywher on earth. So I know DNA is not a trail here but only a indication that like parts equal like DNA. Also a change to different parts amongst many unrelated creatures will result in like DNA for those parts.
No reason not to see it that way.
Posted by: Reed on Mar. 12 2010,02:17

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,23:32)

As i said I think its been a classic error to see mutations as a real thing in nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One problem with this. Mutations are a "real thing". We have observed them. We understand the mechanisms, and have confirmed this understanding by experiment.
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dna is still  a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Right >. < We > < just > < have > < no > < idea > < how > < this > < DNA > < stuff > < works >.
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 12 2010,02:27

Seals are from the "dog kind"?  We don't know much about DNA?

I didn't think my mouth could drop further, but it did.  Just keep piling it on.  Maybe we can get Joe G/ID guy over here and have a real TARDpocalypse - but would the board hold such a force?  Would our minds?

But how come those chimp videos show them acting a lot like human beings?  Wasn't that one of your lines of evidence for a thylacine-wolf connection?  Why so silent on that?  Didn't the videos come through at the other end of the links?
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 12 2010,02:42

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27)
Seals are from the "dog kind"?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See? It's the < caniform > thing again:

Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,21:41)
 
Quote (ppb @ Mar. 02 2010,07:02)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43)
In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not?  It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said.

It's easy when you're just makin' shit up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He probably heard that bears are caniforms somewhere and because he's an idiot, that was taken as proof that they're "of the same kind".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on Mar. 12 2010,02:45

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,23:38)
No reason not to see it that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it requires a near total inability to reason to see it that way.
Posted by: snorkild on Mar. 12 2010,03:43

If Robert was capable of understanding what he is writing, I believe he wouldn't write things like this:
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,01:38)
Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 12 2010,06:46

To resume Bobby's position:

"hey, so much for global warming -- look at all this snow! and so much for global globalness, look how flat it is out there!" Stephen Colbert.
Posted by: Bjarne on Mar. 12 2010,08:59

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,08:38)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 11 2010,09:44)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 11 2010,07:53)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11)
 
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)
   
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
     
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?


And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change.
I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points.
As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes?

And, how are proteins produced in cells?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm more concerned how DNA changes at "atomic points" - does that mean DNA is the same size as atoms?  Is DNA a new elementary particle?   Does this mean DNA is produced in the furnace of stars like heavier elements?  

Robert sounds like he gets his genetics from bad sci fi or horrible comic books.  

Robert, in science, let alone just English, words have specific meanings.  I know your crew likes to toss words out as if they can mean whatever you want them to mean, but they can't.  We call it "using sciency words" - using scientific terms in completely wrong usages in order to give a crackpot idea some illusion of science to the rubes.  I doubt you even know the meaning of half the words you use, and like Quack said, it's probably useless to try to teach you, since you are both unwilling and probably unable to learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do see DNA as a atomic thing. I mean the smallness of nature revealing itself.
Dna is still  a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives.
The evidence shows quick instant adaptation. So Dna must be flexible to aid in this.
I know marsupials and other orders of creatures are just placentals of creatures we have everywher on earth. So I know DNA is not a trail here but only a indication that like parts equal like DNA. Also a change to different parts amongst many unrelated creatures will result in like DNA for those parts.
No reason not to see it that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how are proteins produced in cells?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Mar. 12 2010,10:19

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,01:38)
I know marsupials and other orders of creatures are just placentals of creatures we have everywher [sic] on earth...
No reason not to see it that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hard to believe, isn't it?
I love it so!
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 12 2010,11:46

Does he really think the pouch is the only anatomical difference between a marsupial and a placental that it superficially resembles?

(Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?)
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 12 2010,11:59

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2010,09:46)
(Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're probably in the fucking "dog kind" too.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 12 2010,12:10

Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,17:59)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2010,09:46)
(Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're probably in the fucking "dog kind" too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, probably the bloody egg-laying mo-fo "dog kind"!

And watch out for those thylacines, they are probably venimous as well!

But hey! All doggy so far!
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 12 2010,12:31

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27)
Seals are from the "dog kind"?  We don't know much about DNA?

I didn't think my mouth could drop further, but it did.  Just keep piling it on.  Maybe we can get Joe G/ID guy over here and have a real TARDpocalypse - but would the board hold such a force?  Would our minds?

But how come those chimp videos show them acting a lot like human beings?  Wasn't that one of your lines of evidence for a thylacine-wolf connection?  Why so silent on that?  Didn't the videos come through at the other end of the links?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't let it get to you, Badger.  At this point in the thread, it's time to accept that Robert doesn't know anything, isn't interested in knowing anything and is probably incapable of knowing anything if he tried.  Instead of trying to educate him, I just sit back and enjoy the likes of this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whether in breeds or in nature I'm saying the evidence is better that its all just spill over from a greater orbit or equation that genes have great diversity potential that is triggered by great need especially in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have a fucking clue what that means, and I suspect Robert doesn't either.  But as stream-of-consciousness brain droppings from the Poet Laureate of Tard, it has a certain je ne sais quoi, doesn't it?
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 12 2010,13:23

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 12 2010,12:31)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27)
Seals are from the "dog kind"?  We don't know much about DNA?

I didn't think my mouth could drop further, but it did.  Just keep piling it on.  Maybe we can get Joe G/ID guy over here and have a real TARDpocalypse - but would the board hold such a force?  Would our minds?

But how come those chimp videos show them acting a lot like human beings?  Wasn't that one of your lines of evidence for a thylacine-wolf connection?  Why so silent on that?  Didn't the videos come through at the other end of the links?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't let it get to you, Badger.  At this point in the thread, it's time to accept that Robert doesn't know anything, isn't interested in knowing anything and is probably incapable of knowing anything if he tried.  Instead of trying to educate him, I just sit back and enjoy the likes of this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whether in breeds or in nature I'm saying the evidence is better that its all just spill over from a greater orbit or equation that genes have great diversity potential that is triggered by great need especially in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have a fucking clue what that means, and I suspect Robert doesn't either.  But as stream-of-consciousness brain droppings from the Poet Laureate of Tard, it has a certain je ne sais quoi, doesn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Believe me, it's not getting to me, except  for the jaw-dropping absurdities I read.  It's been a hoot, to use an old expression.  I just want to keep the chimp thing alive, even if I know he'll never, ever address it, just like he's avoided everything else that people have posted.  

Writing back to him makes me feel like I'm poking a dead body with a stick.  I'd probably get more sense from the corpse.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 12 2010,18:05



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------
In fact probably seals are from, perhaps, the same kind as dogs.
---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------


Well, they are placed in the caniformia rather than the feliformia. But they are a sister group to a clade composed on one had of skunks and such and on the other bears. See:



But please do enlighten us as to how you reached this conclusion.
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 12 2010,18:37

OK, I'm revising my hypothesis that he ran across the term 'caniform' somewhere, and saw a chart or table listing what caniforms are.  I now think his seal idea is due to the fact that they bark, and dogs bark, so therefore, they're two of a kind.  Unfortunately, I can now no longer explain where he got the bears-are-of-the-dog-kind thing.  Although, maybe he thinks they bark too.  I wouldn't put it past him.
Posted by: khan on Mar. 12 2010,18:40

Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,19:37)
OK, I'm revising my hypothesis that he ran across the term 'caniform' somewhere, and saw a chart or table listing what caniforms are.  I now think his seal idea is due to the fact that they bark, and dogs bark, so therefore, they're two of a kind.  Unfortunately, I can now no longer explain where he got the bears-are-of-the-dog-kind thing.  Although, maybe he thinks they bark too.  I wouldn't put it past him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Trees have bark.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 12 2010,18:54

Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,18:37)
OK, I'm revising my hypothesis that he ran across the term 'caniform' somewhere, and saw a chart or table listing what caniforms are.  I now think his seal idea is due to the fact that they bark, and dogs bark, so therefore, they're two of a kind.  Unfortunately, I can now no longer explain where he got the bears-are-of-the-dog-kind thing.  Although, maybe he thinks they bark too.  I wouldn't put it past him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Nope, wrong > it is because in Hawaii the name for Monk Seal means "the dog who runs the sea" - at least that is my theory and I am sticking to it.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 12 2010,19:00

Quote (khan @ Mar. 12 2010,17:40)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,19:37)
OK, I'm revising my hypothesis that he ran across the term 'caniform' somewhere, and saw a chart or table listing what caniforms are.  I now think his seal idea is due to the fact that they bark, and dogs bark, so therefore, they're two of a kind.  Unfortunately, I can now no longer explain where he got the bears-are-of-the-dog-kind thing.  Although, maybe he thinks they bark too.  I wouldn't put it past him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Trees have bark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well sure, but their bark is worse than their bite!  :p
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 12 2010,20:30

They could also be of the pig-kind. Here's a Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus); the scientific name translates to "hook-nosed sea pig".



Hey, boobie! Were there seals on the Ark, or did they have to fend for themselves in the oceans?
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Mar. 14 2010,12:54

Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,01:42)
   
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27)
Seals are from the "dog kind"?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See? It's the < caniform > thing again:

     
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,21:41)
       
Quote (ppb @ Mar. 02 2010,07:02)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00)
         
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43)
In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not?  It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said.

It's easy when you're just makin' shit up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He probably heard that bears are caniforms somewhere and because he's an idiot, that was taken as proof that they're "of the same kind".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You grant Mr. Robert more knowledge than he is capable of by assuming he understands "caniform".

It's much, much simpler than that. Here, let me spell out his undeniable logic:

Baby seals = pups
Baby dogs = pups

Therefore, when they change into adults:
Seals = Dogs

QEDuh!
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 14 2010,19:40

Sounds like he's doggedly sealed the conclusion! :p
Posted by: Bjarne on Mar. 15 2010,05:13

My cat has fur and a tail and claws and fangs, too. I wonder if it is also of the dog kind, Mr.Byers?

Additional proof: I called it a cat whelp, when he was smaller. And its food looks pretty much like the food I gave to my dog.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 15 2010,11:58

Robert, when you're done with dogs, perhaps we can move on to the "bear kind".  Do polar bears, koalas and beargrass all descend from the same pair of Ark passengers?

And waterbears.  I'm particularly interested in your views on waterbears.
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 15 2010,13:21

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 15 2010,11:58)
Robert, when you're done with dogs, perhaps we can move on to the "bear kind".  Do polar bears, koalas and beargrass all descend from the same pair of Ark passengers?

And waterbears.  I'm particularly interested in your views on waterbears.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seals are water-bears, dontcha' know.  You betcha!
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 15 2010,18:28

Can we bear this kind of discussion? Or will it cause polarization, and thus seal our fate?
Posted by: khan on Mar. 15 2010,19:07

Page fault?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 15 2010,19:09

Quote (khan @ Mar. 16 2010,01:07)
Page fault?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Definitly...
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 17 2010,01:42

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 12 2010,18:05)


---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------
In fact probably seals are from, perhaps, the same kind as dogs.
---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------


Well, they are placed in the caniformia rather than the feliformia. But they are a sister group to a clade composed on one had of skunks and such and on the other bears. See:



But please do enlighten us as to how you reached this conclusion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These charts are old ideas without evidence.
I simply see kinds as needing to include many creatures because they must of been dramatic different types of creatures. So dogs and bears and even seal, perhaps, are so alike in looks that one can simply speculate they are from a original kind. of coarse I see water mammals as all post flood adaptations unlike most creationists.
Seals seem very like bears/dogs/others and so probably they are all related and just the result of a great diversity explosion after the flood.
Anatomy and behaivors and other clues can lead to this conclusion. I know marsupials are placentals and it is easy to keep on this trail of scoring creatures by the greater number of points of likeness and not by the few, even if notable, differences.
Creatures should not be seen as fixed but as in a continium until hiting the real walls of the original kinds God created.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 17 2010,02:09

Robert Byers:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Creatures should not be seen as fixed but as in a continium until hiting the real walls of the original kinds God created.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The question, Robert, is why should others see things that way? Is it because it accords with your narrow interpretation of scripture? If so, you should adopt a stance like that of Kurt Wise, who admits that if he weren't committed to young-earth creationism that the evidence would be convincing that the earth is old and evolution, including common descent, was a fact.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to assert that it is because the evidence supports seeing it that way, you've done nothing in the way of actually explicating anything to do with any standard of evidence that would allow someone else to see a coherent point to your assertion. When you claim that phylogenies have "no evidence" out of hand, it just makes you look completely ignorant.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 17 2010,02:22

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 17 2010,00:09)
When you claim that phylogenies have "no evidence" out of hand, it just makes you (Robert Byers) look completely ignorant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And I'll add, stupid.

This is not a new problem. In fact, it is an ancient problem.

Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. {Augustine here has referred to 1 Timothy 1.7}”

“It is therefore, causally that Scripture has said that earth brought forth the crops and trees, in the sense that it received the power of bringing them forth. In the earth from the beginning, in what I might call the roots of time, God created what was to be in times to come.”
-- Augustine of Hippo, On the literal meanings of Genesis, Book V Ch. 4:11

Or, if you prefer later Protestant theologians:

John Calvin (1509 – 1564)  on Genesis

"For to my mind this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.” And later he stated, “It must be remembered, that Moses does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use." (Calvin J., Genesis, I, 79 & 84 (1554)


Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 20 2010,09:35

Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
Posted by: tsig on Mar. 20 2010,10:18

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2010,05:13)
I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually it's a god sized hole.
Posted by: tsig on Mar. 20 2010,10:26

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 12 2010,12:10)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,17:59)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2010,09:46)
(Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're probably in the fucking "dog kind" too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, probably the bloody egg-laying mo-fo "dog kind"!

And watch out for those thylacines, they are probably venimous as well!

But hey! All doggy so far!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Them doggies do it all!!
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 20 2010,11:28

Wellllllll, doggies!
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 20 2010,12:31

Quote (tsig @ Mar. 20 2010,08:26)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 12 2010,12:10)
 
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,17:59)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2010,09:46)
(Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're probably in the fucking "dog kind" too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, probably the bloody egg-laying mo-fo "dog kind"!

And watch out for those thylacines, they are probably venimous as well!

But hey! All doggy so far!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Them doggies do it all!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone has to say it: They do it doggie style.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 21 2010,17:15

Quote (tsig @ Mar. 20 2010,10:18)
 
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2010,05:13)
I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually it's a god sized hole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Black body radiating?
Posted by: FrankH on Mar. 21 2010,18:22

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 21 2010,17:15)
Quote (tsig @ Mar. 20 2010,10:18)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2010,05:13)
I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually it's a god sized hole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Black body radiating?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt it.

Even a Black Body emits information of some sort.

There doesn't seem to be any information emitted from that hole.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 24 2010,03:06

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 17 2010,02:09)
Robert Byers:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Creatures should not be seen as fixed but as in a continium until hiting the real walls of the original kinds God created.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The question, Robert, is why should others see things that way? Is it because it accords with your narrow interpretation of scripture? If so, you should adopt a stance like that of Kurt Wise, who admits that if he weren't committed to young-earth creationism that the evidence would be convincing that the earth is old and evolution, including common descent, was a fact.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to assert that it is because the evidence supports seeing it that way, you've done nothing in the way of actually explicating anything to do with any standard of evidence that would allow someone else to see a coherent point to your assertion. When you claim that phylogenies have "no evidence" out of hand, it just makes you look completely ignorant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its a general comment that I can't get into. its a alternative idea to justify other ideas that come up here.
I don't know if this creationist meant what he said like you said but if so he's wrong. Organized creationism has full confidence that no evidence is contrary to scripture and we can take on everything.

Yes origins is about evidence. Yet everyone does hypothesis with first a creative insight. Then later fill it out.
One can offer ideas without heaps of data behind one.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 24 2010,03:10

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 24 2010,03:34

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What criteria are evidence for segregated kinds?
Posted by: Bjarne on Mar. 24 2010,03:39

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 24 2010,10:39

Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 24 2010,02:39)
And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's grown in pouches, of course. :p
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 24 2010,20:07

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 24 2010,20:27

Although, the named examples are all in the same order as us, if that matters. (Would that put them in the same "kind"?)
Posted by: ppb on Mar. 24 2010,20:43

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,21:07)
Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it must be part of that "Intelligent" Design we keep hearing about.

ETA:   OK, I jest, but here is a perfect example of real science explaining a particular phenomenon (painful and dangerous childbirth) by looking at the data from anatomy, physiology, etc.  Creation "Science" gives us a story about Eve being naughty and all her female descendants having to pay the consequences.

Which is more evidence based?
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 25 2010,19:10

Quote (ppb @ Mar. 24 2010,20:43)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,21:07)
Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it must be part of that "Intelligent" Design we keep hearing about.

ETA:   OK, I jest, but here is a perfect example of real science explaining a particular phenomenon (painful and dangerous childbirth) by looking at the data from anatomy, physiology, etc.  Creation "Science" gives us a story about Eve being naughty and all her female descendants having to pay the consequences.

Which is more evidence based?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not even "Eve being naughty" - by their own mythology, the tree was the one that gave "knowledge of good and evil" - so how was she to know that eating the tree was wrong if they lacked the ability to distinguish right and wrong?  It was a set up, and if there were a good lawyer handy, they'd have gotten her off on entrapment.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 30 2010,03:11

Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 24 2010,03:39)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand it. Some snakes deliver with eggs and some by live birth. The latter even have placental or close. In fact I was told this by evolution folks.
Posted by: Robert Byers on Mar. 30 2010,03:25

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,20:07)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stilling trying to say animals have pain at birthing. They don't. there are reasons that are accepted for this.
The pain by our women is from well understood reasons. In fact they go further and try to say evolution is the origin of it. Standing upright and getting bigger heads/shoulders .
Its not true that apes etc have like pain , like duration, like percentages.
They don't for the very reasons that even evolution invokes to explain things here.
If apes did have like pain then uprightness/head size etc would not be the reason and origin of the reasons for birth pains.
Mankind is unique from animals in this and everything.
The bible says clearly why women got pain. A punishment.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 30 2010,03:38

Robert, you have studied this? Please say you have studied the birth process of apes.

You are not just saying things you happen to believe, you study the subject first to learn how it is, don't you?

I've been told the bible says rabbits chew cud, you believe that, don't you?

If you have not yet performed the required study of ape birth, please get it done then come back and report your findings.

You know, like study, like Galileo studied nature before he announced what he had learned. It usually was something the church denied possible from their understanding of the bible.

But you don't think study is required, you already know, like the sun orbits the Earth, not the other way around?
Posted by: Bjarne on Mar. 30 2010,03:49

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,10:11)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 24 2010,03:39)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand it. Some snakes deliver with eggs and some by live birth. The latter even have placental or close. In fact I was told this by evolution folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I am not totally mistaken, viviparous snakes are actually ovoviviarous. This means, that the already eggs breed on their way through the mothers body.
As far as I know, they do not have a placenta (a placenta is only found in  the clade Eutheria) , nor something close to it.
Thus all it takes to develop ovovivipary in a oviparous animal is  the eggs to be retained in the mother's body for a longer period of time. This is everything, but a drastic change.

And Mr.Byers, would you be so kind to explain how proteins are produced in cells? After all, according to your statements , they are not produced the way we do thing them to be produced.
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Mar. 30 2010,03:57

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,03:25)
     
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,20:07)
       
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
       
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stilling trying to say animals have pain at birthing. They don't. there are reasons that are accepted for this.
The pain by our women is from well understood reasons. In fact they go further and try to say evolution is the origin of it. Standing upright and getting bigger heads/shoulders .
Its not true that apes etc have like pain , like duration, like percentages.
They don't for the very reasons that even evolution invokes to explain things here.
If apes did have like pain then uprightness/head size etc would not be the reason and origin of the reasons for birth pains.
Mankind is unique from animals in this and everything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that's a fairly reasonable argument, and I would say that

Quote (Robert Byers @ ,)
The bible says clearly why women got pain. A punishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, sorry. Never mind about the reasonable part.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 30 2010,07:12

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,04:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've gone over your nonsense about non-human animals experiencing no pain during birth on other boards.  Remember the spotted hyena debacle, in which you were handed your ass?  Of course you don't; you are impervious to evidence, logic, and reason.

Also, my old Borzoi brood bitch, Lindy, would very much like to bite you as she had a bit of an owie with the delivery of her last litter.  Her pain was real.  As yours shall be if her teeth manage to make contact with your ass.  I shall keep her from you, though, since it is doubtful you have had all of your vaccinations and I value her health greatly.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 30 2010,07:16

Oh come on now Wolfhound, you know you ladies should know your place and not comment on the pains and what have you. After all, the world's ills can be laid at your door for eating a snake after listening to a talking apple or something.

Naughty womens! Hush now. Back in the kitchen! And don't forget to add the Jesus.

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 30 2010,07:46

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,08:16)
Oh come on now Wolfhound, you know you ladies should know your place and not comment on the pains and what have you. After all, the world's ills can be laid at your door for eating a snake after listening to a talking apple or something.

Naughty womens! Hush now. Back in the kitchen! And don't forget to add the Jesus.

;-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just got out of the kitchen a moment ago after preparing a Jesus-free breakfast for my elderly grandfather and now my place is here, nattering away at my betters (those who own a penis, according to Bobby-B and his celestial bully-boy).

Now, about them thar girlie-pains... Well, I've had some over the years although I probably should be a good little woman and accept my share of the Curse of Eve by squeezing out a whelp or two.  Any volunteers to help me with this?  I haven't yet mastered that whole parthenogenesis thang so need some help with the spermies, I reckon.  I'll never get to Heaven if I don't suffer properly and from what I understand the agony of childbirth draws out about 18-30 years.  Longer if you name the lil' nipper Louis.  :D
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 30 2010,07:50

Couple of bitches.  Both are/were tremendous pains to their respective mothers. :)

Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 30 2010,08:18

Egg binding is also a bitch. I've seen it happen in chickens.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 30 2010,08:31

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 30 2010,09:18)
Egg binding is also a bitch. I've seen it happen in chickens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ug, yeah.  Lost a silver laced Polish pullet that way.  :(
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 30 2010,08:33

So I guess she was human?
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 30 2010,08:46

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 30 2010,09:33)
So I guess she was human?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not really, no.  Although her hairdo was pretty spiff.


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 30 2010,09:12

Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,13:50)
Couple of bitches.  Both are/were tremendous pains to their respective mothers. :)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! Who's the hottie?

And where did that other one get her leather jacket?

:)
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 30 2010,09:25

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 30 2010,10:12)
Wow! Who's the hottie?

And where did that other one get her leather jacket?

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The hottie is "Eazy" (Laureate Adrienne K-C's Easy Lover) and, given her name, you might just stand a chance.  She's a bit underage, though, even in dog years, as her first birthday is April 8.

The other one got her leather jacket at Burlington Coat Factory for $109.00 USD.  Kenneth Cole lambskin.  Smells as good as it looks, I tells ya'!
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 30 2010,10:12

Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,12:46)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,08:16)
Oh come on now Wolfhound, you know you ladies should know your place and not comment on the pains and what have you. After all, the world's ills can be laid at your door for eating a snake after listening to a talking apple or something.

Naughty womens! Hush now. Back in the kitchen! And don't forget to add the Jesus.

;-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just got out of the kitchen a moment ago after preparing a Jesus-free breakfast for my elderly grandfather and now my place is here, nattering away at my betters (those who own a penis, according to Bobby-B and his celestial bully-boy).

Now, about them thar girlie-pains... Well, I've had some over the years although I probably should be a good little woman and accept my share of the Curse of Eve by squeezing out a whelp or two.  Any volunteers to help me with this?  I haven't yet mastered that whole parthenogenesis thang so need some help with the spermies, I reckon.  I'll never get to Heaven if I don't suffer properly and from what I understand the agony of childbirth draws out about 18-30 years.  Longer if you name the lil' nipper Louis.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


MOAR SUFFERIN'! LESS TALKIN'!

HOMO.
*

Louis

*Is this the first combination Tardologue ™ and Misogyny special? If so I wants me a medal.**

**It occurs to me that people might not realise I am joking about all of this.***

***It also occurs to me that the reason I am still alive is because they do realise this.****

****I worry too much.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 30 2010,10:15

Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,12:50)
Couple of bitches.  Both are/were tremendous pains to their respective mothers. :)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahem. That is NOT the approved terminology. The word "bitch" is a term only used by the phallocentric, misogynistic, penis owning kyriarchy. The correct term is "Lady Dog".

Obviously "bitch" is fine to use when referring to women. Especially if you are a rapper, when it's positively sexually alluring.

Carry on.

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 30 2010,12:59

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,11:15)
Obviously "bitch" is fine to use when referring to women. Especially if you are a rapper, when it's positively sexually alluring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People who belong to a particular subset are also given free license to use the derogatory terms, too.  That's why it's okay for me to bandy about "bitch", "twat", etc.  And it's socially acceptable for you and a few others to call each other "homo" and suchlike.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 30 2010,13:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it's socially acceptable for you and a few others to call each other "homo"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's very wise.
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 30 2010,13:17

Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,12:59)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,11:15)
Obviously "bitch" is fine to use when referring to women. Especially if you are a rapper, when it's positively sexually alluring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People who belong to a particular subset are also given free license to use the derogatory terms, too.  That's why it's okay for me to bandy about "bitch", "twat", etc.  And it's socially acceptable for you and a few others to call each other "homo" and suchlike.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well it's certainly ok for Louis to use the term since he belongs to said particular subset (as you say) and everyone knows he's kidding* and worries too much***. The rest of us penis owners are left without I'm afraid; Old Bald Farts really hasn't caught on.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 30 2010,13:47

Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,17:59)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,11:15)
Obviously "bitch" is fine to use when referring to women. Especially if you are a rapper, when it's positively sexually alluring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People who belong to a particular subset are also given free license to use the derogatory terms, too.  That's why it's okay for me to bandy about "bitch", "twat", etc.  And it's socially acceptable for you and a few others to call each other "homo" and suchlike.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In all seriousness, calling people bitch, homo etc is IMO not ok. It's pretty poor behaviour (bigotry at worst, indifference to/ignorance/reinforcement of the bigotry of other at best), and yes, I know I've engaged in it. I am imperfect, but working on it. I'm a bit hardline, I'm not sure it's a good idea even for women to call each other bitch, but since dealing with misogyny is their problem not mine, I'll let them work that one out! ;-)

Almost exclusively when "homo" is used here it's a "deliberate in-joke about DaveScot and how he acts" use, NOT an "insult-by-calling-someone-gay" use.

Just to make sure we're all on the same comedy page and all!

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 30 2010,13:48

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 30 2010,18:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it's socially acceptable for you and a few others to call each other "homo"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's very wise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Badum tish!

Give the man a beer! He's here all week, tip the veal, try the waitress.

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 30 2010,15:25

Er, try what with the waitress?  :p
Posted by: jeffox on Mar. 30 2010,15:31

The only "bitch" I've ever met was named Amada Bar-Cat.  :)

I used to have a wolfhound, too.  He could play the banjo (poorly) and died of Barkinsons' disease.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 30 2010,19:34

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,03:25)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,20:07)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stilling trying to say animals have pain at birthing. They don't. there are reasons that are accepted for this.
The pain by our women is from well understood reasons. In fact they go further and try to say evolution is the origin of it. Standing upright and getting bigger heads/shoulders .
Its not true that apes etc have like pain , like duration, like percentages.
They don't for the very reasons that even evolution invokes to explain things here.
If apes did have like pain then uprightness/head size etc would not be the reason and origin of the reasons for birth pains.
Mankind is unique from animals in this and everything.
The bible says clearly why women got pain. A punishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am beginning to think that you might have some reading comprehension problems. Primates do have pain during child birth, this has been empirically confirmed by a number of investigators on many occasions. The reasons for that pain have been investigated and the quote from Ankel-Simons (one of the premier primate anatomists) is a pretty good summary of why. Unless you can come up with some studies demonstrating the contrary I see no reason why I should accept your word or the bible over that of empirical research.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 30 2010,20:01

Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,08:46)
...and from what I understand the agony of childbirth draws out about 18-30 years.  Longer if you name the lil' nipper Louis.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now!
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 30 2010,20:42

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 30 2010,21:01)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,08:46)
...and from what I understand the agony of childbirth draws out about 18-30 years.  Longer if you name the lil' nipper Louis.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Lou, I'm certain you were a delightful child and the apple of your mother's eye.  As opposed to Louis, who likely filled the role of talking snake.  Or not.  We should ask his mum.  Once Arden is done with her. *

* My apologies to Louis' mother, who has suffered enough, as it is.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 30 2010,20:59

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,14:47)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,17:59)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,11:15)
Obviously "bitch" is fine to use when referring to women. Especially if you are a rapper, when it's positively sexually alluring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People who belong to a particular subset are also given free license to use the derogatory terms, too.  That's why it's okay for me to bandy about "bitch", "twat", etc.  And it's socially acceptable for you and a few others to call each other "homo" and suchlike.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In all seriousness, calling people bitch, homo etc is IMO not ok. It's pretty poor behaviour (bigotry at worst, indifference to/ignorance/reinforcement of the bigotry of other at best), and yes, I know I've engaged in it. I am imperfect, but working on it. I'm a bit hardline, I'm not sure it's a good idea even for women to call each other bitch, but since dealing with misogyny is their problem not mine, I'll let them work that one out! ;-)

Almost exclusively when "homo" is used here it's a "deliberate in-joke about DaveScot and how he acts" use, NOT an "insult-by-calling-someone-gay" use.

Just to make sure we're all on the same comedy page and all!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No worries.  I have NEVER called another woman any of those names in anger.  My good friends and I jokingly use the words, but, as it is here at AtBC with the homo jibes, it's all in good fun.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 30 2010,21:41

Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,21:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 30 2010,21:01)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,08:46)
...and from what I understand the agony of childbirth draws out about 18-30 years.  Longer if you name the lil' nipper Louis.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Lou, I'm certain you were a delightful child and the apple of your mother's eye.  As opposed to Louis, who likely filled the role of talking snake.  Or not.  We should ask his mum.  Once Arden is done with her. *

* My apologies to Louis' mother, who has suffered enough, as it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is a direct line from talking snakes in Eden to snarky talk at AtBC.

Oh, this is a fallen world.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 31 2010,03:19

Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 31 2010,01:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 30 2010,21:01)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,08:46)
...and from what I understand the agony of childbirth draws out about 18-30 years.  Longer if you name the lil' nipper Louis.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Lou, I'm certain you were a delightful child and the apple of your mother's eye.  As opposed to Louis, who likely filled the role of talking snake.  Or not.  We should ask his mum.  Once Arden is done with her. *

* My apologies to Louis' mother, who has suffered enough, as it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't apologise. She's enjoying herself apparently. Frankly it's disgusting.

Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.

Louis
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 31 2010,04:13

Oops wrong thread
Posted by: FrankH on Mar. 31 2010,06:53

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 30 2010,21:41)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,21:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 30 2010,21:01)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,08:46)
...and from what I understand the agony of childbirth draws out about 18-30 years.  Longer if you name the lil' nipper Louis.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey now!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, Lou, I'm certain you were a delightful child and the apple of your mother's eye.  As opposed to Louis, who likely filled the role of talking snake.  Or not.  We should ask his mum.  Once Arden is done with her. *

* My apologies to Louis' mother, who has suffered enough, as it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There is a direct line from talking snakes in Eden to snarky talk at AtBC.

Oh, this is a fallen world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The worst part is when you fall and can't reach your beer.

Fortunately, we haven't fallen that far yet.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 31 2010,13:23

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,01:19)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 31 2010,01:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 30 2010,21:01)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,08:46)
...and from what I understand the agony of childbirth draws out about 18-30 years.  Longer if you name the lil' nipper Louis.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Lou, I'm certain you were a delightful child and the apple of your mother's eye.  As opposed to Louis, who likely filled the role of talking snake.  Or not.  We should ask his mum.  Once Arden is done with her. *

* My apologies to Louis' mother, who has suffered enough, as it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't apologise. She's enjoying herself apparently. Frankly it's disgusting.

Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What? Homo.

Sorry, I thought you said you were the pink carnation of evil.

Carry on.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Mar. 31 2010,13:54

While we are on human physiology can Robert please explain why God gave us a body more suited to running around on all fours causing most of us to have bad backs and knees.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Mar. 31 2010,13:57

Quote (MichaelJ @ April 01 2010,04:54)
While we are on human physiology can Robert please explain why God gave us a body more suited to running around on all fours causing most of us to have bad backs and knees.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speak of the devil*:

< Design Flaws >

*For some Christians PZ is the devil
Posted by: dnmlthr on Mar. 31 2010,16:00

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,09:19)
Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am so stealing that phrase for my band if you don't mind.
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Mar. 31 2010,17:09

Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 31 2010,13:54)
While we are on human physiology can Robert please explain why God gave us a body more suited to running around on all fours causing most of us to have bad backs and knees.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're behind the times Michael:

< http://creation.com/standin....terview >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Back pain vs evolution
Richard pointed out that evolutionary theory can be unproductive for research:

‘For example, the curve of the lumbar spine towards the front—the lordosis—was thought by evolutionists to be a problem, the result of man having recently adopted an upright position. So, some researchers blamed back pain on this, saying the spine had not yet evolved satisfactorily. If therapists have the wrong starting assumption, then it’s not surprising that treatments for lordosis are unhelpful. If a spine fracture causes a lumbar kyphosis (curvature in the opposite direction), that spine is significantly weakened.’1

He added that the creationist perspective has always been foundational to his research:

‘I start from quite a different position. From my understanding of human anatomy and physiology and my understanding of God, I say that the form of God’s creation always matches its function. So you can be sure that the form of the spine is perfectly designed for its function. God has made a wonderful spine. If you start with that premise, it gives you a head start when trying to understand the mechanism of the spine.

‘When you start to examine the biomechanics of the curved spine, asking why it’s that shape, and what’s good about it, you find that the arch of the spine has a beautiful purpose. Like the arch of a bridge, it adds strength. Because of that arch in the lumbar spine, a person with a lumbar lordosis can lift proportionally more weight than a gorilla with its kyphotic (opposite curvature) spine! So it’s not surprising that treating back pain with postures and exercises that restore the lordosis works exceedingly well.’2

The splendid spine

Injury Statistics
Our human spine is among the most ingeniously designed structures to be found anywhere. In this fallen world, it is estimated that 70–90% of all people in the US will suffer at least one back injury in their lives. Up to 25% become chronic. Much of this is exacerbated by failure to keep the surrounding muscles strong.
Since the spine is his specialist field, he could tell us about more of its amazing features:

‘My inaugural lecture in Aberdeen was “Upright Man”? and I tried to explain how the wonderful human spine is a perfect match between form and function. Things go wrong with the spine when we abuse it (if we fail to keep ourselves fit, or overload it, or have an accident). We are learning to use “foam filling”? in building (a sandwich of honeycomb material between two plates) to make something that is both light and strong, but the bones of the spine have been “foam filled”? with cancellous bone (with an open, latticed, or porous structure), surrounded by harder cortical bone, since the Creation.

‘The vertebral bodies increase in cross-sectional area as you go further down the spine, because in the upright position, the lower ones take more load. The bones are not denser, just bigger. By contrast, animals that walk on all fours have a roughly horizontal spine that is equally loaded all the way. So all their vertebrae are of similar cross-sectional area. Form matches function. If evolutionists were right in saying we had recently attained upright posture, our vertebral bodies should be like those of quadrupeds, but they are not.

‘We designed radial-ply tyres for motor cars, but God constructed the rim of the intervertebral disc with radial-ply fibres from the beginning. That construction makes a healthy disc stronger than the bones. When one examines the way the human body is formed and how it works, one is constantly amazed. It’s like looking at a piece of beautiful bone china and seeing the maker’s mark beneath.’
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently evolution has held up the treatment of back injuries for years, or so i've been told.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 31 2010,18:20

Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 31 2010,21:00)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,09:19)
Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am so stealing that phrase for my band if you don't mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I expect royalties in the form of beer tributes.

Louis
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 31 2010,18:45

Someone should have explained how "perfect" the discs are to my dad while he was in agony for a decade because of a couple of ruptured ones.  It was only after they figured out how to remove them and fuse the vertebrae that he was able to function again.

Oh, and years later this "intelligently designed" body conked out because his bone marrow quit producing red blood cells.

Intelligent Design my ass.

Tyrell: You were made as well as we could make you.
Roy: But not to last.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 31 2010,20:28

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,04:19)
Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pfah!  No rest for the wicked; evil is a full time job, you piker!
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 31 2010,20:32

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,18:20)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 31 2010,21:00)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,09:19)
Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am so stealing that phrase for my band if you don't mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I expect royalties in the form of beer tributes.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Before or after they have been drunk?  And do we need to worship at the porcelain altar?
Posted by: dnmlthr on April 01 2010,08:41

Quote (Louis @ April 01 2010,00:20)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 31 2010,21:00)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,09:19)
Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am so stealing that phrase for my band if you don't mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I expect royalties in the form of beer tributes.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done. Just so you know, our earnings (beer or otherwise) are exactly 0 so far.
Posted by: Louis on April 01 2010,10:15

Quote (Badger3k @ April 01 2010,01:32)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,18:20)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 31 2010,21:00)
 
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,09:19)
Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am so stealing that phrase for my band if you don't mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I expect royalties in the form of beer tributes.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Before or after they have been drunk?  And do we need to worship at the porcelain altar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Before they have been drunk. I'm kinky, but not THAT kinky.

I *was* talking about beer, not Budweiser, so the "before" was really very strongly implied.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on April 01 2010,10:18

Quote (Wolfhound @ April 01 2010,01:28)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,04:19)
Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pfah!  No rest for the wicked; evil is a full time job, you piker!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rest assured that whilst I am the incarnation of evil only at weekends, when it is my turn, during the week I am the epitome of evil.

I even have my Evil Scientist Cackle perfected.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on April 01 2010,10:21

Quote (dnmlthr @ April 01 2010,13:41)
Quote (Louis @ April 01 2010,00:20)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 31 2010,21:00)
 
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,09:19)
Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am so stealing that phrase for my band if you don't mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I expect royalties in the form of beer tributes.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done. Just so you know, our earnings (beer or otherwise) are exactly 0 so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No problem. I'll just take my 15% of the utter lack of beer you have earned so far and be done with it.

You have, however, to pay for the shipping of my percentage. Luckily the shipping company I use takes payment in beer. Two kegs of something suitable should be more than sufficient to cover our costs.

Thanks you for chosing LouisCorp as your drunken, mucky, slightly deranged agent of choice. LouisCorp: We only let you down when we're really drunk.

Louis
Posted by: FrankH on April 03 2010,13:29

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 31 2010,18:45)
Someone should have explained how "perfect" the discs are to my dad while he was in agony for a decade because of a couple of ruptured ones.  It was only after they figured out how to remove them and fuse the vertebrae that he was able to function again.

Oh, and years later this "intelligently designed" body conked out because his bone marrow quit producing red blood cells.

Intelligent Design my ass.

Tyrell: You were made as well as we could make you.
Roy: But not to last.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love the catch-all excuse, "Things were perfect BEFORE the fall!  It was man's inexcusable sin against god that allowed evil into the perfect world".

Of course there's more than just the back.  One can show how design, if it was used, has no intelligence evident in human:

1:  Sinuses
2:  Appendix
3:  Eyes (blind spot is a glaring example)
4:  Artery that clogs yet supplies blood for the heart.

Remember, there are three things postulated in ID:

1:  Design
2:  Intelligence
3:  Though not explicitly stated, a singular "designer"
Posted by: Robert Byers on April 04 2010,22:53

Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 30 2010,03:49)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,10:11)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 24 2010,03:39)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand it. Some snakes deliver with eggs and some by live birth. The latter even have placental or close. In fact I was told this by evolution folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I am not totally mistaken, viviparous snakes are actually ovoviviarous. This means, that the already eggs breed on their way through the mothers body.
As far as I know, they do not have a placenta (a placenta is only found in  the clade Eutheria) , nor something close to it.
Thus all it takes to develop ovovivipary in a oviparous animal is  the eggs to be retained in the mother's body for a longer period of time. This is everything, but a drastic change.

And Mr.Byers, would you be so kind to explain how proteins are produced in cells? After all, according to your statements , they are not produced the way we do thing them to be produced.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just by what you said you make my case. It is quite a change. The principal is that some snakes birth live and some eggs. this is indeed a minor point but likewise placentals just"hold" thier offspring longer.
I was told by evolutionist opponents placentals were involved in the live birthing. i haven't studied it. i was educated only recently on forums like this. I see my point holding up either way.

I have no idea what your protein point is about!
Posted by: Robert Byers on April 04 2010,23:01

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 30 2010,19:34)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,03:25)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,20:07)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stilling trying to say animals have pain at birthing. They don't. there are reasons that are accepted for this.
The pain by our women is from well understood reasons. In fact they go further and try to say evolution is the origin of it. Standing upright and getting bigger heads/shoulders .
Its not true that apes etc have like pain , like duration, like percentages.
They don't for the very reasons that even evolution invokes to explain things here.
If apes did have like pain then uprightness/head size etc would not be the reason and origin of the reasons for birth pains.
Mankind is unique from animals in this and everything.
The bible says clearly why women got pain. A punishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am beginning to think that you might have some reading comprehension problems. Primates do have pain during child birth, this has been empirically confirmed by a number of investigators on many occasions. The reasons for that pain have been investigated and the quote from Ankel-Simons (one of the premier primate anatomists) is a pretty good summary of why. Unless you can come up with some studies demonstrating the contrary I see no reason why I should accept your word or the bible over that of empirical research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet you persist.
My information from numerous articles i've read about it. I remember especially a nat geo article about inside of a general article on childbirth.
They said clearly apes etc don't have pain like or close to woman for very understandable reasons.

The article you quote is not about pain but about a special problem that can occur. A rarity. In fact it even here only happens because of a very special case of animal head bigness/female smallness in a few. Yet the principals for pain in our women and not animals remains the same.
If it was merely about head size then walking upright, the evolution justification for the origin of the pain, would be irrelevant.
You didn't read your your quote closely.
Posted by: fnxtr on April 05 2010,00:44

Robert, you are a loony and you have been spotted.

(... I just found out Mabus is Canadian, too. Sorry. Sorry, sorry, sorry, everyone.  Even BTO and Steppenwolf can't make up for this.)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 05 2010,04:27

Quote (Robert Byers @ April 04 2010,23:01)
They said clearly apes etc don't have pain like or close to woman for very understandable reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But not *no pain*. Therefore your point is disproved by your own words.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 05 2010,06:34

Quote (Robert Byers @ April 04 2010,22:53)
I see my point holding up either way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, there's nothing anyone can say that will change your alleged mind.

Thanks for making that even more clear than it was before.
Posted by: FrankH on April 05 2010,06:59

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2010,06:34)
Quote (Robert Byers @ April 04 2010,22:53)
I see my point holding up either way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In other words, there's nothing anyone can say that will change your alleged mind.

Thanks for making that even more clear than it was before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad the ID/YEC crowd is not populated with young ladies who could contort their bodies as well as they can their minds.

Ah, the pleasing mental picture that makes.
Posted by: Wolfhound on April 05 2010,07:30

Quote (FrankH @ April 05 2010,07:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2010,06:34)
Quote (Robert Byers @ April 04 2010,22:53)
I see my point holding up either way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In other words, there's nothing anyone can say that will change your alleged mind.

Thanks for making that even more clear than it was before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad the ID/YEC crowd is not populated with young ladies who could contort their bodies as well as they can their minds.

Ah, the pleasing mental picture that makes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, given what lurks in their brains, would you really want to get close enough to their bodies to *ahem* admire them?  I'm sure that viewing them from afar might give you a false sense of security but who really knows the actual distance needed to safely avoid infection?  I'm pretty sure their mind virus is airborne.  *Brrrrrr*
Posted by: fnxtr on April 05 2010,11:42

Quote (Wolfhound @ April 05 2010,05:30)
Quote (FrankH @ April 05 2010,07:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2010,06:34)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ April 04 2010,22:53)
I see my point holding up either way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In other words, there's nothing anyone can say that will change your alleged mind.

Thanks for making that even more clear than it was before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad the ID/YEC crowd is not populated with young ladies who could contort their bodies as well as they can their minds.

Ah, the pleasing mental picture that makes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, given what lurks in their brains, would you really want to get close enough to their bodies to *ahem* admire them?  I'm sure that viewing them from afar might give you a false sense of security but who really knows the actual distance needed to safely avoid infection?  I'm pretty sure their mind virus is airborne.  *Brrrrrr*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, in my unfortunate experience, some of the finest vessels can have some of the vilest contents. Oh, well.  Book/judge/cover.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on April 05 2010,18:55

Quote (Robert Byers @ April 04 2010,23:01)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 30 2010,19:34)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,03:25)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,20:07)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stilling trying to say animals have pain at birthing. They don't. there are reasons that are accepted for this.
The pain by our women is from well understood reasons. In fact they go further and try to say evolution is the origin of it. Standing upright and getting bigger heads/shoulders .
Its not true that apes etc have like pain , like duration, like percentages.
They don't for the very reasons that even evolution invokes to explain things here.
If apes did have like pain then uprightness/head size etc would not be the reason and origin of the reasons for birth pains.
Mankind is unique from animals in this and everything.
The bible says clearly why women got pain. A punishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am beginning to think that you might have some reading comprehension problems. Primates do have pain during child birth, this has been empirically confirmed by a number of investigators on many occasions. The reasons for that pain have been investigated and the quote from Ankel-Simons (one of the premier primate anatomists) is a pretty good summary of why. Unless you can come up with some studies demonstrating the contrary I see no reason why I should accept your word or the bible over that of empirical research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet you persist.
My information from numerous articles i've read about it. I remember especially a nat geo article about inside of a general article on childbirth.
They said clearly apes etc don't have pain like or close to woman for very understandable reasons.

The article you quote is not about pain but about a special problem that can occur. A rarity. In fact it even here only happens because of a very special case of animal head bigness/female smallness in a few. Yet the principals for pain in our women and not animals remains the same.
If it was merely about head size then walking upright, the evolution justification for the origin of the pain, would be irrelevant.
You didn't read your your quote closely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do persist because you are wrong. Let's narrow the focus a bit. Again from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy (note that this is a book not a journal article):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let me break it down for you. In order for big headed babies - those with highly developed brains - to be able to get through the pelvic inlet and outlet three major changes have taken place in the female pelvis. First, the sacroiliac articulation is more extended in females:



Second the greater sciatic notch is wider:



Third, the pubic rami are longer:


These three combined increase the size of both inlets. Unfortunately, this can only go so far before it begins to interfere with locomotion and sitting posture. This interferes with both bipedal locomotion (in humans) and upright sitting posture (in primates). The end result is that for primates with large brains relative to the three mentioned features of pelvic anatomy pain occurs during childbirth.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on April 06 2010,15:48

Oh Bobby my Bobby!

Please define Life.

What are the criterias that scientifically define Life?
Posted by: Bjarne on April 07 2010,07:18

Quote (Robert Byers @ April 05 2010,05:53)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 30 2010,03:49)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,10:11)
 
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 24 2010,03:39)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand it. Some snakes deliver with eggs and some by live birth. The latter even have placental or close. In fact I was told this by evolution folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I am not totally mistaken, viviparous snakes are actually ovoviviarous. This means, that the already eggs breed on their way through the mothers body.
As far as I know, they do not have a placenta (a placenta is only found in  the clade Eutheria) , nor something close to it.
Thus all it takes to develop ovovivipary in a oviparous animal is  the eggs to be retained in the mother's body for a longer period of time. This is everything, but a drastic change.

And Mr.Byers, would you be so kind to explain how proteins are produced in cells? After all, according to your statements , they are not produced the way we do thing them to be produced.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just by what you said you make my case. It is quite a change. The principal is that some snakes birth live and some eggs. this is indeed a minor point but likewise placentals just"hold" thier offspring longer.
I was told by evolutionist opponents placentals were involved in the live birthing. i haven't studied it. i was educated only recently on forums like this. I see my point holding up either way.

I have no idea what your protein point is about!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its quite interesting how each and every fact seems to "make your point". You seem to be intellectually rather flexible.

My point on the protein synthesis is, that to our understanding DNA plays an important part in it. DNA is basically the template from which proteins are copied. It is the blueprint for all of our proteins and thus, since proteins somehow the "bricks" we are made of,it is the blueprint for ourself and all other living organisms. I van explain it a bit more in detail, if you want, but as an expert, you will surely know the mechanism already.
Yet you deny that DNA has this role and you argue, that DNA is nothing, but an inventory list. One has therefore to conclude, that you do disagree with our modern understanding of protein synthesis.
So, how are proteins produced, if DNA is not involved in protein synthesis?
Posted by: Robert Byers on April 08 2010,21:38

Quote (afarensis @ April 05 2010,18:55)
Quote (Robert Byers @ April 04 2010,23:01)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 30 2010,19:34)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,03:25)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,20:07)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stilling trying to say animals have pain at birthing. They don't. there are reasons that are accepted for this.
The pain by our women is from well understood reasons. In fact they go further and try to say evolution is the origin of it. Standing upright and getting bigger heads/shoulders .
Its not true that apes etc have like pain , like duration, like percentages.
They don't for the very reasons that even evolution invokes to explain things here.
If apes did have like pain then uprightness/head size etc would not be the reason and origin of the reasons for birth pains.
Mankind is unique from animals in this and everything.
The bible says clearly why women got pain. A punishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am beginning to think that you might have some reading comprehension problems. Primates do have pain during child birth, this has been empirically confirmed by a number of investigators on many occasions. The reasons for that pain have been investigated and the quote from Ankel-Simons (one of the premier primate anatomists) is a pretty good summary of why. Unless you can come up with some studies demonstrating the contrary I see no reason why I should accept your word or the bible over that of empirical research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet you persist.
My information from numerous articles i've read about it. I remember especially a nat geo article about inside of a general article on childbirth.
They said clearly apes etc don't have pain like or close to woman for very understandable reasons.

The article you quote is not about pain but about a special problem that can occur. A rarity. In fact it even here only happens because of a very special case of animal head bigness/female smallness in a few. Yet the principals for pain in our women and not animals remains the same.
If it was merely about head size then walking upright, the evolution justification for the origin of the pain, would be irrelevant.
You didn't read your your quote closely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do persist because you are wrong. Let's narrow the focus a bit. Again from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy (note that this is a book not a journal article):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let me break it down for you. In order for big headed babies - those with highly developed brains - to be able to get through the pelvic inlet and outlet three major changes have taken place in the female pelvis. First, the sacroiliac articulation is more extended in females:



Second the greater sciatic notch is wider:



Third, the pubic rami are longer:


These three combined increase the size of both inlets. Unfortunately, this can only go so far before it begins to interfere with locomotion and sitting posture. This interferes with both bipedal locomotion (in humans) and upright sitting posture (in primates). The end result is that for primates with large brains relative to the three mentioned features of pelvic anatomy pain occurs during childbirth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If these three points are met then perhaps indeed a ape could have like pain giving birth as our women. Yet this would be a rarity and probably could happen in many creatures.
Women have pain for real reasons. Apes don't because of lacking the same problems.
I know in the literature they say they don't.
Thats why I always bring up, though a creationist, that the explanation for womens unique pain is because of walking upright and evolution adapting the skeleton accordingly. likewise the evolved bigger head of humans is invoked.
Yet in both claims they mean that apes are not in like problems when giving birth.
Evolutionists are hear making the case for me by the explanation for the difference.
Of coarse there was no such evolving and simply the punishment of eve explains the pain.

you still seem to be saying there is no difference between woman and primates in birthpains. Yet there is such a great difference evolution invokes itself to explain why?

By the way the first time i ever heard about this was in a anthropology class textbook. I never knew women were unique in birthing in pain.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on April 08 2010,22:05

Probably because you don't understand the material you are dealing with. As I have, repeatedly said, pain in child birth occurs in primates with babies that have large brains - squirrel monkeys and macaques spring to mind - relative to the above morphology. In the case of humans the trade of is between bipedalism, brain size, and pelvic size. In the two mentioned primates the trade off is between brain size, pelvic size, and sitting posture (which is very similar to bipedalism, the key factor being the ability to be upright). Regardless, the primates still feel pain in trying to deliver large brained babies.
Posted by: Badger3k on April 08 2010,23:22

Quote (afarensis @ April 08 2010,22:05)
Probably because you don't understand the material you are dealing with. As I have, repeatedly said, pain in child birth occurs in primates with babies that have large brains - squirrel monkeys and macaques spring to mind - relative to the above morphology. In the case of humans the trade of is between bipedalism, brain size, and pelvic size. In the two mentioned primates the trade off is between brain size, pelvic size, and sitting posture (which is very similar to bipedalism, the key factor being the ability to be upright). Regardless, the primates still feel pain in trying to deliver large brained babies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bobby's mom felt no pain at all...
Posted by: Wolfhound on April 09 2010,06:43

Quote (Badger3k @ April 09 2010,00:22)
Quote (afarensis @ April 08 2010,22:05)
Probably because you don't understand the material you are dealing with. As I have, repeatedly said, pain in child birth occurs in primates with babies that have large brains - squirrel monkeys and macaques spring to mind - relative to the above morphology. In the case of humans the trade of is between bipedalism, brain size, and pelvic size. In the two mentioned primates the trade off is between brain size, pelvic size, and sitting posture (which is very similar to bipedalism, the key factor being the ability to be upright). Regardless, the primates still feel pain in trying to deliver large brained babies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bobby's mom felt no pain at all...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<*spits coffee*>
Posted by: Robin on April 09 2010,10:45

[quote=fnxtr,April 05 2010,11:42][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Wolfhound @ April 05 2010,05:30)
 
Quote (FrankH @ April 05 2010,07:59)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2010,06:34)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ April 04 2010,22:53)
I see my point holding up either way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In other words, there's nothing anyone can say that will change your alleged mind.

Thanks for making that even more clear than it was before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad the ID/YEC crowd is not populated with young ladies who could contort their bodies as well as they can their minds.

Ah, the pleasing mental picture that makes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, given what lurks in their brains, would you really want to get close enough to their bodies to *ahem* admire them?  I'm sure that viewing them from afar might give you a false sense of security but who really knows the actual distance needed to safely avoid infection?  I'm pretty sure their mind virus is airborne.  *Brrrrrr*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, in my unfortunate experience, some of the finest vessels can have some of the vilest contents. Oh, well.  Book/judge/cover.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Man...just teed up there for a mental-gutter comment to knock it out of the park. However, I refuse to be the person that goes juuuuuust a weeee bit too far...(sigh)
Posted by: Wolfhound on April 09 2010,10:51

Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,11:45)
Man...just teed up there for a mental-gutter comment to knock it out of the park. However, I refuse to be the person that goes juuuuuust a weeee bit too far...(sigh)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


S'okay, Robin, I'm certain that somebody here will pick up the slack.

*Paging Louis!  Louis, report to the "Can You Do Geology" thread for a dirty-up!
Posted by: Robin on April 09 2010,14:03

Quote (Wolfhound @ April 09 2010,10:51)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,11:45)
Man...just teed up there for a mental-gutter comment to knock it out of the park. However, I refuse to be the person that goes juuuuuust a weeee bit too far...(sigh)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


S'okay, Robin, I'm certain that somebody here will pick up the slack.

*Paging Louis!  Louis, report to the "Can You Do Geology" thread for a dirty-up!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Heh! Thanks for moving this right along, Wolfhound!  :D
Posted by: Louis on April 09 2010,15:04

Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,19:03)
[quote=Wolfhound,April 09 2010,10:51][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,11:45)
Man...just teed up there for a mental-gutter comment to knock it out of the park. However, I refuse to be the person that goes juuuuuust a weeee bit too far...(sigh)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


S'okay, Robin, I'm certain that somebody here will pick up the slack.

*Paging Louis!  Louis, report to the "Can You Do Geology" thread for a dirty-up!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Heh! Thanks for moving this right along, Wolfhound!  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just don't get the joke. I think that there is no correlation between human female pulchritude and intellect, or at least none that I am aware of.

Maybe I'm just not as dirty as you people.

{Haughty sniff}

Louis

P.S. ;-)
Posted by: Robin on April 12 2010,08:28

Quote (Louis @ April 09 2010,15:04)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,19:03)
Quote (Wolfhound @ April 09 2010,10:51)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,11:45)
Man...just teed up there for a mental-gutter comment to knock it out of the park. However, I refuse to be the person that goes juuuuuust a weeee bit too far...(sigh)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


S'okay, Robin, I'm certain that somebody here will pick up the slack.

*Paging Louis!  Louis, report to the "Can You Do Geology" thread for a dirty-up!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Heh! Thanks for moving this right along, Wolfhound!  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just don't get the joke. I think that there is no correlation between human female pulchritude and intellect, or at least none that I am aware of.

Maybe I'm just not as dirty as you people.

{Haughty sniff}

Louis

P.S. ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I confess my thought went completely to the gutter. Something about contorted good "Christian" ladies' bodies who shouldn't be speaking their mind anyway and...

It's ok. Probably best it didn't go there since that bathroom wall is just getting filthy...
Posted by: Quack on April 12 2010,16:16

Quote (Louis @ April 09 2010,15:04)
 
Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,19:03)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ April 09 2010,10:51)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   
Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,11:45)
Man...just teed up there for a mental-gutter comment to knock it out of the park. However, I refuse to be the person that goes juuuuuust a weeee bit too far...(sigh)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


S'okay, Robin, I'm certain that somebody here will pick up the slack.

*Paging Louis!  Louis, report to the "Can You Do Geology" thread for a dirty-up!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Heh! Thanks for moving this right along, Wolfhound!  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just don't get the joke. I think that there is no correlation between human female pulchritude and intellect, or at least none that I am aware of.

Maybe I'm just not as dirty as you people.

{Haughty sniff}

Louis

P.S. ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't it amazing how earthworms look so clean and beautiful emerging out of the dirt? How do they manage it?
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 12 2010,17:03

Quote (afarensis @ April 05 2010,19:55)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 30 2010,19:34)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,20:07)
     
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at < The Panda's Thumb > Byers undermines his argument:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am beginning to think that you might have some reading comprehension problems. Primates do have pain during child birth, this has been empirically confirmed by a number of investigators on many occasions. The reasons for that pain have been investigated and the quote from Ankel-Simons (one of the premier primate anatomists) is a pretty good summary of why. Unless you can come up with some studies demonstrating the contrary I see no reason why I should accept your word or the bible over that of empirical research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I do persist because you are wrong. Let's narrow the focus a bit. Again from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy (note that this is a book not a journal article):

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let me break it down for you. In order for big headed babies - those with highly developed brains - to be able to get through the pelvic inlet and outlet three major changes have taken place in the female pelvis. First, the sacroiliac articulation is more extended in females:



Second the greater sciatic notch is wider:



Third, the pubic rami are longer:


These three combined increase the size of both inlets. Unfortunately, this can only go so far before it begins to interfere with locomotion and sitting posture. This interferes with both bipedal locomotion (in humans) and upright sitting posture (in primates). The end result is that for primates with large brains relative to the three mentioned features of pelvic anatomy pain occurs during childbirth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, thanks for this, Afarensis. It's interesting stuff, the now-removed idiocy from the moron notwithstanding.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on April 12 2010,18:35

No problem.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.