At the risk of discussing against a troll here it goes. First I did a little goggling around the subject, there is no mention anywhere of this supposed research. Not even websites that are pro creationism make any direct reference to this occurrence. It is either bogus or unproved and unnoficial research.monfang said:What you aren't catching is that the lava was tested. Not the rocks. The lava was tested using the method of testing lava formations and it was found to be WAY off.icaritos said:Are you mental? Do you even know where lava comes from? Just because it erupted 50 years in the past it doesn't mean the rocks existed for much much longer.monfang said:I'm going to start with the video first.
IT'S A JOKE!
Seriously, you couldn't pick it up that it was a joke? If you did your research you would see that the owner of the site held a contest for the funniest explanation of evolution. That one won.
Now for my proof:
Claim one: "None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years."
Proof one: in 1996 a scientist was studing a lava flow in New Zeland that was less than 50 yo at the time. He took 11 samples and sent them back to get tested. What came back astonished him.
The lava flow was many millions of years old. The scientist had the lab use potassium-argon (K?Ar) dating methods to test the rocks. The tests give generalised spans of ages and the average of the results is sent back. The results showed 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25?50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ?ages? of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ?ages? of millions of years.
Claim two: Scientists hide facts and lie.
Proof two A: In Dinosaur Valley State Park, near Glen Rose, Texas there is a river bed that supposedly has dinosaur tracts dried in the mud. People have also claimed to have seen human footprints in the mud as well. I have not been there so I can't say that as fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.
Proof two B: Also, personal option that I have gathered based on listening to the people ramble on.
Claim Three: Greeks, Native Americans, Chinese and Hebrew people have Dinosaurs in their historical writings
Proof Three: Lets start with the Griffin. That's right, that half bird half lion creature.. is really different than what you believe. First off, as apposed to other creatures of the time, the griffin was not the offspring of gods and was not associated with the adventures of Greek gods or heroes. Instead, griffins were generic animals believed to exist in the preset day; they were encountered by ordinary people who prospected for gold in distant lands.
Griffins are typically described as a race of four-footed birds having the beaks of eagles and the claws of lions, probably not flying but leaping in the air and digging in the ground, living in the desert wilderness.
Now look up the Protoceratops. Or let me do it for you: http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Protoceratops012.jpg
Beak, claw. And the researcher goes on to talk about how the creature was treated differently than other 'mythical' animals. You can read all about it here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i8f.htm#footnote1
For the rest, read here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1f.htm
Any questions?
Not to mention he has quite failed to take me up on my challenge to literalist interpretations of Genesis from a theological and interpretational standpoint. That's par for the course as well, mind you, but it would be nice to have an excuse to take out the primary leg YEC stands on. 'Tis bad theology and poor interpretation that's the problem. The bad non-science that these things inspire is a terribly unfortunate side-effect.evilneko said:In that he is quite typical of creationists.lotr rocks 0 said:I love how monfang just keeps jumping back and forth between arguments, and once one of his arguments gets thoroughly disproven, he doesn't even acknowledge it any more and moves on to a new argument, which gets disproven, etc.
He also flagrantly abuses many logical fallacies, displays an unwillingness to accept evidence offered to him, and bases his belief in part on his own lack of understanding of evolution. 'bout the only thing he's done that most won't is admit to the latter.
thanks for clearing that upThaliur said:You are very close to the truth. Mutations are important for evolution because without them differences could not occur. Every lifeform "mutates" over time. Radiation, radical ions (basically atoms with a high "desire" to bond, thus ripping apart other molecules to create molecules of their own) and other influences, even "write errors" during mitosis, cause bits of the DNA to change. most of these changes, however, are quickly repaired by mechanisms insde the cells (the DNA has two interlocking strands, so if a part of one is damaged, it can be reconstructed from the other strands. Pretty much like a mirroring RAID configuration in hard disks). Some mutations can not be repaired though, and can potentially cause diseases like cancer in some cells. if a mutation happens in the cells used to procreate (sperm and egg cells for example), it can cause more extensive effects, since all other cells of the growing organism are derived from these original cells, and unfixable errors are copied along the useful "data". This way, mutations affect future generations, and while some of them essentially render the new lifeform useless or at least less suitable for its place in the world (like being born without the ability to produce certain enzymes. We can substitute these now, since biochemists are able to extract them from other organisms or even create specific bacteria that produce them, but it would have been bad a few centuries ago), other mutations actually improve the lifeform and most of them just don't matter since they happen in one of the inactive parts of the DNA (humans have a lot of leftover code from their ancestors which serves no recognisable purpose today except for "padding" the actual code by lowering the chance that mutations will happen in the important parts. Even some virus DNA was permanently integrated in human DNA, but is usually inactive).Vault101 said:disclamer: my knowlege of science is very limited/sctechy....so please if anyone out there could correct me If Im wrong
1. I'm not sure evolution relies on mutations..arnt mutatiosn suposed to be random? (blond hair is a mutation isnt it?) evolution relies on natural selection, of useful traits (for that place and animal) being passed on, animals adapting to thrive in their environemtn, makes perfect sense to me
Whichever trait is able to "live on" will become part of the species. For example, in an area with a low concentration of oxygen (on mountains, for example) some goats are born with a set of genes that leads to a higher concentration of hemoglobin (the stuff most mammals use to transport oxygen) or even erythrocytes (red blood cells, contain hemoglobin, and almost nothing else) in their bodies. These goats are now able to take more of the available oxygen into their bodies, thus they have a higher endurance than most others of their generation. Then the male goats start fighting over the females. The ones with higher endurance can fight longer, more opponents and are probably still in good shape after the others gave up. Now they get to have children, who will inherit this improved composition of their blood.
Lots of these tiny changes can even lead to different species.
This is the process of natural selection, which was imitated by humans trying to breed cows that produce more milk or meat than others, horses that are stronger or faster than others, and all the different kinds of dogs, some of which would never be able to survive under natural conditions.
Yes, according to the current scientific opinion, they did, and apparently even cross-bred (seems they were still similar enough), but these are recent findings, you know? Not the true knowledge that was absolutely not made up thousands of years ago.2. wait, since when has lucys bones been only from 10 000 years ago?, I thourght it was general consensus she was from around 3 million years or so oh and you know lucy is waaaay before anything resembling a neanderthral? in fact didnt neanderthals and humans more or less co-exist?
This exactly is the problem. And they are actively trying to spread that ignorance, at least in the US, which is unacceptable.and what do you mean we arnt finding bones? we HAVE found bones...
to me it seems that people who argue against evolution..their understanding of it isnt 100%
I love this postThaliur said:Of course it isn't. Real evidence can only be provided by people writing books about something, like the strictly scientific observations about Griffins no one ever found any remains of:BrassButtons said:Way to dismiss an entire field of science. "Oh, this is just supported by paleontology--there's no real evidence."monfang said:Most signs of this type of evolution come from broken, scattered bones from long gone animals.
monfang said:The point I am trying to make is that these creatures are the only ones to be so detailed. Their discriptions match our modern models for the creatures that we only formed though simulations using bones and advanced computers. They did it ether using their own imaginations or perhaps they truely saw it.
Read Flavius Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, translated by F. C. Conybeare, volume I, book III.XLVIII., 1921, p. 333.
No great power of flying. They are not winged. The man speaks about how it is able to fight dragons, elephants and tigers and win. Mine gold with it's beak. (Or perhap it is carving out a nest in stone like a woodpecker with wood.) I hope you understand that the Griffins that are seen in games like WoW is not the Greek Griffin.As to the gold which the griffins dig up, there are rocks which are spotted with drops of gold as with sparks, which this creature can quarry because of the strength of its beak. ?For these animals do exist in India? he said, ?and are held in veneration as being sacred to the Sun ; and the Indian artists, when they represent the Sun, yoke four of them abreast to draw the images ; and in size and strength they resemble lions, but having this advantage over them that they have wings, they will attack them, and they get the better of elephants and of dragons. But they have no great power of flying, not more than have birds of short flight; for they are not winged as is proper with birds, but the palms of their feet are webbed with red membranes, such that they are able to revolve them, and make a flight and fight in the air; and the tiger alone is beyond their powers of attack, because in swiftness it rivals the winds.
That's all that I can find on the subject. You make your final point which I believe will go back to your prior point and I will wash my hand on the subject.The joint of my cars rear-view mirror was broken. I glued the mirror directly on the socket. The bad news is the mirror can't be adjusted to other drivers anymore since the socket and the mirror carrier are now essentially one part. The good news is, I now have a completely different car...monfang said:I watched it. And I'm not convinced. Fusion of the chromosomes is not proof of common ancestry. If anything, it just means that humans and apes are already even more different. It was already known that Apes and Humans share 98% of their DNA (That might change after finding Arti) so finding that this 'fused' chromosome is similar to two pairs of the ape's doesn't surprise me. It just means that humans are different from apes.
But of course you are not convinced. I have a handy set of wikipedia articles which you might find interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_credential
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neglect_of_probability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentional_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotyping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_validation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup_bias
And last but not least, one that seems to be very widespread among creationists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_cascade
I just can't decide which of these fit you best...
Now I will stop reading this thread for a while, because it's 2:39 according to my computer clock.
Maybe tomorrow monfang will finally realise that by rejecting science he lost the right to use any electronics.
I actually think the bible is a big pile of crap.kidd25 said:http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm that website has outside sources talking about Jesus Christ, so either the Romans are lying about him or he actually lived. True most creationism do believe the bible on that of the creation of the world, but then do you believe the bible is one big myth or a bunch of little myths?Monkey lord said:there are no arcilogical evidence of jesue ever existing except for the bible and the bible is not hard evidence. And as far as creationism goes the only so called evidence they have is the bible says so.kidd25 said:God are you talking about the laws of nature, if a thing did create the universe then why is it impossible for it to break the laws of nature, laws of nature and logic aren't the same thing :/Monkey lord said:just because we don't have a perfict explination for evrything then it dosen't mean that the invisible wizard did it.kidd25 said:well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.Monkey lord said:creationismkidd25 said:can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?Monkey lord said:what scientific evidence ?
And have you read the bible?
if there is a god then he doesn't know the meaning of the word logic.
well no just because we don't have a perfect explication for something, doesn't mean that it was just God and that is it. there is somethings that are like that, for example breaking the laws of nature so far has been done by Jesus. but things like science and math, is reasoning and making thesis and hypothesis on different things.
Fair enough, we all say things we haven't fully thought through sometimes.kidd25 said:true, i ain't going to lie that is one way of looking at it. i should study some more before talking on this subject again, and please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject >.<The-Epicly-Named-Man said:That's a very weak argument. I could just as easily say a monkey built it from the ruins of a past universe and then use your explanation as "evidence".
Well seeing as there is no evidence for creationism it isn't that difficult to have seen it all.xiac79 said:I find the results less than believeable. Any discussion i have had involving evolution (and most other acedemic topics) involve very little knowledge beyond a basic highschool and perhaps rudimentry freshman college understanding of current trends and theories. something you learned in highschool or your 100 level biology class does not constitute a study of evolutionary theory. Both sides of the evolutionary arguement are guilty of this.
Macroevolution = Microevolution + Microevolutionmonfang said:Monfang believes in Microevolution but not Macroevolution.ShadowsofHope said:By such logic, centimeters (micro) exist, but meters (macro) do not.monfang said:Microevolution and Macroevolution. I believe the former is true but the latter is not.Amphoteric said:You know that some kinds of "Fish" are more closely related to Humans than those fish are to other kinds of "Fish".monfang said:I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.
Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?
Its ALL to do with genetics.
Also you say you believe Evolution is true up until any evolution takes place. Why not just say "I don't believe evolution takes place".
ShadowsofHope asserts that centimeters are micro and meters are macro.
Monfang doesn't believe in Meters.
Yeah... it sort of does. Jesus really is widely believed to be a real historical figure, it's only his status as the messiah that's questioned.Monkey lord said:I actually think the bible is a big pile of crap.kidd25 said:http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm that website has outside sources talking about Jesus Christ, so either the Romans are lying about him or he actually lived. True most creationism do believe the bible on that of the creation of the world, but then do you believe the bible is one big myth or a bunch of little myths?Monkey lord said:there are no arcilogical evidence of jesue ever existing except for the bible and the bible is not hard evidence. And as far as creationism goes the only so called evidence they have is the bible says so.kidd25 said:God are you talking about the laws of nature, if a thing did create the universe then why is it impossible for it to break the laws of nature, laws of nature and logic aren't the same thing :/Monkey lord said:just because we don't have a perfict explination for evrything then it dosen't mean that the invisible wizard did it.kidd25 said:well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.Monkey lord said:creationismkidd25 said:can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?Monkey lord said:what scientific evidence ?
And have you read the bible?
if there is a god then he doesn't know the meaning of the word logic.
well no just because we don't have a perfect explication for something, doesn't mean that it was just God and that is it. there is somethings that are like that, for example breaking the laws of nature so far has been done by Jesus. but things like science and math, is reasoning and making thesis and hypothesis on different things.
and jesus beaing mentiond in other texts is not proof of his existens there are also some ancient texts discriping the origin of the universe in norse mythology if this is all the evidence you need then congratulations
Your statement proves my point. There is also no empiracle, repeatable, or demonstrable evidence of self actuated organic evolution on the multi-celular level. What we have is a large amount evidence who's most logical expliantion we can formulate lends itself to our current views of Organic evolution. However as it is still a theoretical science, a new discovery at any time, could completly invalidate our current understanding, as has happened with many well accepted theories throughout history.Amphoteric said:Well seeing as there is no evidence for creationism it isn't that difficult to have seen it all.xiac79 said:I find the results less than believeable. Any discussion i have had involving evolution (and most other acedemic topics) involve very little knowledge beyond a basic highschool and perhaps rudimentry freshman college understanding of current trends and theories. something you learned in highschool or your 100 level biology class does not constitute a study of evolutionary theory. Both sides of the evolutionary arguement are guilty of this.
Still, this is more than enough to understand how utterly illogical, unrealistic, hypocritical and in parts even self-contradicting creationism is. If a "theory" breaks the rules stated by itself, it is worthless.xiac79 said:I find the results less than believeable. Any discussion i have had involving evolution (and most other acedemic topics) involve very little knowledge beyond a basic highschool and perhaps rudimentry freshman college understanding of current trends and theories.
Yes, that is the point of science. And exactly what you just described (complete invalidation) happened to every single pseudoscience that existed so far. The only problem with this process is, that people still refuse to apply scientific thinking to creationism, yet still demand it to be taken seriously as a science, while they pretend to be able to disprove evolution by louzdly proclaiming that they do not understand the concept of it at all.xiac79 said:Your statement proves my point. There is also no empiracle, repeatable, or demonstrable evidence of self actuated organic evolution on the multi-celular level. What we have is a large amount evidence who's most logical expliantion we can formulate lends itself to our current views of Organic evolution. However as it is still a theoretical science, a new discovery at any time, could completly invalidate our current understanding, as has happened with many well accepted theories throughout history.Amphoteric said:Well seeing as there is no evidence for creationism it isn't that difficult to have seen it all.
Yes, that possibility exists. If such an alien shows up, though, I'm quite certain that the probability of uncontrolled laughter on their part is far higher if humans still cling to an understanding of the world that was already disproven before it was even properly formulated (not that it is properly formulated now, but at least someone wrote down rules for it.)There is always that possibility that some god or space alien of vastly supierior knowledge could show up tomorrow and laugh at our meager understanding. As we do not know for sure, it is pretty presumptious of anyone on either side of the arguement to laugh and point the finger of scorn at the other. Placing more creedance in a theory than it rightly deserves is akin to dogmatic faith and places credible scientific threory directly in the realm of theology.
(insert doctor cox wrong,wrong jingle here)- if your going to be insulting i will tooAMMO Kid said:but we have only ever found bad mutations in creatures that are harmful to life
Yes. Yes there is. Jesus is widely accepted as a historical figure and the only dispute is whether he was God or just a prophet/teacher.Monkey lord said:there are no arcilogical evidence of jesue ever existing except for the bible and the bible is not hard evidence. And as far as creationism goes the only so called evidence they have is the bible says so.
Yup. You just proved your own point, right there.xiac79 said:Your statement proves my point. There is also no empiracle, repeatable, or demonstrable evidence of self actuated organic evolution on the multi-celular level.
First of all, I'd love to see where on earth you got that 'it's ON the walls, not in them' bit, because the best I can figure the claim is nonsensical. The base claim that started this little exchange was you saying that D amino acids were actively toxic to life in general and that nothing living could actually make use of them. With that as a given, the only scenario which could support such an argument is if you were positing that D amino acids were simply at rest on the surface of the bacteria much like dust on an unused piano, rather directly translating to a claim that the amino acids should only have been counted as contaminants. That is the only scenario I can think of which you'd use to support your base claim. Any scenario where the cell actually incorporated the amino acids as a part of its structure would directly work against your point, so it would seem unlikely that your gist there was "they're part of the outer cell wall".monfang said:Actually, no. Its on the walls, not in the protein sequencing nor does it have a factor in development of proteins.Asita said:Note how the line immediately following that statement noted that D amino acids are found in bacterial cell walls and in peptide antibiotics, rather contrary to the point you're trying to make.monfang said:Oh dang! You got me mixed up. Please read here: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~molbio/Courses/301/DL_AA.pdf
Bottom of the page, note where it says that all Amino Acids used in protein synthesis are L and are part of the 20 required Amino Acids. I allowed myself to get mixed up into non-DNA related topics. So let me reiterate. D-type Amino Acids prevent protein synthesis. In Dr Miller's experiment only 13 of the required 20 types were made and part of those were always D-type preventing protein synthesis. That was written in Dr Miller's own report.