Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Thread for Christopher Gieschen

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,06:51

To Jon F

Here is the quote from the AIG text. Will you accept this or do I have to quote the whole chapter so you can't claim I took it out of context?

"After a mineral containing uranium atoms is formed, the products of uranium decay begin to collect in the mineral. The age of the mineral is found by determining the ratio of the parent material (238U) to the end product (206Pb). Special equipment must be used for determining uranium-to-lead ratios. In using this method, it is assumed that none of the lead escapes from the mineral, that no outside lead is added, and that no lead from a non-radioactive source was present to begin with. If any of these conditions have affected the sample being tested, the results will not be accurate."

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,06:57

Okay,

Today's two issues :

1. You gentlepeople have about 60+ years of hundreds of studies with massive amounts of grants on your side.
My side has only recently begun to tackle the problem, hence the meger amount of data. For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise. He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters. I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

2. I am not saying that you don't claim a designer, but reading the anti design bloggers on the design sites, plus the "cruel designer" notion seems to me that you shoot yourselves in the foot. Unless you claim nature...oops...I mean Nature (so you can deify the process) is the designer, which is a nonstarter for you.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:18

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,06:44)

oldman,

Here is better article about the Tyre question.

http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/where-is-tyre

Any other questions about the Dawkins material?

The article says:

Quote

Although there is a city in Lebanon called Tyre today

So the article you linked to says there is a Tyre. Case closed.
If I make a prediction that London would be destroyed, never to be rebuilt and then somebody destroyed it and rebuilt it a little to the left, even I would admit that "London" exists still, irregardless of exactly where it was.

The fact is there is a city called Tyre that, one way or another, is the city mentioned in the bible.

The article you linked to also says

Quote

Alexander removed every trace of the original city's ruins, it's exact location is still a matter of debate.

So for all you know the "new" Type could be exactly where the "old" Type was.
And other information contradicts what you are saying

Quote

Even though Alexander did, indeed, destroy the city of Tyre, it was immediately rebuilt and became an important Greek, and later Roman, seaport. It still exists today as a resort city of Lebanon. This clearly violates Ezekiel�s judgment that it would never be rebuilt and become a bare rock upon which to dry fishnets.

Quote

there is even more compelling evidence from within Scripture itself, indeed, from Ezekiel himself, that this view is deficient. In 571 BC, two years or so after Nebuchadnezzar abandoned the siege of Tyre and it had become obvious to everyone that he would not be able to destroy the city, Ezekiel gives another prophecy concerning Tyre.

29:17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: 29:18 "Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against it. 29:19 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. 29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt as his recompense for which he labored, because they worked for me, says the Lord GOD.

Here, Ezekiel rather frankly acknowledges Nebuchadnezzar�s failure to take Tyre even though he labored hard trying to do so (13 years!). So Ezekiel, seemingly without any embarrassment at the failure of his original prophecy, simply changed it after the fact to fit the historical situation as it had actually unfolded.

Link

So it's not really a prophecy if it's made after the fact now is it?

As to the Dawkins issue. I originally asked you "Could you tell me what part of his answer you disagree with? "

As far as I can tell you have not said anything about Dawkin's awnswer to the information issue, so my original question stands. Where do you disagree with Dawkins?

Dawkins On Information

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:33

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,06:57)

Okay,

Today's two issues :

1. You gentlepeople have about 60+ years of hundreds of studies with massive amounts of grants on your side.
My side has only recently begun to tackle the problem, hence the meger amount of data. For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise. He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters. I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

2. I am not saying that you don't claim a designer, but reading the anti design bloggers on the design sites, plus the "cruel designer" notion seems to me that you shoot yourselves in the foot. Unless you claim nature...oops...I mean Nature (so you can deify the process) is the designer, which is a nonstarter for you.

1: It's not a case of hundreds of studies, or the amount of grant money. The problem is that if you start from the conclusion you want to prove then you'll have to twist the facts to make them fit.

For example. I'm sure you know of Mr Walt Brown. Do you agree with his work?
Here is part of his explanation of how the asteroids came to be

Quote

Asteroids are composed of rocks expelled from Earth. The size distribution of asteroids does show that at least part of a planet fragmented. Although an energy source is not available to explode and disperse an entire Earth-size planet, the �fountains of the great deep� with its supercritical water (explained on page 112), could have launched one 2,300th of the Earth�the mass of all asteroids combined. Astronomers have tried to describe the exploded planet, not realizing they were standing on the remaining 99.95% of it�too close to see it.7

Link
Yet it is very easy to knock this down, as the quote from a poster at IIDB shows

Quote

Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
(1) walts model cannot explain the distribution of the asteroids in the belt
(2) walts model cannot explain how the asteroids formed
(3) walts model does not explain why the constituents of the asteroids are more like the sun than the earth.
(4) walts model does not explain why 75% of the material in the asteroid belt is chondritic
(5) walts model does not explain why these objects appear to have formed in low temperature environments and look like they have never been heated up
(6) walts model does not explain the extraterrestrial amino acids and other chemicals not seen on earth.
(7) walts model does not explain how the hell these objects got into those orbits

Link
So I think you'd agree that it's not the "number of grants" that is the issue, it's the fact that Walt's proposals can easily be disconfirmed. Observed facts about asteroids disprove Walt's contentions. Its not like "further research" will change that fact. It's immutable. Why would we therefore bother with Walt's "model" when

a) it's been disproved already
b) Walt is not bothered about it being disproved and repeats the same canards over and over.

2: As we originally "met" on a thread that was defending Behe's claims that certain biological events involved in the evolution of HIV could not have happened without a designer, what other conclusion is there? Either HIV evolves on it's own, or a unnammed designer is tinkering with it to make it more vile.

And here is an answer to your "what difference does the original of a thing make to further study of it" question.

If HIV is gods punishment for misbehaving then why would religious scientists who subscribed to that view bother to research a cure? After all, those religious scientists would be working directly against god.

So there's your answer. If HIV is god's will then good Christian scientists will not attempt to cure it. If it's not gods will then good Christan scientists can attempt to cure it in good conscience.

That's the difference that "where a thing comes from" makes.

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

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:34

Great sig BTW OM

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:35

Quote (k.e @ Oct. 04 2007,07:34)

Great sig BTW OM

Cheers. Damm, that's once attractive birdy :)

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

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:41

Yeah I'm going back to PNG next week. This time I'm taking my binoculars. I've seen a couple of pairs of red birds of paradise in the canopy about 30m up so maybe I can get a better look this time. The locals try to knock them off with a slingshot but you really need a shotgun :)

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

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:55

It works for humans too.

Imagine having to do this every morning before going to work.

You know if there wasn't a slug of scrap steel in a lipstick dispenser no woman would paint her lips.

Those things weigh as much as a decent sized frank.

Personally though, I'm glad they do. It gives them something else to think about besides how to nibble my balls off about something minor.

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

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:55

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,06:57)

Okay,

Today's two issues :

1. You gentlepeople have about 60+ years of hundreds of studies with massive amounts of grants on your side.
My side has only recently begun to tackle the problem, hence the meger amount of data. For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise. He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters. I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

2. I am not saying that you don't claim a designer, but reading the anti design bloggers on the design sites, plus the "cruel designer" notion seems to me that you shoot yourselves in the foot. Unless you claim nature...oops...I mean Nature (so you can deify the process) is the designer, which is a nonstarter for you.

Re claim #1 - Baloney. Your side has had hundreds of years to prove the case, and just haven't figured out that it was discredited over 200 years ago.

Re claim #2 - Strawman. There is no a priori requirement for a designer, deified or not. Natural processes are capable enough.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:27

Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis. Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp

And here is one discussing Grand Canyon dating problems, including the isochron issue.

Finally I urge you to read "In Six Days", which is a collection of essays of 50 true scientists who are brave enough to admit that they are Biblical creationists and they have reasons as to why they are so. I have good company.

mitschlag

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:30

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,06:57)

For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise. �He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters. �I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

You may have it both ways, but there is a telling difference:

Baraminology is an effort to shoe-horn classification into a supernatural history derived from Genesis.

The scientific "species problem" is being debated on naturalistic grounds.

--------------
"You can establish any �rule� you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:43

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,08:27)

Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis. Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp

And here is one discussing Grand Canyon dating problems, including the isochron issue.

Finally I urge you to read "In Six Days", which is a collection of essays of 50 true scientists who are brave enough to admit that they are Biblical creationists and they have reasons as to why they are so. I have good company.

Why do you use AIG as your source? Don't you trust the mainstream science sites?

They have provably dishonest wrong material on their site that when brought to their attention is not corrected.

For example

Quote

In this mutant, the entire backbone of the dog is shortened, but the legs and skull are normal. Such mutations kill most dogs, with an interesting exception being the female Baboon dog. The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it.

Link

Christopher, how can this "baboon dog" species exist if the male dies before reaching maturity? How does it breed?

AIG has been proven to be unreliable and yet not care. And you use them as a source? Maybe you should double check your facts.

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

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:58

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,16:27)

Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis. �Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp

And here is one discussing Grand Canyon dating problems, including the isochron issue.

Finally I urge you to read "In Six Days", which is a collection of essays of 50 true scientists who are brave enough to admit that they are Biblical creationists and they have reasons as to why they are so. �I have good company.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAH

U R F8CKING NUTS!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:08

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,09:27)

Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis. Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp

Well, if AiG says their man Carl won the debate, then I will certainly believe them! Consider me convinced, Chris.

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

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

fusilier

Posts: 252
Joined: Feb. 2003

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:21

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,10:17)

{snip}

To fusilier,

Here is the LCMS position on evolution

http://www.iclnet.org/pub....3.html.

I have no idea at this time why this was so. �And I am curious as to why you use James 2:24.

Sorry, I'm having a BlackBoard meltdown to deal with - 30 lab sections for anatomy and physiology - I didn't get a chance to reply, earlier.

I got 404'd when I attempted to read your link; could you please summarize?

It is a fact that the Pastors at Calvary Lutheran Church and School in Indianapolis, have told me that evolutionary biology and an old earth are not permitted by LCMS doctrine.

It is a fact that the pastor emeritus of that congregation told me that in the 1920's he was taught geocentric astronomy as factual, at Concordia Seminary in Chicago. �I should point out that my Dad was studying at the University of Kentucky for his engineering degree at the same time, so I know that notion was not taught at most universities in the US.

><><><><
Now, just why do you think I would use a quotation from the Letter of St. James in my sig line?

fusilier
James 2:24

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:25

Quote (fusilier @ Oct. 04 2007,09:21)

I got 404'd when I attempted to read your link; could you please summarize?

take off the full stop at the end of the url :)

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

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:25

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,07:57)

Okay,

Today's two issues :

1. You gentlepeople have about 60+ years of hundreds of studies with massive amounts of grants on your side.
My side has only recently begun to tackle the problem, hence the meger amount of data. For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise. He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters. I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

2. I am not saying that you don't claim a designer, but reading the anti design bloggers on the design sites, plus the "cruel designer" notion seems to me that you shoot yourselves in the foot. Unless you claim nature...oops...I mean Nature (so you can deify the process) is the designer, which is a nonstarter for you.

1) Your side has had over a thousand years. The fact that you're not getting grant money is because you don't produce any results. And when people do give you money (and they do), you spend it all on PR instead of actual research.

Your "lumpers/splitters" argument is a false analogy. Arguments about species classification are complex because speciation itself is not a simple, cut-and-dried concept. Baraminology, however, is drop-dead simple. There were original kinds, completely separate and unable to mix. Therefore, the lines of separation should be clear and obvious. If there were real evidence of baraminology, it should jump out at us - especially when looking at the genetic evidence. The fact that you haven't found anything in all these years is a damn good indication that it doesn't exist.

BTW, it would be FANTASTIC if you wanted to continue the discussion on baraminology with us. It's a fun topic, but for some reason all of the creationists seem to clam up whenever it gets discussed.

2. I don't understand your paragraph here. Evolution most certainly does NOT claim a designer. But it doesn't deny one, either, which you erroneously seemed to think earlier.

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

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:36

oldman,

I refer you Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and he makes a very important point. The original population who lived in Tyre were besieged by Nebbuchadnezzar. The mainland port was destroy by him, but not the island part of Tyre, also called Tyre. This was distroyed by Alexander, who built a causeway by using the rubble of the mainland port of Tyre, thus casting it into the sea. He then totally destroyed the island city of Tyre, which later sunk beneath the waves and is only a series of reefs, obviously never to be rebuilt. So the prophecy remains true.

On the issue of the mutant dog. I fail to see how this is erroneous information or how this helps your case. You confuse breed of dog with the species of dog (canis familiaris). This in no way helps your case. Point out a better example of an error they don't admit to.

On the HIV issue, I do not believe that it was "designed" by God. God allowed it to mutate. We are commanded by Him to help others. Attempting to alleviate others' suffering is what we try to do. This means we are not directly going against God's work. Obviously, those who put themselves at risk with behavior contrary to God's commands are still able to receive our help.

It is very interesting to me to note that everything considered "bad" by most people, evos. included, such as weeds and diseases and pests of all sorts like rats, flies, and cockroaches resist even our best efforts to erradicate them. We now are at about 20+ STDs and we used to have only two or three. I refer you to the bird. I agree very beautiful indeed. But could we wipe it out? Sure! How about endangered species? Sure! but the cockroach? Nope. And smallpox is only one of a huge list of viruses yet to be wiped out.

To those who wave Walt Brown in my face, AIG does not buy into his work thank you very much.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:44

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,09:36)

oldman,

I refer you Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and he makes a very important point. The original population who lived in Tyre were besieged by Nebbuchadnezzar. The mainland port was destroy by him, but not the island part of Tyre, also called Tyre. This was distroyed by Alexander, who built a causeway by using the rubble of the mainland port of Tyre, thus casting it into the sea. He then totally destroyed the island city of Tyre, which later sunk beneath the waves and is only a series of reefs, obviously never to be rebuilt. So the prophecy remains true.

Could you point out for me where the prediction references "the Island city of Tyre" rather then "Tyre"?

I'm glad to hear you have no truck with Walt Brown.

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

Steverino

Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:46

"Why do you use AIG as your source? Don't you trust the mainstream science sites?"

Because they say what he wants to hear. �He has chosen to cherry pick information that he believes makes his case.

Christopher,

Dendrochonology of the bristlecone dates to about 9000 years old. �3000 years well past translated age of the earth from the Bible.

Is that bogus dating also?

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:49

Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 04 2007,10:46)

Dendrochonology of the bristlecone dates to about 9000 years old. 3000 years well past translated age of the earth from the Bible.

Is that bogus dating also?

And there are 29,000 years of varve layers in Lake Suigetsu. We could go on and on with these independent dating examples.

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

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

blipey

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:58

Hey Christopher:

My question remains unanswered and I think it is an important one.

Quote

You don't believe that the origin of beetles can ever, even in principle, be understood by the scientific community?

Really?

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

Steverino

Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:07

Yeah, not sure about that one myself. I'm restoring a 66 Beetle. It's a bitch to......oh wait....never mind!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:12

blipey,

On the beetle issue, I said that a hunch or idea may surface, but we will never know for sure. Just like the apatosaurus had the wrong head for 50 years until something newer came along...therefore if the origin were ever determined, then someday something new would overturn that. So I guess my answer is no.

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:19

oldman,

I'll ask my colleague for his take on that. In the meantime, I never responded to your Dawkins question, though I thought I had. Sorry!

I read his reply and he discusses the "model" type whatever that means, but he never really stated what process will add information to the genome. And for you bacterial resistance types as evo evidence, how does the deletion or inactivation of a gene add features to a future line of living things? Another problem I have with mutations adding structures that had not existed before is my spider quandry.

Suppose we do get a spider to evolve from some insect perhaps? archearachnid? whatever. Then how does it know how to use the spinnerets? You must mutate the brain to instinctively know what to do with the new thing. Otherwise we get spinnerets and the poor guy is trapped in his own web at worst or just drags it behind at best. Go back to the design site and reread TV engineer's response.

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:22

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,11:19)

Suppose we do get a spider to evolve from some insect perhaps? archearachnid? whatever. Then how does it know how to use the spinnerets? You must mutate the brain to instinctively know what to do with the new thing. Otherwise we get spinnerets and the poor guy is trapped in his own web at worst or just drags it behind at best. Go back to the design site and reread TV engineer's response.

I pity your students.

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

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:50

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,07:36)

We now are at about 20+ STDs and we used to have only two or three.

Source, please.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 04 2007,11:01

Jon F

I have tried to get the paper you refer to the origin of centromeres, etc. But I can't get to it. Would you do me the kindness by providing me with a link? Thanks much.

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007