Good grief. I have other things to do than write posts all day in AI. Cells to split, experiments to run, and papers to read. I haven't left because I was "intimdated" I left because I have to get sleep and actually get work done.
That said, let's get to it.
Originally posted by Hassan i SabbahThis is incorrect. It has. It was all over the news. Iridium deposits ahoy. Google for a 180-kilometer diameter ring structure centered on the present coastline of the Gulf of Mexico and several hundred metres of sedimentary deposits and the word 'Chicxulub'. Magnetic anomolies suggesting a huge crater measureable from space. For heaven's sake.
I was fully aware of the iridium "layer" theory. It's one that has been postulated by many naturalists for quite some time. However, there is significant disagreement (even among geologists) that it was from the asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
For a summary of the problems encountered in trying to associate the extinction event with the impact layer, see these resources:
Signor, P.W., and J.H. Lipps. 1982. Sampling bias, gradual extinction patterns and catastrophes in the fossil record, p. 291-296, in Silver, L.T., and P.H. Schultz (eds.). Geological implications of impacts of large asteroids and comets on the Earth. Geological Society of America Special Paper 190.
Williams, M.E. 1994. Catastrophic versus noncatastrophic extinction of the dinosaurs: Testing, falsifiability, and the burdon of proof. Journal of Paleontology 68: 183-190.
By all means!
Gravity is a theory. Like evolution. You are arguing, it appears, and depressingly predictably so, from a position of ignorance about the scientific term 'theory'. Just go to some University websites or do some frigging Googling. Gravity exists. We can see it. The planet is ancient. We can see it. We haven't yet been able to measure the causes of gravity. It is a theory.
Gravity doesn't happen. We don't understand it. It's only a theory.
You very obviously did not follow the link I posted for a definition of a law. Try again
You also very obviosly did not even read your own link
, as on the very same page is this:
Law of gravitation, Newton's law of gravitation - (physics) the law that states any two bodies attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them
Also, on this link
, is the following lines:
Newton's law is often used and will be presented first.
1 Newton's law of universal gravitation
Hopefull this will put the "theory" of gravitation to rest.
I beg you. Please find out the truth for yourself. Get your nose out of that Book and look at how awesome the universe is.
Actually, I have my nose in lots of "Books", and I realize how awesome the world is, especially because I don't think it came about by pure chance.
I'm not afraid of facts, you see. And I still have to see you present one single piece of evidence so important that the sum total of the last century's research in these fields has to be counted out en masse.
There is a Nobel Prize in it for you.
You obviosly are unaware of how science works. Very rarely is a scientific theory knocked dead by a single discovery or statement. There is a progression of unrefutable evidence (like thermodynamics, which is not subject
to interpretation like paleontology) that eventually makes the incorrect position untenable.[/b]
No. They are not. Only lupus is a disease. All of these conditions result from genetic predispositions and are what we could call 'design flaws.'
You obviously do not know the definition of a disease. Please read this
to be informed. You also very obviously ignored my statements about the progression of genetic damage (mutations).
The last time you checked you were completely, utterly, lost-an-argument-on-the-internet-by-ignorance-of-the-facts wrong. Strata are dated by an estimate of the time it would take for immense pressures to petrify organic sediments, their geographical location, their depth, a calculation of the immense time it would take for vulcanisation to cover ancient heathers, for a sea to cross all of it laying down the organisms that become limestone, for silts to cover that, for more vulcanisation to cover that, for a tectonic plate to crash into it and push the fossils of extinct tropical palms into the Arctic, the pertaining environmental conditions of the time they were laid down (cross-checked across entire continents) and the immense time it would take for immense pressures to transmute igneous rocks, stuff like that.
Let's get down to buisness:
First, petrification, or fossilization can not be expressed linearly. There are simply way too many variables, such as how fast sediment was accumulated, how much, and the conditions before and after. As a perfect example, in the June 1996 issue of Earth magazine, paleontologists found a non-fossilized section of a T-Rex bone. Impressive, no? Again, your interpretation depends on your axioms. If you state that a certain fossil is x million years old, then a fossil found below it must be x + y million years old. (not considering plate inversion or anything like that). If you (again, assume) that it takes a million years to generate 100 feet of sediment, and fossil y was found 100 feet above fossil x, then it would be a perfectly valid statement to say that fossil x was x + 1 million years old, as long as your axiom was right. If instead, it took only three days to generate 100 feet of sediment (which has been done in flood plains a lot quicker than that), then all of your conclusions have been shot to heck.
If you believe in a massive flood, something that could cover the face of the earth, then tectonic plate rearragement is very plausible (in fact, expected). Being alive around the time of the flood and immediately after during the settling of the geology must have been terrifying indeed. As for tropical plants found in the arctic (like those in the stomaches of frozen woolly mammoths found in siberia), the immense impact a global flood would have on the ecosystem would have could explain these changes.
Most creationists believe that a very dense water vapor canopy once existed in the atmosphere, which would go very far to explain the increased atmospheric pressures evident in fossils (like 6-foot dragonflies), as well as explaining how the world would have one been very green-house like.
The Chauvet caves. I pointed out the depth of virgin mineral deposits, the bones of extinct species and pollen in the cave. I could have added the glacially-sealed cave entrance, marine artifacts discovered inside, heaven knows what else. You decided to settle on the carbon dating, as if that would make all of the other evidence for the painting's immense age redundant. I should have remembered: never, ever mention carbon dating when you're debating with someone who believes that the planet is 10,000 years old (I can't believe I'm writing this.)
Read my statements above as to how a cave containing pollen and bones could contain marine artifacts that have been sealed off in a cave by a glacier forming after the flood. i.e. Things living in the cave....a flood comes by and deposits marine artifacts...a glacier comes through after the flood and seals it off.
So, it seems that there's some striations on Mt St Helens that apparently formed very quickly, making all of glacial science redundant and proving that (I don't know) glaciation never happened and that the world is very young.
Except it turns out that your example is nonsense.
Hardly. The evidence you posted goes to support the statement that fine striations in massive amounts of deposited material can form very
Also, I never said glaciers couldn't have existed. Seems to me a massive flood and the subsequent ecological disturbances are an excellent vehicle.
Orginally posted by hardeeharhar
Why does there need to be an intelligence to any of this? Do we not understand yet that you can toss a coin and some fraction of the time it will land on its edge?
Yes, because tossing a coin and having it land on its edge is a great example of how amino acids could concentrate, autocatalyze their polymerization (in the correct order nonetheless!) and fold to make a catalytic shape. (and that's only a single enzyme).
A billion monkeys banging on a billion typewriters writing sonnets is a pathetic example of the true problems necessary for life to have evolved. Fact of the matter is, no "macroevolution" has ever been observed, only postulated from microevolution. Segovius is correct, if evolution made one mistake (especially early on), it would have wiped out any chance of contuining the process at that point. Just because the monkeys make a trillion mistakes (as they are expected to do) does not in any way mean that they would eventually be predestined to write a correct one. (As there was no way to prevent from doing the same mistake twice)
hardeehar, The AI forums are a perfect place to discuss the likelyhood of evolution, because the usual mantra of "Well, everybody believes it" does not apply. If that statement were true, Windows would be considered the best operating system, and we'd all be lauding it. As it is, there is probably a higher percentage of scientists that have significant doubts about evolution than apple has marketshare (unfortunately...)
What did God say when you asked him what the biological mechanism was that prevented information being added to the genome?
I didn't say there was a biological mechanism that prevented the addition of more genetic material.
Prokaryotes are usually very stingy with their genomic data, but they make up for that by dividing very quickly. (as well as picking up DNA from their surroundings)
Eukaryotes on the other hand, have pretty sophisticated DNA handling techniques, so they can tolerate a lot more excess material, which allows for very fine tuning of the control mechanisms of the actually transcribed material. (which recently was found to be probably less than 25,000 genes in humans, link
What did God say when you asked him if the catholic church had forged the references to Jesus in Josephus' work?
You still haven't provided any material backing that claim.
What did God say when you asked him if the theory of Evolution was the best explaination of how mankind got here?