Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > VMartin's cosmology

Pages: (17) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,12:28    I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought. Is this thread for VMartin or Paul Nelson? Something about not answering questions...

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,12:37    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,09:47) ? Quote (k.e @ Sep. 06 2007,23:05)   Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14) V, Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist." Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light. Henry Autodidacts hate being corrected. Pigments? Autodidacts? Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green? Do you think that spectum colors violet, blue, yellow, orange and green (without red) should be perceived in their totality as green? Have you ever heard about Hering's red-green channel or you are again explaing the complicated problem of color perception ad hoc using only your phantasy? (But no wonder, because you often use your phantasy as the only scientific method for explaining of evolutionary processes too.) *Brainfahrt* You know, Vman, lets start with an appetizer. How old are you? Then add how many more years it would take for you to be as old as the earth, however old you think it to be. Do want answers this time! K start now. Bai. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,14:33    Why HARD the questions so here?  Very mad the mind of me go to lengths to answer simple the posed thoughts here. Too HARD understand the wants of Darwinists. How olde the earth not ever been to me askedd, this why I never any answer to you. I always simply to answer you, but you clearly no ask of me these things. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,16:05    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,10:47) Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green? Yes. When talking about mixing of light frequencies: White light = red + yellow + blue. Green = yellow + blue. Remove red from white, what's left? Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth?

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,16:27    Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,20:05) Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,10:47) Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green? Yes. When talking about mixing of light frequencies: White light = red + yellow + blue. Green = yellow + blue. Remove red from white, what's left? Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth? Errr....I thought the primary colours of light were red green and blue. Yellow is a derivative of blue and green, isn't it? [EDIT] This guy thinks I'm half right at least. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,16:40    Well, what I recall from school was primary = blue, yellow, red. So which three colors correspond to having only one of our three types of color sense cells reacting to it at one time?

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,16:53    Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,20:40) Well, what I recall from school was primary = blue, yellow, red. Ah, they are the primary colours in terms of paint, apparently because blue is roughly comparative with cyan and red with magenta. I learnt in secondary school the primary colours of light are red green and blue, and that they are the primary derivatives of white. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,19:19    Paint and light have diffrent sets of primary colors. In light it is Red, Green, Blue. Computers use these three colors for everything too. In astronomy we use red, green, and blue filters in separate exposures to produce a color image, because our CCDs don't have dedicated color pixels, unlike the CCDs in most digital cameras. This makes the CCD more sensitive, which we consider more important than easy color photos. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,01:41    Quote Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth? And when's its birthday? Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,15:11    Re "And when's its birthday?" Just imagine all the complications that'd be involved in trying to actually answer that... Henry

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,17:58    I guess a larger question is why are YEC's so reticent to stand behind their claims of a young earth? Why the "don't ask, don't tell?" I've seen this behavior for decades and it's the same over and over. Where's the conviction?

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,06:26    Gosh, I was just wondering how old the earth is, and whether common ancestry is true. Should I ask VMartin for his thoughts on these matters? He's always been an upfront guy. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,10:14    Yeah.  I've always been curious about that too.  I don't think anyone has ever told me the truth about that.  It's a good thing that VMartin is here to do just that: tell the truth. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,11:42    Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic. According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated. I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible. But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted. Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life. What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,11:59    There's a progress, Martin but you're still not answering the question about common descent, which is separate from natural selection (we already knew you deny it). And among all the estimations of the age of the Earth you provided, which one do you think is the most accurate? BTW, the current estimation is 4.5 billion years, not 5.4.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,12:21    Common descent is a complicated problem considering saltationism as a process of evolution. If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know. Btw. John Davison considered possibility that there were as many independent ancestors in Mammalia as there are mammalian Orders. There might have been many creation. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,12:22    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,11:42) Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic. According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated. I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible. But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted. Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life. What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it. Actually, white - red is a light blueish color. Hey VMartin, that monitor your using, do you know how it creates those "complex colors"? By combining red, green, and blue. Ever used a digital camera? Know how it perceives those "complex colors"? By using pixels sensitive to red, green, and blue and combining them. Know how all color images on a PC store that complex color data? As red, green, and blue channels. They are combined when the image is displayed. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,12:27    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,12:21) Common descent is a complicated problem considering saltationism as a process of evolution. If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know. Btw. John Davison considered possibility that there were as many independent ancestors in Mammalia as there are mammalian Orders. There might have been many creation. Martin, it's amazing how many things you can say 'in response' to a question without actually answering it. I'd love to see you in a grad school program if only to have you do this in response to your Masters Orals, or whatever the Slovakian equivalent is. I'm also dazzled by your ability to invoke Davison no matter what the subject is. Anyway, let's get back on topic: 1) Do you believe common descent for humans and other primates is correct? True, or wicked Darwinist lie? 2) what figure for the age of the earth do you find most plausible? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,13:16    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,12:21) There might have been Oh? "Results 1 - 10 of about 951,000 for "There might have been". According to google, there are almost a million hits for the exact phrase "there might have been". Apparently there might have been almost a million things? At least? The point is, you gotta narrow it down y'know? Fer'instance: "There might have been a billion earths, each one with only one animal, and they all merged and there was 1 earth and a billion animals. And that." No? Yet you say   Quote There might have been many creation Might there of? How illuminating! Well worth the price of entrance. VMartin, 3 questions. 1: How old is the earth (and whens it's birthday?) 2: Do you believe common descent for humans and other primates is correct? 3: What do you do for a day job? B'coz I hope it's something well paid and satisfying as you're achieving bugger all here. And an extra one for bonus points, before I hit submit... Can you tell me a few hundred words about this "many creation" you mention? I presume you mean something like there was not just a single instance of creation, but many instances, in fact no species now extant could be here without a direct intervention by the "intelligent designer" Can you do that VMartin? Only, no changing the subject if you give it a go. Stick to the topic  :p -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,13:42    Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 10 2007,12:22)   Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,11:42) Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic. According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated. I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible. But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted. Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life. What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it. Actually, white - red is a light blueish color. Hey VMartin, that monitor your using, do you know how it creates those "complex colors"? By combining red, green, and blue. Ever used a digital camera? Know how it perceives those "complex colors"? By using pixels sensitive to red, green, and blue and combining them. Know how all color images on a PC store that complex color data? As red, green, and blue channels. They are combined when the image is displayed. If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye. Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory? I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,14:00    Thank God VMartin answered the simple question, "How old do you think the Earth is?"  Look, I'll just point it out here: Quote Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic. Uh, hmmm.  Must be in the next paragraph According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated. Nope, sorry.  The next one is the money paragraph I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible. uh..... But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted. Teh stupid, it burns Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life. What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it. I would like to apologize for the previous statement implying that there was an answer in the previous load of crap. Come on, VMartin, if you're just going to be jaw-droppingly stupid, leave.  If you're going to stay, please be funny or interesting--wheichever floats your boat. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,16:29    Blipey, you're unaccountably omitting this vtardian gem: Quote If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know. It's made all the better by the fact that V fails to give us any hint as to what it has to do with anything. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,18:10    Arden: Quote Masters Orals, or whatever the Slovakian equivalent is Ah, that would be the Blovius Juris, often translated from the Slovlatinskien as "verbose legalese," but which might more accurately be rendered as "orally fixated."   This critical step in the Slovlatinskien educational system is abbreviated B.J., though that would not be a good reason to conflate Veemeron with a downtrodden worker of the red*-light district. _ *Realizing that Vm has difficulty parsing color descriptors, let's just say that this is the color of the substance most often inserted into lipstick tubes.  At least, outside of Lower Slovlatinskia...

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,19:46    V: If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye. Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory? I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal. ****************************************** V, 'color perception' is a miracle in it's self... sorta like watching a live event on TV or a good movie re-run.  Also you can just close your eyes and fantasize or dream......4 choices. 1. Reality 2. Memory 3. Imagination 4. Dream (sleeping) Zero -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,19:49    Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,23:46) V: If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye. Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory? I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal. ****************************************** V, 'color perception' is a miracle in it's self... sorta like watching a live event on TV or a good movie re-run.  Also you can just close your eyes and fantasize or dream......4 choices. 1. Reality 2. Memory 3. Imagination 4. Dream (sleeping) Zero I thought zero was....well I'm not sure, but I didn't think (s)he was coming back. I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,20:46    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49) I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about. Think about it Ian.  Without # 1, you can't see the other 3. How light reaches you and me is much more complex than how the super bowl reaches our living rooms.  It might have been designed. Zero -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,21:05    Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,20:46)   Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49) I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about. Think about it Ian.  Without # 1, you can't see the other 3. How light reaches you and me is much more complex than how the super bowl reaches our living rooms.  It might have been designed. Zero What, the Superbowl? Of course that was designed... -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,21:17    The following is story # 123 on my web site at hereoisreal.com SUPER BOWL          One morning about five or six years ago, on a Superbowl Sunday, I had to go to the bathroom.  I had this terrible, terrible diarrhea - one of the worst that I had ever had - and I was thinking to myself, "Wow, this is a Super Bowl Sunday - I'll remember this one!"  I had in mind a huge toilet bowl.  I walked out of the bathroom and out into the yard to pick up the Sunday paper.  When I opened it up there was just one big picture on the front of the paper - a huge toilet bowl. Zero -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,22:41    HIR Are you saying god...er the designer imagined the universe before he found a facsimile of his thoughts on a lawn and only found it memorable because he had "diarrhea". Somehow I had in mind something more intelligent -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,04:28    k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. That's 'God' with a capital G. Zero -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Pages: (17) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard