# EXPELLED



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Greetings,

>>>> www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php

Have at it..........

Bye


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Don't be a sucker*

The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Category: Creationism

I have to make this really, really simple for the "Hitler was an evolutionist" dimwits.

There is a central, incredibly obvious fact in Darwin's insight.

If members of a population die or are killed off, they will leave no descendants for subsequent generations.

It isn't razzle-dazzle genius. Any idiot can figure that one out - and many idiots have. Farmers have known it for millennia, when they set aside particularly fruitful seed stock or especially robust farm animals for breeding, and eat the rest. Nazis used this elementary logic when they decided to exterminate Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Eugenicists used it when they wanted to argue for shifting the distribution of certain properties in a population.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
> 
> Category: Creationism
> 
> ...


That wasn't quite simple enough, I'm afraid.

Is there a point?

I'm a creationist, and I would be the last to argue that Darwin's observations were correct. My biggest beef is with so-called evolutionists that interfere with Natural Selection though social engineering. Natural Selection is binary. It either is or is not the strongest determinant. Pick one, be consistent, and let me believe what I want about my God.

As we have discussed previously the biggest collective joke in history is the baby boomer generation. They actually think their collective success inspite of massive individual failures is due to them instead of the 40 year dividend of being the only remaining industrialized country after WW2 and the enormous capital that was created.

It's like people who make swing trades in bull markets and declare themself the next Buffett. The next thing you hear from them is they lost $7B in derivatives and jumped out a window. Gee, that Darwin guy sure was a genius! I mean who could have figured that out?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Problem with macro-evolution is it falls into the same list as Creationism. Macro-evolution has no evidence. If macro-evolution was true we could not help but to see it everywhere, but, instead some people have some big theories and pursue to brainwash everybody with them. We would see by the millions bones of change, but we don't see any. How could we find bones of millions of years ago of this animal but nothing inbetween to the next animal? If you believe in macro-evolution it is because you have been overwhelmed into submission, which, of course, is not intelligent thing on your side. Macro-evolution is a sad con job because so many people fall for it. 

Since you are not free to really push against macro-evolution in "colleges" or any public schools which freedon will you loose next? Since it is a belief system and not science this is why you are not taught the realisticaly why macro-evolution is not true. If there was as much emphasis explaining that macro-evolution maybe not be true this war against the hi-jacking of science by the macro-evolutionist would not be going on.


----------



## Alistair (Aug 12, 2007)

WA said:


> Macro-evolution has no evidence. If macro-evolution was true we could not help but to see it everywhere, but, instead some people have some big theories and pursue to brainwash everybody with them. We would see by the millions bones of change, but we don't see any.


Wow. I mean...wow. Familiar with _Archaeopteryx_? :teacha:


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Alistair said:


> Wow. I mean...wow. Familiar with _Archaeopteryx_? :teacha:


:icon_smile_big: Yes. As it happens, I've just been reading Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything". It sets out these things pretty well. Worth a read for anyone who is, er, confused!


----------



## Justin (Feb 27, 2008)

Well, I had a grand thesis on this topic typed up but when I went to post it it disappeared. So here's the redux.

Both the concept of creationism and spontaneous life/evolution are both just as crazy as one another. Spontaneous life is a mathematical impossiblity while believing in creationism is believing in a higher being that there is no empirical evidence for.

Then when it comes to evolution there is infact no evidence for evolution anywhere. Now before everyone freaks out about Darwin's finches and all, listen up. The words adaptation and evolution get thrown around and interchanged alot. This is innaccurate. 

Adaptation is what we observe, it is a change within a species. It's what gave rise to different races of humans and the beaks on Darwin's finches. 

Evolution is one species actually ascending to a new species, which in the world of sexual reproduction means that the old organism and the new would be unable to mate and produce viable offspring. THIS is what we have no proof of. 

Now I'm no fundamental christian or anything like that and was actually a firm believer in evolution until about 4 years ago. Everything you get taught in public schools tells you there is proof of evolution, and since i was so into science I accepted it as fact. However, once I started looking into the idea of creationism (mainly so I could arm myself for any arguments that would come up with "loony creationists") vs. evolution it dawned on me that both ideas are just as crazy as one another and there is no proof for either one.

I no longer support evolution, but do not go around championing creationism or intelligent design either. 

Justin


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Justin said:


> ...it dawned on me that both ideas are just as crazy as one another and there is no proof for either one.
> 
> I no longer support evolution, but do not go around championing creationism or intelligent design either.
> 
> Justin


I agree with you most whole heartedly. However, if you are going to believe that "stuff" can pop out of thin air, they I find it easier to believe that something extremely simple like a hydrogen atom is more likely to do so that some all powerful being.

Intelligent design is utterly bogus and can be disproved in less that 5 minutes. If you believe in Creationism, have the balls to believe in it and don't try to sell the ID crap.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

android said:


> I agree with you most whole heartedly. However, if you are going to believe that "stuff" can pop out of thin air, they I find it easier to believe that something extremely simple like a hydrogen atom is more likely to do so that some all powerful being.
> 
> Intelligent design is utterly bogus and can be disproved in less that 5 minutes. If you believe in Creationism, have the balls to believe in it and don't try to sell the ID crap.


Why are you so bent out of shape over Creationism or ID but not macro-evoultion? Neither one is science. Creationism and ID use science to combat the ridiculous "theories" of macro-evoultion.

Believing in macro-evoultion is like believing Alice and Wonderland is more than a stupid story. My tax money does not belong being used for continued foolishness of macro-evoultion. Nothing should be taught about how the we got here than to teach and "research" this complete fallacy of macro-evoultion. Since it is neither history nor science it has no purpose, and stealing tax money for it is wrong.


----------



## Justin (Feb 27, 2008)

Well, beyond the science of the issue there's some philosophical ponderings to be thrown out there. 

Rules must be created. In order to be created, there has to be the realization that a rule is needed. This rule must then by created be an entity which was not originally bound by the rule.

So I ask, all the order in nature and what we call laws of physics and the laws of nature, is this all chance?

Again, the mathematical odds of this are roughly equal to the number that comes immediately before zero. So I ask now, which is crazier; a mathematical impossibility or that the rules by which our world exists were created by an entity not bound by the rules?

Honestly, I don't know what to believe. All I know is that by thinking about it and actually forming my own opinion I have realized that the idea of evolution is no more sane than the idea of creationism.

Justin


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

WA said:


> Why are you so bent out of shape over Creationism or ID but not macro-evoultion? Neither one is science. Creationism and ID use science to combat the ridiculous "theories" of macro-evoultion.
> 
> Believing in macro-evoultion is like believing Alice and Wonderland is more than a stupid story. My tax money does not belong being used for continued foolishness of macro-evoultion. Nothing should be taught about how the we got here than to teach and "research" this complete fallacy of macro-evoultion. Since it is neither history nor science it has no purpose, and stealing tax money for it is wrong.


I'm not out of shape over believing in Creation. Just don't try and disguise it or explain it as science. Have the fortitude to say it's a religious belief and that it's what you believe because your deity said it was so. The scientific community supports evolution. It IS science and as such is taught under that subject in every school in the land. Yes, there are some scientists that believe in creation. Just as I'm sure there are some doctors that believe in laying on hands to heal. Still doesn't make it so.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Justin said:


> Well, beyond the science of the issue there's some philosophical ponderings to be thrown out there.
> 
> Rules must be created. In order to be created, there has to be the realization that a rule is needed. This rule must then by created be an entity which was not originally bound by the rule.


This is basically what's wrong with ID. It doesn't follow its basic premise which is that complex, hard to copy systems must require an intelligent designer.

You have to assume one of three things to accept this, Either:

Designer A who is more clever and intelligent than the stuff he designs 
Designer B is equally intelligent to the stuff he designs 
Designer C is stupider than the stuff he designs.

Let's start with Designer C. If that is the case, then we will eventually figure 
out how it was done since we are smarter than designer C that designed us. Once 
that is done, we can create stuff and that makes us equal to or better than our 
creator. Clearly not a superior being worthy of our devotion.

Designer B is pretty much the same case as 3 except it might take us longer to 
figure out. We can regard him as our distinguished peer.

Well that leaves Designer A, who is starting to look good. A superior designer 
is required to make something that is complex and difficult to figure out. The 
universe is very complex and difficult to figure out, therefore it had to be 
made by a superior intelligent designer.

However, by definition, a superior intelligent designer would itself be very 
complex and difficult to figure out and therefore he would have been designed 
and created by an equivalent Designer A, B or C since we have already demanded 
in this argument that a designer MUST exist to design complex, difficult to 
understand stuff.

You can't say that Designer A appeared from nowhere, because you have already 
tossed out the preposterous idea that matter and complexity can appear out of 
thin air when you tossed out evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

So you end up with a never ending chain of superior beings where we are at the 
bottom end of the chain. Now if that is the case, I'd much rather cut out the 
middle man and just deal with somebody much higher up the chain than the 
guy that designed penguins.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Wow*

I shouldn't be, but I continue to be surprised at the insistence of the forces of ignorance and how willing they are to parrot their anti-science, anti-knowledge ideology. You would almost think they believe what they say.

The differences between evolution by natural selection and "Intelligent Design" are obvious:

1. Evolution by natural selection is a science. It is based on observation, hypothesis, and testing. It's analyses and predictions are falsifiable, so contradictory evidence will require all scientists to reject the theory, or parts of it. By contrast, intelligent design, which is nothing more than creationism dressed up in a lab coat, is a religious doctrine. Its adherents will never test its tenets based on the evidence.

2. The mechanism for testing scientific conclusions is publication in peer-reviewed journals, where other knowledgeable researchers in the field can read, evaluate, and challenge the published evidence and results. Creationists have never been able to have an article published in an accepted, peer-reviewed journal because they lack scientific rigor.

3. The most familiar scientific seeming claims of creationists are simply false. For instance, Behe's claims about the evolution of the bacterial flagellum have been soundly disproved. The same is true of their claims that it is impossible to evolve an eye because it is irreducibly complex: in fact, the literature is full of organs that do not present the full characteristics of human eyes, but do provide a benefit to the possessor. Similarly, the evidence of legs in cetacean skeletons is evidence that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals.

https://rationalresistance.blogspot.com/2008/02/indispensable-resource.html

If the producers of _Expelled_ are correct in complaining that the universities have excluded creationists from their science faculties, this is entirely appropriate. They have no place in biology faculties than flat-earthers belong in geology faculties or astrologists belong in astronomy faculties.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> 2. The mechanism for testing scientific conclusions is publication in peer-reviewed journals, where other knowledgeable researchers in the field can read, evaluate, and challenge the published evidence and results. Creationists have never been able to have an article published in an accepted, peer-reviewed journal because they lack scientific rigor.


Interesting post, Jack.

I have a question about point #2.

Let's say that OJ was guilty. In your opinion, what does his being found innocent in a court of law (made up by lawyers) based on the law (also made up by lawyers) prove? Hopefully, we all know OJ is guilty, but the "science" said he was innocent. Can a room full of lawyers following the law all be wrong?

Aren't lawyers:OJ analogous Science Journals:Creation? That they are willing to publish opposing views (just as lawyers are willing to consider innocence or guilt), but unwilling to publish articles that don't follow their "rigor."

Is that really intellectual curiousity?

As I said before; I believe in both Darwin's observations and Creation. I don't know what the link is, but I believe one exists. I would have a lot more respect for those that totally disagree if they could make a scientific argument for why such a link has been disproven instead of criticising those that believe there must have been a creator.

An example of what I dislike is the psuedo logic in a post above that claims p'the superior being A could not exist because another more superior being would have had to exist to create him.' Science is full of theories that assume 'something must exist' until further science either corrects or proves that theory. Wasn't the postulation of the strong force exactly the same thing - _"something must be holding the protons together in the nucleus and it must be stronger than the electrostatic repulsion of the like charges?"_

Can you really scientifcally refute the postulation of a creator?

I have a family full of people that work(ed) in the space program (I was born in Melbourne). My GrandFather worked at Lockheed since the Polaris program, and my Father worked on the Apollo program in flight simulations where they trained the astronauts including for the moon landing. My Mother worked at Radiation and her Father at Patrick AFB. I work currently with some of his flight simulations people that include the best scientists and engineers in the world. These are truly the best with access to the best. None of these scientists have told me they can refute that postulation; only confirm the observations of science. Many are Christians and believe in a creator. None claim to have "the answer" as fervently as is frequently represented. They will admit that a lot of what they "know" will soon be proven wrong. They think that is their job/calling as scientists.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Interesting post, Jack.
> 
> I have a question about point #2.
> 
> ...


No, I don't believe the analogy is accurate. The question is not whether the editors or reviewers of a peer-reviewed journal agree with the paper, the question is whether the paper is based on legitimate scientific methodology, including the correct use of evidence. Scientific debate is regularly carried out in the pages of scholarly journals. The difference here is that there is no scientific debate between evolution and creationism.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> No, I don't believe the analogy is accurate. The question is not whether the editors or reviewers of a peer-reviewed journal agree with the paper, the question is whether the paper is based on legitimate scientific methodology, including the correct use of evidence. Scientific debate is regularly carried out in the pages of scholarly journals. The difference here is that there is no scientific debate between evolution and creationism.


Well, you totally misunderstood my question. I said UNwilling where I meant willing in the first instance, but that is made clear by the (just as lawyers are willing to consider guilt or innocence). Maybe that helps.

Scientists are focused on perfecting a method and a body of knowledge that conforms to that method. Maybe creation doesn't foot to that method, maybe it could still be true. I see a lot of evolutionists that are not scientists. They are constantly quoting the current science in ways that run deeply counter to the scientific mindset and the purpose of science. In fairness, I would also say I know a lot of Creationists that don't know their Bible well enough.

Evolution occurs; as I said the observations are fact. There is no debate in the post-genesis evolution process, true. However, evolutionists like to say that extends to the genesis of the process. That's simply not accurate/true. Nothing in evolution disproves the postulation of a creator or creationism. Evolution theory does not have a scientific consensus about "the beginning." Just like the postulation of the strong force.

One would gather many evolutionists believe there will never be any adjustment/correction to the current scientific knowledge and understanding of evolution. In this way, Evolutionism is just as much a religion as Creationism. I think Evolutionism vs. evolution has unfortunately grown beyond the scienctific theory of the evolutionary process.

I just don't find it consistent with the intellectual curiousity I see in actual scientists. Just my opinion. I think it is wrong to assume that Creationists are anti-science. I know astronauts that are christians and believe in creation. Certainly a guy willing to strap his body to a gas can built by scientists and engineers is not anti-science. And; most say a prayer before they light the darn thing


----------



## Alistair (Aug 12, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> The most familiar scientific seeming claims of creationists are simply false. For instance, Behe's claims about the evolution of the bacterial flagellum have been soundly disproved. The same is true of their claims that it is impossible to evolve an eye because it is irreducibly complex: in fact, the literature is full of organs that do not present the full characteristics of human eyes, but do provide a benefit to the possessor. Similarly, the evidence of legs in cetacean skeletons is evidence that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals.


Thank you for taking the time to post this. I found myself too annoyed to muster the energy! I was beginning to think AAAC was a creationist outpost.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Alistair said:


> Thank you for taking the time to post this. I found myself too annoyed to muster the energy! I was beginning to think AAAC was a creationist outpost.


Wow! You're very sensitive for a highly evolved champion of genetic competition.


----------



## Justin (Feb 27, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> . . .The same is true of their claims that it is impossible to evolve an eye because it is irreducibly complex: in fact, the literature is full of organs that do not present the full characteristics of human eyes, but do provide a benefit to the possessor. . .


The fact that there are organisms that have structures similar to the human eye proves nothing except adaptation. The basic structure adapted itself to benefit the user and increase the odds of survival.

Again, in order to prove evolution, the ascendence of species must be proven.

And the term alot of people in this thread are looking for is "Deism". It's the thought that a superior being created the heavens, earth, and all life and then decided to stand back and just see what happened. Call earth "God's terrarium" if you will. He intervenes occaisonally to perform "maintenance", but we are basically on our own.

This philosophy has been around since before Darwin was even born.

Justin


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I shouldn't be...


Jack, you don't get it do you? More hot air does not prove anything, and that is all you have above.

Nearby is this bay or cove which sailing ships would harbor in, being deep water. I have seen pictures of these ships rafted together all the way across and in two rows. This RR company built across this cove by putting in big rocks wide enough for the tracks and put a trestle across a small section in the middle for tide and creek. About 100-120 years later a good portion of this cove is filled in from from a creek - mud flats, nowadays. So, over 40 years ago this cove was filled in from creek sediment, but beyond the trestle it was still deep water. About thirty years ago it began filling in beyond the trestle, it was interesting to be able to walk out there for the first time. When standing on the trestle today and looking out you can clearly see the bottom way out there even way futher from the trestle. If the earth is really billions of years old how many lakes would there be today? How many mountains wouldn't there be, because of erosion? How deep would the oceans and seas really be? At the rate of erosion and the speed that glaciers tear down mountains how come there are sea shells on Mt. Everest? Not to mention How did Everest get that high in the first place?

You are hanging on to your beliefs by faith, because every belief before, that your faith comes from, has be shredded. Whatever props you defend yourself with today will be shredded in about 20 years or sooner. With this 100% failure rate to call any props a theory today, is an insult to the word theory, and is an insult to humanity. By mathematical logic that _natural selection evolutional theory_ is going forwards, as your faith demands, you guys seem to prove it is going backwards instead.

When I think of faith healers I think of some that are frauds, because they use props. It doesn't take a genius to see that some of the methods of fraud props are still being used by evolutionist "scientist" today, and yet you are taught and prepared to be in awe of them with respect and reverence. And when I read your writtings this is how you come across to me. You have been taught to absolutely believe without doubt, and never step outside of the box that they set you within. You have proved with your own words that you really don't know what or how creationist believe about science. All you have said are the lies of what one side wants you to believe of the other. You have been taught to ridicule when you really don't even know what you are ridiculing. So, an honest person pursues the truth whatever it may be. What will you do with your life? Be gulliable or step out of the box and be free?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Justin said:


> The fact that there are organisms that have structures similar to the human eye proves nothing except adaptation. The basic structure adapted itself to benefit the user and increase the odds of survival.


If I wasn't clear, the purpose of discussing partial eyes is that creationists love to point to the eye as something that is irreducibly complex. If you're not familiar with that term, it means that they claim that a feature that is irreducibly complex could never have evolved because a less-developed stage in the evolution of the feature either could never evolve to become that feature, or would be useless to any organism, so that the only benefit that any organism could derive from the feature would be when the fully-developed feature exists. There is plenty of evidence that, contrary to creationists' claims, this is not true of the eye. In fact, there are organisms that do not have what we would recognize as fully-developed eyes, but who have light-sensitive organs that work for them.



Justin said:


> Again, in order to prove evolution, the ascendence of species must be proven.


"Ascendance" is not really a good term to use in this discussion. However, it is clear that there is ample evidence of evolution from one species to another, and even evolution between families, orders, and classes. Follow this link to see evidence of the formation of new species: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> Jack, you don't get it do you? More hot air does not prove anything, and that is all you have above.
> 
> Nearby is this bay or cove which sailing ships would harbor in, being deep water. I have seen pictures of these ships rafted together all the way across and in two rows. This RR company built across this cove by putting in big rocks wide enough for the tracks and put a trestle across a small section in the middle for tide and creek. About 100-120 years later a good portion of this cove is filled in from from a creek - mud flats, nowadays. So, over 40 years ago this cove was filled in from creek sediment, but beyond the trestle it was still deep water. About thirty years ago it began filling in beyond the trestle, it was interesting to be able to walk out there for the first time. When standing on the trestle today and looking out you can clearly see the bottom way out there even way futher from the trestle. If the earth is really billions of years old how many lakes would there be today? How many mountains wouldn't there be, because of erosion? How deep would the oceans and seas really be? At the rate of erosion and the speed that glaciers tear down mountains how come there are sea shells on Mt. Everest? Not to mention How did Everest get that high in the first place?


I don't quite understand why you chose this particular phrase to quote out of context, but I'll just talk about one issue you raise: geological change.

Read the science, if you can:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD501.html

Claim CD501:
On an old earth, mountains would have eroded by now. At present rates of erosion, the continents would have been eroded to sea level in less than fifteen million years.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 155.
Response:

1. Old mountain ranges are eroded flat. But there are also forces creating new mountains. For example, the Himalayas are still rising.

2. Present rates of erosion are particularly high due to more mountain building and higher mountains than usual in earth's history. (Erosion slows as mountains lose elevation.)

3. The reasoning behind this claim directly contradicts the reasoning behind the claim that volcanoes build too much material for an old earth.

Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof15
Further Reading:
McPhee, John, 1998. Annals of the Former World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't quite understand why you chose this particular phrase to quote out of context, but I'll just talk about one issue you raise: geological change.
> 
> Read the science, if you can:
> 
> ...


Reading some of https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof12 it is interesting that some believed there would be 3 feet of dust on the moon.

As far as Mountains and Oceans I have read from Geologist different rates of erosion, which I figure, is faster than mountains grow if you are counting back to 4-6 billion years for the age of the earth as some believe - this information comes from those who do not believe in 6 day creation, because they are using millions of years in their numbers. And then, where does erosion go? It seems very logical that the oceans would be about 4 feet deep after 4-6 billion years, if there were mountains at the beginning. While you think my speculation is outrageous I think your lack of speculation is outrageouse, too.

My observance of those that do not believe in the 6 day creation is stepping from one sinking ship to another, which gets tire-some. They are unethical with my tax money based on a belief that the evidence does mean more than they are saying - cherry picking is dishonest. While we are talking about ethics it is unethical to speak from oneside about the other side unless you have really been over to the other side to really hear what they say. Listening to you is like listening to a Democrat telling a Republican that the Republicans believe something different than what Republicans believe, which, of course is unethical. It is time for you to step to the other side for a few years to gain a clear understanding before you criticize them, because you are clearly swinging on somebody elses coat-tails. It is time for you to form your own thoughts instead of being a coat-tail-swinger. I watched and eight year old swinging on his moms coat tails- that was interesting, but he was childish. I think you have been taught to be a coat-tail-swinger without realizing it.

Lastly, but not least, If there really is a God that created all that we are apart of - then He is the creator of science. And there are plenty of scientist that respectfully believe that.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

We should teach alchemy along with chemistry and let them kids make up their own minds.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

WA said:


> Reading some of https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof12 it is interesting that some believed there would be 3 feet of dust on the moon.
> 
> As far as Mountains and Oceans I have read from Geologist different rates of erosion, which I figure, is faster than mountains grow if you are counting back to 4-6 billion years for the age of the earth as some believe - this information comes from those who do not believe in 6 day creation, because they are using millions of years in their numbers. And then, where does erosion go? It seems very logical that the oceans would be about 4 feet deep after 4-6 billion years, if there were mountains at the beginning. While you think my speculation is outrageous I think your lack of speculation is outrageouse, too.
> 
> ...


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Bob Loblaw said:


> We should teach alchemy along with chemistry and let them kids make up their own minds.


Like they do at Hogwarts?


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Like they do at Hogwarts?


Hogwarts is a private school, so they can teach anything they want. But if the voucher program is put into place, it will be your tax dollars supporting witchcraft. Think about it.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

android said:


> Hogwarts is a private school, so they can teach anything they want. But if the voucher program is put into place, it will be your tax dollars supporting witchcraft. Think about it.


I don't get into the debate about creationism and evolution. Personally, I don't find it all that interesting. It's just the same old arguments from both sides, and no one ever changes anyone's mind. I have my own beliefs about the subject, but I just don't talk about it. I like scientific fields like chemistry, anatomy, physics and biology, but I'm much more interested in what we can learn today, rather than arguing about how things started. As far as the tax dollars go, I can think of many other programs I'd rather not send my money to than schools. btw, I'm not for school vouchers, I attended Catholic schools and am now a Lutheran.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> WA said:
> 
> 
> > Reading some of https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof12 it is interesting that some believed there would be 3 feet of dust on the moon.
> ...


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Hmmm I can see the back and forth on this thread going on for as long as the Holocene. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

Oy -- why do you lot even bother? You're talking at cross-purposes. Science has nothing to say about moral purpose or appropriate constraints on behaviour; nor does the received wisdom of religion have anything useful to say about techne.

So, Creationists, render unto Ceasar that which is Caesar's, and atheists, stop whistling past the graveyard.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

eg1 said:


> Oy -- why do you lot even bother? You're talking at cross-purposes. Science has nothing to say about moral purpose or appropriate constraints on behaviour; nor does the received wisdom of religion have anything useful to say about techne.
> 
> So, Creationists, render unto Ceasar that which is Caesar's, and atheists, stop whistling past the graveyard.


For you younger people there is some history you don't understand. Evolutionist biologist believed that it took millions and millions of years of gradually change. In some classes if you did not believe that, whether you believe in God or not, you were hammered and sometimes given a lower grade and all the while made out to look like a fool. After decades of this abuse evidence became unquestionable that there wasn't any gradual change, so they came up with the new malarky of sudden change theory to save face, and still no evidence of sudden change, and they are still making theories sound like facts, so what they say is still nothing but hot air, and much of it.

Geology was my interest in science when in school. There are many theories how land forms got to where they are. Their times scales were off the top of their heads, or some measured method of which could have been faster/slower than they guess, and what they don't know wouldn't be part of their theory. What I don't like, for example, is when they say each layer is one year. Like snow layers they say is one year when it could be 20 layers to a year. So these theories from data of snow layers about earths warming and cooling could easily be off by millions of years even if you do believe the earth is trillions of years old. While the research is good it is their powerful abuses from their theoretic estimates that is unethical. Not all theories are horrorable, but it only takes one to rotten the whole barrel for decades. And who should get an F because of some ridiculous theory when ten years later that foolish theorie is proven wrong? Last and not least, there are many fine science teachers, and some that are not.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

*"Geology was my interest in science when in schoo**l"*

Hmmm... grammer must have been after lunch.

-son of a geologist.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Geology was my interest in science when in school.


Hey! Last week you said it was Economics!!


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

*"Last week you said it was Economics"*

*"Geology was my interest in science when in school"*

a little revisionist history ? I bet he never missed lunch and phy-ed.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

WA said:


> And who should get an F because of some ridiculous theory when ten years later that foolish theorie is proven wrong?


Please, oh do please state even one recent scientific theory that has been proven completely wrong. I will grant you, that many have be refined and revised**, but I can't think of anything that is wrong.

**WA is the kind of person that would ask me how far it is to drive to Houston. I would tell him it is 250 miles. He would then drive there and when his trip odometer told him it was 252 miles, he would then declare me to be utterly and totally WRONG. Sorry, but 252 is just a refinement, it does not "disprove" my original theory about how far away Houston is.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

android said:


> Please, oh do please state even one recent scientific theory that has been proven completely wrong. I will grant you, that many have be refined and revised**, but I can't think of anything that is wrong.
> 
> **WA is the kind of person that would ask me how far it is to drive to Houston. I would tell him it is 250 miles. He would then drive there and when his trip odometer told him it was 252 miles, he would then declare me to be utterly and totally WRONG. Sorry, but 252 is just a refinement, it does not "disprove" my original theory about how far away Houston is.


I don't think that's an appropriate analogy because as I previously discussed how many say they are promoting science (or battling anti-science forces) and are not truly representing the awareness of the scientific-method that it only describes the current knowledge base and is subject to refinement (which you did say.)

One scientific theory proven wrong? ... well let's take for instance "there are 9 planets in our solar system" vs. "we know of 9 planets in our solar system." Whether it is proven wrong or merely refined is a matter of how it is presented. Currently, there is simultaneous scientific discussion on the theories that there are 10 planets or that there are only 8 planets. I am amazed how many relativists make absolute statments about evolution. Isn't that an oxymoron of sorts? Is that any better than an absolutists that hedges on the earth being 5,000 or 7,000 years old? My answer is No, it isn't any better; neither are being intellectual consistent/honest with themselves or others in their presentation.

If we go back to your analogy; Houston would have to move 2 miles. In one instance we are talking about new discoveries and in your example you have conveniently rounded without telling WA. How hard is it really to say "approximately 250 miles?"

Both "approximately 250 miles" and "252 miles" are consistent with science. "250 miles" is not.

I'm not defending WA or anything he said, but I think you have to fight fair. Science does.

I don't think those arguing the finite details of geology and chemistry can now pivot and start being vague and approximating without proper notation. That's just not kosher. IMHO.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Hey! Last week you said it was Economics!!


Have you ever studied the science of truck driving? (18-wheeler)


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I don't think that's an appropriate analogy because as I previously discussed how many say they are promoting science (or battling anti-science forces) and are not truly representing the awareness of the scientific-method that it only describes the current knowledge base and is subject to refinement (which you did say.)
> 
> One scientific theory proven wrong? ... well let's take for instance "there are 9 planets in our solar system" vs. "we know of 9 planets in our solar system." Whether it is proven wrong or merely refined is a matter of how it is presented. Currently, there is simultaneous scientific discussion on the theories that there are 10 planets or that there are only 8 planets. I am amazed how many relativists make absolute statments about evolution. Isn't that an oxymoron of sorts? Is that any better than an absolutists that hedges on the earth being 5,000 or 7,000 years old? My answer is No, it isn't any better; neither are being intellectual consistent/honest with themselves or others in their presentation.
> 
> ...


Well, I don't think the planet thing proves or disproves anything one way or the other. It is really quibbling about definitions, not any real disagreement about how many chunks of dirt and rock are circling the sun and it doesn't change any current theories of orbital mechanics. But those kind of discussions tend to make the uninformed see science as more inexact than it really is.

And I think that informally, everyone takes verbal shortcuts presenting current knowledge as facts without all the disclaimers. Like I would say, "My aunt is coming to visit at Christmas." rather than, "My aunt is coming to visit at Christmas if she can book a ticket using her frequent flyer miles and the airport is not snowed out and they don't cancel the flight to inspect wire bundles and there are no other unforseen events to prevent her from making the trip such as sickness, injury or death."

But that depends to some degree on the level of discussion and the audience involved. Certainly some contributors to the Interchange seem to need a lot of the disclaimer type details explicitly stated for them. 

And also, my answer of 250 miles is in fact scientifically correct since I (deliberately) wrote 250 miles and not 250.0, thus my answer only contains 2 significant digits, not 3.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

android said:


> Please, oh do please state even one recent scientific theory that has been proven completely wrong. I will grant you, that many have be refined and revised**, but I can't think of anything that is wrong.
> 
> **WA is the kind of person that would ask me how far it is to drive to Houston. I would tell him it is 250 miles. He would then drive there and when his trip odometer told him it was 252 miles, he would then declare me to be utterly and totally WRONG. Sorry, but 252 is just a refinement, it does not "disprove" my original theory about how far away Houston is.


Children! Children! Children! Go read the science text books and other science publications of the 50's- early 70's. How much has been refined and revised? No doubt some has been refined and revised, but I wouldn't doubt much of the theories from the 50's-70's are gone. MY experience of being around scientist is they are each trying to make a name for themselves. How do they do that? By proving somebody else is wrong (at least with words) and then, often creating a new theory. I would think ambition is one of there favorite words. Research and some theories of the research is good. What I don't like is the small box of thought they allow. And if you step out of that box you are expelled. MichaelS, a geologist, probably has lots of theories I see no problem with, except the time scale. Geology is way different than biology. Biologist who don't belive in marco evolution do not get the respect from marco evolution biologist that marco evolution biologist demand for themselves, so marco evolution biologist are hypocrites. Marco evolution biology is no more than a theory, so it is unethical that they don't have respect for those that think in a different box.

_250-252 miles _- Can you put the dates of when scientist put the age of the earth? Example, what year did they start saying that the earth is 1 billion years old and 3 billion years old and 6 billion years old? Can you give the chronology of the beliefs of how old the earth is? As far as marco evolution biology, gradual change and sudden change- I thought of sudden change long before marco evolution biologist even mentioned it because it made more since and the only way (a weak way) to save their face. Obviously you have never been taught gradual change marco evolution biology. 250-252 won't work. Yeah, you should read some of the "science" books in the dump.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

android said:


> Well, I don't think the planet thing proves or disproves anything one way or the other. It is really quibbling about definitions, not any real disagreement about how many chunks of dirt and rock are circling the sun and it doesn't change any current theories of orbital mechanics. But those kind of discussions tend to make the uninformed see science as more inexact than it really is.
> 
> And I think that informally, everyone takes verbal shortcuts presenting current knowledge as facts without all the disclaimers. Like I would say, "My aunt is coming to visit at Christmas." rather than, "My aunt is coming to visit at Christmas if she can book a ticket using her frequent flyer miles and the airport is not snowed out and they don't cancel the flight to inspect wire bundles and there are no other unforseen events to prevent her from making the trip such as sickness, injury or death."
> 
> ...


Sorry, but no - your current argument just debunked your previous argument. You're trying to use refine & revise to refine & revise your statement while arguing that science is less inexact than *someone* thinks. Is it exact or is it constantly being refined and revised? It seems to me you can only argue Black & White or Gray.

However, I AM willing to be fair and I will give you a free pass on the 9 planets even though you said "name one." However, I will not sit here and go down the list which would obviously be pointless as you have proven you will argue refinement or nonexactness at your whim.

Therefore; it's your turn. As 'one of the informed' would you please explain the revision and refinement of carbon dating to us? Conversely you should feel free to argue that carbon dating is not an exact science.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Sorry, but no - your current argument just debunked your previous argument. You're trying to use refine & revise to refine & revise your statement while arguing that science is less inexact than *someone* thinks. Is it exact or is it constantly being refined and revised? It seems to me you can only argue Black & White or Gray.


The methods used to measure, calculate, analyze, quantify and collect data are very exact. The conclusions drawn from that data are refined over time as additional data is collected. At the point where the conclusions become "boring" the science is no longer science but engineering. Example, Bernoulli did a bunch of experiments in the 1700s concerning fluid dynamics and mechanics. He measured and experimented, drew conclusion and came up with theories to describe those findings. Other built on his work, for example, the Wright brothers. Eventually over time we have huge aviation, hydraulic and hard disk industry based on his work.

Radiocarbon dating is a measurement as described above and has been verified to be accurate by testing objects of known ages. Other than creationists, nobody disputes its effectiveness.

I mean this is pretty well known stuff but you're making me explain it to you as if you are a young child. Are you just acting that way for the sake of argument?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

android said:


> The methods used to measure, calculate, analyze, quantify and collect data are very exact. The conclusions drawn from that data are refined over time as additional data is collected. At the point where the conclusions become "boring" the science is no longer science but engineering. Example, Bernoulli did a bunch of experiments in the 1700s concerning fluid dynamics and mechanics. He measured and experimented, drew conclusion and came up with theories to describe those findings. Other built on his work, for example, the Wright brothers. Eventually over time we have huge aviation, hydraulic and hard disk industry based on his work.
> 
> Radiocarbon dating is a measurement as described above and has been verified to be accurate by testing objects of known ages. Other than creationists, nobody disputes its effectiveness.
> 
> I mean this is pretty well known stuff but you're making me explain it to you as if you are a young child. Are you just acting that way for the sake of argument?


Neither. You are contradicting yourself. You finally separated the scientific method from the current body of knowledge of science, but that contradicts your previous posts. If you will go back and read my posts and not confuse them with your argument with WA perhaps you can figure it out - as smart as you think you are and all 

I take your answer to mean you are unaware of any refinements to carbon dating methodology?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

android said:


> Radiocarbon dating is a measurement as described above and has been verified to be accurate by testing objects of known ages. Other than creationists, nobody disputes its effectiveness.


To what I have heard it is really not that cut clean. If some people have convinced you it is as simple as you say, when it is not, then are you not believing them as the creationist believe creation?


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

@@ > www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jamgood said:


> @@ > www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp


That's a better explanation of what I meant when I said Evolutionism vs. evolution. Thank you.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

WA said:


> If some people have convinced you it is as simple as you say, when it is not, then are you not believing them as the creationist believe creation?


There's nothing to believe. It's mathematical equations describing radioactive decay and half lives. I took lots of math in college including differential equations. I mostly understand the equations. If I really needed to, I could bone up on it for a few weeks, but since it is not directly related to my current tasks or interests, I decline to do so only for your benefit.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

*The Dating Game*

www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

&

www.trueorigin.org/natgeo_jw01.asp


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> I don't get into the debate about creationism and evolution. Personally, I don't find it all that interesting. It's just the same old arguments from both sides, and no one ever changes anyone's mind.


Might as well talk about grass on Alpha-Centuri.

Both of these sides tend to be 'I've gotta bigger penis' sorts who want to devalue others. Like jack assy children.

Until those creeps can prove scientifically god doesn't exist, that's a useless quest. Same on the other side.

Faith in a scientific theory is a fault of the scientific mind.
Faith in higher order is just common sense. How you believe that higher order is embodied is partly faith in the words of human past, or your own imagination coloring in the abyss.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Preu Pummel said:


> Might as well talk about grass on Alpha-Centuri.
> 
> Both of these sides tend to be 'I've gotta bigger penis' sorts who want to devalue others. Like jack assy children.
> 
> ...


I agree completely.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Here's a link to a good article exposing the falsehoods of _Expelled_.

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Here's a link to a good article exposing the falsehoods of _Expelled_.


Jack,

the link takes me here

can you help me find it? is there an author name or something I can google?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

This one?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Sorry. Here's the correct link. I'll also correct it in my message above.

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

android said:


> .Radiocarbon dating is a measurement as described above and has been verified to be accurate by testing objects of known ages. Other than creationists, nobody disputes its effectiveness.


Your error here is worst than all of my grammar and spelling. Your faith is not in science, but men.

Your such a sucker you don't even know what I am talking about in the paragraph above.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

There's also a write-up in _Slate_ today, although it isn't just about that movie.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,



WA said:


> Your error here is worst than all of my grammar and spelling.


Tap the brake there!....no need to sell your ignorance and dubious mysticism short.

Karl


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

android said:


> At the point where the conclusions become "boring" the science is no longer science but engineering.


I love this statement!!!!!!!!! Very True

(Although its probably good I have not contributed to this thead this week, I was not able as I have been busy in Albuquerque meeting with a bunch of scientists (real ones, a whole lot smarter than me) trying to figure out ways to use biology and geology combined to clean up subsurface pollution).

One quick point, I have never said geologic time dating was accurate or that every layer represets one year. Layers can represent a lot of things including varying periods of times. Our scence has evolved enough to see this. ;-)

Also, there is no way the grand canon could have been formed in one flood period. We can see the results of very large floods in the lithologic record (including the traces of a very large flood around the Black Sea area that probably occured when a glacial lake/dam finaly broke and the huge lake/arm of te sea drained giving rise to the Noah myth) pretty clearly shown (or at least I have been convinced by the sedimentologists) in the sediments and I can't see the same power thqt would be required to form the grand canyon.

And another (I know I can't shut up but I am stting in the Cinn. Delta Crown Room Club, have a three hour wait, am bored, and have had several bourbons) thing: no where did I say I was an atheist. I have no problem incorporating my faith with science.

Michael


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> WA,
> Tap the brake there!....no need to sell your ignorance and dubious mysticism short.
> 
> Karl


Not talking about dubious mysticism or any mysticism. But you are rather ignorant.

Some people here probably know what I am talking about here, or would with a few words would. The rest have been lead along to long.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Also, there is no way the grand canon could have been formed in one flood period. We can see the results of very large floods in the lithologic record (including the traces of a very large flood around the Black Sea area that probably occured when a glacial lake/dam finaly broke and the huge lake/arm of te sea drained giving rise to the Noah myth) pretty clearly shown (or at least I have been convinced by the sedimentologists) in the sediments and I can't see the same power that would be required to form the grand canyon.
> 
> Michael


You do come through as an honest soul.

While I believe in the story of Noah it is rather hard to prove that the grand canyon is from that time, and, of course, I don't believe it has to be. On the other hand, the sides of that canyon are really steep and so deep, and much of the area is flat when looking around away from the top. Other theories are hard to believe, because, was the area always that arid? What percentage is sandstone? For that much sand to be in one area it seems abit much, so where did it all come from. However you look at it the theories they are a huge belief this way or that way and any other numerous ideas for theories.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> Not talking about dubious mysticism or any mysticism. But you are rather ignorant.
> 
> Some people here probably know what I am talking about here, or would with a few words would. The rest have been lead along to long.


I guess he put you in _your_ place, Karl!


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)




----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Thanks! [email protected]


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Our scence has evolved enough to see this. ;-)
> 
> I have no problem incorporating my faith with science.
> 
> Michael




Have a 4th Bourbon for me!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I guess he put you in _your_ place, Karl!


No doubt you misunderstand again. Karl, on the other hand, is a thinker. Sometimes his maners are lower than I expect from him, but then he didn't go to college in the early sixties, which is a shame those maners are not around anymore in college.

So Jack, do you ever think? Do you ever question your mommy and daddy and who they say you can be around? You come across as somebody who hides behind others. Do you ever step outside the box you have been put in and investigate what you are not suppose to? How do you know those you hide behind really have the best answers? How do you know they are telling you the truth about what others believe? If you stepped out on your own then you would be much more interesting to hear, because, then you would really have something to say.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jamgood said:


>


Thanks for the cartoon.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

WA said:


> No doubt you misunderstand again. Karl, on the other hand, is a thinker. Sometimes his maners are lower than I expect from him, but then he didn't go to college in the early sixties, which is a shame those maners are not around anymore in college.
> 
> So Jack, do you ever think? Do you ever question your mommy and daddy and who they say you can be around? You come across as somebody who hides behind others. Do you ever step outside the box you have been put in and investigate what you are not suppose to? How do you know those you hide behind really have the best answers? How do you know they are telling you the truth about what others believe? If you stepped out on your own then you would be much more interesting to hear, because, then you would really have something to say.


WA, I'm willing to believe Jack has done a lot of _independent_ thinking on the subject. Can you say the same?


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

WA said:


> Children! Children! Children! Go read the science text books and other science publications of the 50's- early 70's. How much has been refined and revised? No doubt some has been refined and revised, but I wouldn't doubt much of the theories from the 50's-70's are gone. MY experience of being around scientist is they are each trying to make a name for themselves. How do they do that? By proving somebody else is wrong (at least with words) and then, often creating a new theory. I would think ambition is one of there favorite words. Research and some theories of the research is good. What I don't like is the small box of thought they allow. And if you step out of that box you are expelled. MichaelS, a geologist, probably has lots of theories I see no problem with, except the time scale. Geology is way different than biology. Biologist who don't belive in marco evolution do not get the respect from marco evolution biologist that marco evolution biologist demand for themselves, so marco evolution biologist are hypocrites. Marco evolution biology is no more than a theory, so it is unethical that they don't have respect for those that think in a different box.
> 
> _250-252 miles _- Can you put the dates of when scientist put the age of the earth? Example, what year did they start saying that the earth is 1 billion years old and 3 billion years old and 6 billion years old? Can you give the chronology of the beliefs of how old the earth is? As far as marco evolution biology, gradual change and sudden change- I thought of sudden change long before marco evolution biologist even mentioned it because it made more since and the only way (a weak way) to save their face. Obviously you have never been taught gradual change marco evolution biology. 250-252 won't work. Yeah, you should read some of the "science" books in the dump.


You are right: there is no such thing as macroevolution as you describe it: it is a chimera. Common descent is just incontrovertible fact. If you don't believe the fossil record, then just look at chemical evidence. For goodness sake, it's even predictive in the way that creationists claim it is not: https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7179/abs/nature06510.html

Put differently, there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

A simple illustration of how absurd this whole discussion is Dobzhansky's discussion of why nothing in biology makes sense if you reject evolution: https://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Dobzhansky, incidently, was an Orthodox Christian.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

gregp said:


> You are right: there is no such thing as macroevolution as you describe it: it is a chimera. Common descent is just incontrovertible fact. If you don't believe the fossil record, then just look at chemical evidence. For goodness sake, it's even predictive in the way that creationists claim it is not: https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7179/abs/nature06510.html
> 
> Put differently, there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.
> 
> ...


I don't buy into the whole gravity thing. If you ask me, it doesn't exist. Here's the proof:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gregp said:


> You are right: there is no such thing as macroevolution as you describe it: it is a chimera. Common descent is just incontrovertible fact. If you don't believe the fossil record, then just look at chemical evidence. For goodness sake, it's even predictive in the way that creationists claim it is not: https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7179/abs/nature06510.html
> 
> Put differently, there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.
> 
> ...


Fantastico! Are you able to share with us WHY gravity exists and WHEN it began?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,



WA said:


> Karl, on the other hand, is a thinker.


Perhaps the most dubious statement ever posted on Ask Andy. But give Ksinc a chance......

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> WA,
> 
> Perhaps the most dubious statement ever posted on Ask Andy. But give Ksinc a chance......
> 
> Karl


Wow Karl!

Just when I thought you couldn't possibly get any weaker you proved that deep down you are capable of even lesser feats.

I'm actually shocked.

Only you have made me yearn for the intellectual integrity and personal honesty of FrankDC.

With his retirement, you are indeed "the King!"

Salute! 

P.S. While I am expressing my personal admiration, let also me add that all five or so clothing related posts you have made in the last nine months (out of approximately 500 posts) really add value and enhance the AAAC experience for me; and I'm sure many others.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

As always your scorn is a source of honor but something tells me you yearn for a clue much, much more than you yearn for FrankDC. But in the coming months I look forward to your continued attacks on reason and logic, your outrageous slanders of men like Senator McCain and your droll sense of humor that produces gems such as calling the Pope the "P"-man. All of this plus healthy doses of your misogyny, homophobia and threats of violence mixed in - no doubt that a light as bright as yours hasn't been seen since the days of the Algonquin Round Table! 

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

I am glad that I bring added value into your life even though that hardly seems a Herculean task. Many of wish you would return the favor but we will be gracious and let your free ride continue.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> As always your scorn is a source of honor but something tells me you yearn for a clue much, much more than you yearn for FrankDC. But in the coming months I look forward to your continued attacks on reason and logic, your outrageous slanders of men like Senator McCain and your droll sense of humor that produces gems such as calling the Pope the "P"-man. All of this plus healthy doses of your misogyny, homophobia and threats of violence mixed in - no doubt that a light as bright as yours hasn't been seen since the days of the Algonquin Round Table!
> 
> Karl





Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> I am glad that I bring added value into your life even though that hardly seems a Herculean task. Many of wish you would return the favor but we will be gracious and let your free ride continue.
> Karl


Yes, for a liar and a coward you have accomplished much. Especially when you jump into a thread only to attempt to attack and insult someone like you have WA here. Was Democratic Underground offline today? I don't agree with many of WA's thoughts, but I do respect him as a man and fellow forumite. He participates in the threads, he engages in the conversation. You just occasionally show up to insult someone and slink away as you take potshots from behind your monitor.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

And here I was thinking that the Interchange has gotten a bit dull lately....


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ken,

It seems, despite the protests of Ksinc, WA and other sceptics of modern science (not to mention modernity), that things can and do evolve!

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ken,
> 
> It seems, despite the protests of Ksinc, WA and other sceptics of modern science (not to mention modernity), that things can and do evolve!
> 
> Karl


Yet Another Total Misrepresentation from Karl.

Here are some outakes from my posts in this thread:

"I'm a creationist, and I would be the last to argue that Darwin's observations were correct. "

"As I said before; I believe in both Darwin's observations and Creation. "

"Evolution occurs; as I said the observations are fact. There is no debate in the post-genesis evolution process, true. "

"I think it is wrong to assume that Creationists are anti-science. I know astronauts that are christians and believe in creation. Certainly a guy willing to strap his body to a gas can built by scientists and engineers is not anti-science. And; most say a prayer before they light the darn thing  "

As anyone can discern there is plenty of overlap, one may even say outright contradiction in selections 1 & 2 when viewed out of context. Certainly, there is a distinction being made by me between Evolution and Evolutionism which is expressed in the posts in whole.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> And here I was thinking that the Interchange has gotten a bit dull lately....


What do you mean? That two page talk on sneakers between Howard and a friend have had me on the edge of my seat all week...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> What do you mean? That two page talk on sneakers between Howard and a friend have had me on the edge of my seat all week...


I miss Frank and RSS ... Why did you have to run them off?  Bully! 

"GIVE US BARABUS!"


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Bizzare - you would be the last to argue that Darwin's observations were correct yet you believe in them.

You seem to have such an expansive definition of creationism that it is rendered meaningless.

Perhaps you believe in theistic evolution then?

Karl


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I miss Frank and RSS ... Why did you have to run them off?  Bully!
> 
> "GIVE US BARABUS!"


All we need to add to the duo is gmac. Then _"let the games begin"!_


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,



ksinc said:


> "GIVE US BARABUS!"


Or even Barabbas?

Karl


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> What do you mean? That two page talk on sneakers between Howard and a friend have had me on the edge of my seat all week...


I shudder to think if you'd have weighed in on that one!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Or even Barabbas?
> 
> Karl


I've seen various spellings: barabus, barabas, and barabbas. I have no idea which one is correct. It's much like Usama, Osama, or Obama oops!  I'm willing to go with Barabbas. The point is the same ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

KenR said:


> I shudder to think if you'd have weighed in on that one!


I'm surprised the new member claiming to be the biggest AE fan hasn't started a riot yet! LOL

I had to go searching for some of FlatSix's & Mr.L.'s old posts for comparisons.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> What do you mean? That two page talk on sneakers between Howard and a friend have had me on the edge of my seat all week...


Yeah,who doesn't love sneaker talk?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Howard said:


> Yeah,who doesn't love sneaker talk?


We all love it, Howard.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I miss Frank and RSS ... Why did you have to run them off?


I can only take partial credit for Frank bud 

And RSS? Geez, he sort of did himself in. I mean, when he was trying to end the Interchange and/or get me banned and/or change the forum header, I was sort of quiet. I think he just went away amazed he could not bully people into kowtowing to his demands.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ken,
> 
> It seems, despite the protests of Ksinc, WA and other sceptics of modern science (not to mention modernity), that things can and do evolve!
> 
> Karl


Karl, you may think more than some around here, but you have week knees.

When in high school anybody who was a sceptics of modern science was bashed, mocked, scoffed, slander, etc. like you and some others have been doing here. If they were so right why did they abandon their major theories? Just because many believe something and they explain it like it is true doesn't make it true. And why do you defend the Pope?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Karl, you may think more than some around here, but you have week knees.


Damn. Seven days worth of knees. Go figure.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Sorry. Here's the correct link. I'll also correct it in my message above.
> 
> https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html


Thanks for the link, Jack. I finally finished reading it. I am bothered if the methods of Ben Stein are true. I can say that I have been disappointed with some of his financial views. It will be interesting to see if there is a response. I really liked the Brayton article and it confirmed (for me at least) my opinions as stated in these threads regarding the tolerance for creationists among scientists. I wish as many readers of those scientists shared that tolerance.

However, I am going to have to read that book "The Mind of the Market." It should be an interesting read I think. The "invisible hand" is described by Adam Smith as a network of prices. Warren Buffett says Benjamin Graham taught him the market exists to serve us, not to inform us. Since I believe in natural selection I believe Warren Buffett to be the most evolved of the species and therefore indisputably correct  I find it therefore interesting because by comparing the invisible hand to natural selection, Shermer seems to be parroting the reification view of Karl Marx - "where an object is perceived as having more spatial information than is actually present in the original stimulus" or "the consideration of an abstraction or an object as if it had living existence and abilities; at the same time it implies the thingification of social relations." I think that would imply that our explanations and observations of certain adaptations are tainted by our human characteristics and projecting onto abstract objects. That is what I was getting at in the first posts with my lawyer:scientist analogy that you didn't like. Regardless it was interesting reading ... Thanks for posting it!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Damn. Seven days worth of knees. Go figure.


Does that mean 7 pairs of knees? I'm having trouble imagining what that would look like.  Karl must be very flexible.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Damn. Seven days worth of knees. Go figure.





Laxplayer said:


> Does that mean 7 pairs of knees? I'm having trouble imagining what that would look like.  Karl must be very flexible.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> We all love it, Howard.


You can find the sneaker talk in the Pathmark discussion.


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

WA said:


> Karl, you may think more than some around here, but you have week knees.
> 
> When in high school anybody who was a sceptics of modern science was bashed, mocked, scoffed, slander, etc. like you and some others have been doing here. If they were so right why did they abandon their major theories? Just because many believe something and they explain it like it is true doesn't make it true. And why do you defend the Pope?


It's not a matter of belief so much as knowledge: the ontological aspects are simply based on observed reality. I "believe" in evolution to the same degree I believe that the earth revolves around the Sun, that growth occurs through cell division, that the mind functions through chemical and electrical signals, that bacteria or viruses can cause disease, that genes combine to shape the characteristics of living things, etc: these were all subjects that were matters of debate at one point because we didn't have enough information at hand to understand what was happening. Now that we do, most people in the first world accept these as simple facts, though traditional cultures in many cases do not. I'm sure you agree with most of these things. Evolution is an outlier in the US only because of a perception that it conflicts with Biblical literalism. Theological streams that refuse to see the Bible as teaching in parables will never find a way to come to terms with the realities of the physical world around us, but it is worth noting that the vast majority of Christians don't seem to have a problem with evolution, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, and most protestant denominations. Similarly, I don't think I know a single observant Jew that rejects evolution as fact, including Reform, Conservative and Orthodox.

I am happy to accept the limits of science and of knowledge, but that is different than rejecting the fundamental insights into the processes of life. I guess scoffing is the wrong way to react to this; I have to admit I don't know how to address this effectively when people simply reject discernible facts on principle: for me personally it's incredibly distressing on several levels.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,

You have accussed me of being condescending towards the intellectually feeble, having weak knees and being a raving defender of Popery.

Mea culpa. Now please continue your doomed rear guard action against logic, reason and grammar.

Ksinc,

Not bad for someone of your limited talents. But also not a shock that you seemingly have an intimate familiarity with roaches. Carry on.

Karl


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

gregp said:


> It's not a matter of belief so much as knowledge: the ontological aspects are simply based on observed reality. I "believe" in evolution to the same degree I believe that the earth revolves around the Sun, that growth occurs through cell division, that the mind functions through chemical and electrical signals, that bacteria or viruses can cause disease, that genes combine to shape the characteristics of living things, etc: these were all subjects that were matters of debate at one point because we didn't have enough information at hand to understand what was happening. Now that we do, most people in the first world accept these as simple facts, though traditional cultures in many cases do not. I'm sure you agree with most of these things. Evolution is an outlier in the US only because of a perception that it conflicts with Biblical literalism. Theological streams that refuse to see the Bible as teaching in parables will never find a way to come to terms with the realities of the physical world around us, but it is worth noting that the vast majority of Christians don't seem to have a problem with evolution, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, and most protestant denominations. Similarly, I don't think I know a single observant Jew that rejects evolution as fact, including Reform, Conservative and Orthodox.
> 
> I am happy to accept the limits of science and of knowledge, but that is different than rejecting the fundamental insights into the processes of life. I guess scoffing is the wrong way to react to this; I have to admit I don't know how to address this effectively when people simply reject discernible facts on principle: for me personally it's incredibly distressing on several levels.


You are an honest soul, too. There is no mocking or scoffing and other conned behavoir from you as some here have presented of themselves. As a little boy I learned what it is like being conned and how it works. In Sunday school the lesson of the day is what other churchs believe in a particular subject. It was so bizaare, crazy and insane what we were being told sometimes I thought it was too insane to be true and we were nearly falling off our chairs laughing. The teacher told us a wee bit of truth about what others believed, but the rest was all lies. We were being taught to laugh and mock and scoff others as though we new what they believed. We were also taught in that church not to lie. Two three years later and I was in one of these other churchs and in that Sunday school class the subject came up... The motive of the first church was so that I would never ever believe what any other church believes because I would believe the many lies I had been told about what other churchs believe. Nobody wants to be insane and to reinforce even further to stay away is the mockery and scoffing (nobody wants to be mocked or scoffed). When I see this conned behavior and read their conned words that prove they have been conned and they think they are so smart- sometimes I reply back.

This thread also reminds me of another story. A little boy that I saw a few times. He was always sucking his thumb. He certainly listened, because he did exactly what he was told. One time I asked him to do something and this time he didn't just listen I could see he was thinking and then he pulled his thumb out said how He Wanted to do it. I never saw this boy suck his thumb again. When I see people just obeying they prove two things. One, they are listening and two, they are not thinking.

gregp you have been well taught one side and not had slanderes tell lies about the other side. While your teachers may have mislead you about the other side, because they don't know, slanders are a different story. They (slanders) set people up like pawns and use them. Cons con people and then use those who have been conned to help con others. And the conned don't even have a clue that they are being used. If you go to the creationist and IDist you will find out they are useing science and not just religous belief. You will realize both sides have an end belief they are trying to prove by science. When you listen to only one side they will most like present it as it is the only side that is right. Your responciblity is not to believe either side until you have honestly looked at both sides. There are a number of ex-atheist who have walked away from atheism because of science. So, one side does not have all the truth.

When I was in high school they presented some evidence with theories as thought those theories were fact. The behavior they used against those who would not bow down to them was completely out of place. Some of those theories have been sweep under the rug, and they don't even want you looking under there lest you see how crazy they were. Why should I believe the theories today that are made to look like facts?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Let's see if we can get this thread up to Pathmark standards.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Let's see if we can get this thread up to Pathmark standards.


I got a fever and the only cure for it is more Howard. Now stop being selfish and explore the space. I mean, really...explore...the space.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> .....the only cure for it is more Howard....


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

WA said:


> You are an honest soul, too. There is no mocking or scoffing and other conned behavoir from you as some here have presented of themselves. As a little boy I learned what it is like being conned and how it works. In Sunday school the lesson of the day is what other churchs believe in a particular subject. It was so bizaare, crazy and insane what we were being told sometimes I thought it was too insane to be true and we were nearly falling off our chairs laughing. The teacher told us a wee bit of truth about what others believed, but the rest was all lies. We were being taught to laugh and mock and scoff others as though we new what they believed. We were also taught in that church not to lie. Two three years later and I was in one of these other churchs and in that Sunday school class the subject came up... The motive of the first church was so that I would never ever believe what any other church believes because I would believe the many lies I had been told about what other churchs believe. Nobody wants to be insane and to reinforce even further to stay away is the mockery and scoffing (nobody wants to be mocked or scoffed). When I see this conned behavior and read their conned words that prove they have been conned and they think they are so smart- sometimes I reply back.
> 
> This thread also reminds me of another story. A little boy that I saw a few times. He was always sucking his thumb. He certainly listened, because he did exactly what he was told. One time I asked him to do something and this time he didn't just listen I could see he was thinking and then he pulled his thumb out said how He Wanted to do it. I never saw this boy suck his thumb again. When I see people just obeying they prove two things. One, they are listening and two, they are not thinking.
> 
> ...


Well, I was raised in a protestant/evangelical school and a southern baptist church: in both cases, I can tell you that no one believed in evolution. The 8th grade biology teacher more or less taught us "biology" from the Bible. We had the full gamut of creationist literature provided to us as well. Let me just be up front: I wasn't deprogrammed or anything dramatic, but I did learn what science was and wasn't over time and an understanding of evolutionary processes and the underpinning evidence was a real eye opener.

I have to disagree that creationism (in the sense that Biblical literalists use the term) has any resemblance to science. As I pointed out, evolution is supported by all observed facts, by predictive tests, and is the single unifying concept underlying all of biology. Creationism supports one view of the Bible but doesn't do any of these things. I will say this about the hardcore Biblical literalists: they at least hold firm to a story that makes as much sense as anything if we didn't have evidence and hadn't developed the scientific method. Intelligent Design is, in my opinion, worse, since it makes a mockery not only of religious thinking but also of science.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

*Forgive this intrusion.*

I honestly don't have a dog in this debate, despite what you may surmise when you read below.

Some years ago, Christ Church Spitalfields, in east London, was subject to a major refurb and renovation, the event was covered by the BBC for a programme in it's _Timewatch_ series, during the course of the work some of the remains in the charnel house, (mostly from the late eighteenth century) were temporarily moved and the opportunity to carbon data test them was taken.

The carbon data age results contradicted the parish registers by as much as thirty years.

F.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> I got a fever and the only cure for it is more Howard


Yes plenty more of me where that came from.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

BertieW said:


> Let's see if we can get this thread up to Pathmark standards.


How is it even possible?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

gregp said:


> Well, I was raised in a protestant/evangelical school and a southern baptist church: in both cases, I can tell you that no one believed in evolution. The 8th grade biology teacher more or less taught us "biology" from the Bible. We had the full gamut of creationist literature provided to us as well. Let me just be up front: I wasn't deprogrammed or anything dramatic, but I did learn what science was and wasn't over time and an understanding of evolutionary processes and the underpinning evidence was a real eye opener.
> 
> I have to disagree that creationism (in the sense that Biblical literalists use the term) has any resemblance to science. As I pointed out, evolution is supported by all observed facts, by predictive tests, and is the single unifying concept underlying all of biology. Creationism supports one view of the Bible but doesn't do any of these things. I will say this about the hardcore Biblical literalists: they at least hold firm to a story that makes as much sense as anything if we didn't have evidence and hadn't developed the scientific method. Intelligent Design is, in my opinion, worse, since it makes a mockery not only of religious thinking but also of science.


gregp,

Excellent posts!

But what is your opinion on the 2 button darted vs. sack suit controversy?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jamgood said:


>


:aportnoy:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> And RSS? Geez, he sort of did himself in. I mean, when he was trying to end the Interchange and/or get me banned and/or change the forum header, I was sort of quiet. I think he just went away amazed he could not bully people into kowtowing to his demands.


*Oh, well, as Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."*

*While I will admit no real fondness for Wayfarer &#8230; I never hoped to have anyone banned. At most my hope - expectation was never a part of it -- was to convince Andy to enforce the rules-- and have all follow them -- or change the rules to reflect what is being allowed in the Interchange. Otherwise I feel the site is dishonest. My private communication with Andy attests to this. If Andy disagrees, he is free to state otherwise. *

*As for my absence, to put it simply, I am unwilling to participate as a member of a "club" for which I have lost respect. Of course, some will always choose to see things their own way, and this I cannot change. *

*For the record ... the final PM's ... *




RSS said:


> Wayfarer ... I wish you the best. I say bye with no hard feelings.





Wayfarer said:


> The last PM contact we had, you stated to never PM you again. I have honoured that and I cannot figure out how you have the nerve to PM me. Why do you consistently try to set the rules and then break them at your whim? The arrogance you display is amazing in its depth and magnitude.
> 
> I say good riddance to a childish churl that tries to mask himself in passive aggressive bullshyte.





RSS said:


> As always ... what a delight.


 Subsequent Wayfarer PM's deleted by RSS.

*For the most part, this has been a wonderful website ... but I've really had enough of this less than civil discourse. *​
*I hereby resign my membership. Goodbye All. *
​


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Oh, nevermind.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I'm sorry he felt that way. I still respect you guys, though.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> I hereby resign my membership. *Again. For the last time. I promise.*


Fixed.

For those keeping count, how many times does this make? I count three or four.

EDIT: And since you have resigned your membership, why do you keep PM'ing me after you once requested me to never PM you again when you started a fight in PM and lost that too? I have honoured that request, even though you started the exchange, but as usual, you seem to not feel like rules apply to you. And to tell Andy, in your last post, that he can post on his own damn website? Your arrogance never fails to simply amaze me.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

RSS said:


> *Oh, well, as Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."*
> 
> *While I will admit no real fondness for Wayfarer &#8230; I never hoped to have anyone banned. At most my hope - expectation was never a part of it -- was to convince Andy to enforce the rules-- and have all follow them -- or change the rules to reflect what is being allowed in the Interchange. Otherwise I feel the site is dishonest. My private communication with Andy attests to this. If Andy disagrees, he is free to state otherwise. *
> 
> ...


It is interesting to read the wits of older people and to watch the younger witlessly reply, because they don't understand. The dimwits of the young you really can't point it out to them.

This place is sort of like an art musem, walking past paintings I think are worthless only to be standing by a painting I like and hearing others say it is worthless as they walk by, but then walking by them looking at a painting (I thought was worthless) saying what they like about it and watching them point out to each other the parts that mean something to them, I realize it has true value.

The point of the two paragraphs above is you will be missed.

While you may leave the interchange permanently I hope you still frequent the clothing threads.


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

KenR said:


> gregp,
> 
> Excellent posts!
> 
> But what is your opinion on the 2 button darted vs. sack suit controversy?


That's way too inflammatory a topic for me. Somethings are just best left untouched...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gregp said:


> Well, I was raised in a protestant/evangelical school and a southern baptist church: in both cases, I can tell you that no one believed in evolution. The 8th grade biology teacher more or less taught us "biology" from the Bible. We had the full gamut of creationist literature provided to us as well. Let me just be up front: I wasn't deprogrammed or anything dramatic, but I did learn what science was and wasn't over time and an understanding of evolutionary processes and the underpinning evidence was a real eye opener.
> 
> I have to disagree that creationism (in the sense that Biblical literalists use the term) has any resemblance to science. *As I pointed out, evolution is supported by all observed facts, by predictive tests, and is the single unifying concept underlying all of biology. *Creationism supports one view of the Bible but doesn't do any of these things. I will say this about the hardcore Biblical literalists: they at least hold firm to a story that makes as much sense as anything if we didn't have evidence and hadn't developed the scientific method. Intelligent Design is, in my opinion, worse, since it makes a mockery not only of religious thinking but also of science.


Yes, as far as I know, that's absolutely true about biology and possibly geology, but not about physics. The current evolutionism of the collapsing nebula violates the current understanding(s) of gravitational and magnetic forces; the atomic model itself. Evolutionism depends on more than biological and geological observations of the evolutionary process.

I think it's pretty much accepted that "believing in creation" no longer implies a Biblical literalist connotation and I think hardcore evolutionists pretending that it does in order to marginalize opposing views is a mockery. 

In the presidential debates, even Obama said he believes there is a God; a God that created the earth in six days, but that he doesn't think that is literal. Not the media, not even Hillary accused him of being anti-science or anything else, but if W said that you know they would just pile it on even deeper. 

Proposing that acceptance of the evolutionary processes requires a binary choice between evolutionism and creationism is a mockery of both religion and science too. I can admit that I don't know many biologists although I had many in courses (Sea World is right here locally). I do know quite a few geologists, chemists, and physicists professionally. I've never met one that wasn't fully aware they know far less than they don't know. I observe in them the same as I observe in MichaelS's post - humility, not arrogance. Humility and an appreciation of the grandeur of our home and the intelligence required not to create it, but simply to understand it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I might have to take part of the above back. Would an "expert in human pharmacokinetics and clinical trials" count as a biologist? I'm not really sure. If so, I know a bunch of them too.


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Yes, as far as I know, that's absolutely true about biology and possibly geology, but not about physics. The current evolutionism of the collapsing nebula violates the current understanding(s) of gravitational and magnetic forces; the atomic model itself. Evolutionism depends on more than biological and geological observations of the evolutionary process.
> 
> I think it's pretty much accepted that "believing in creation" no longer implies a Biblical literalist connotation and I think hardcore evolutionists pretending that it does in order to marginalize opposing views is a mockery.
> 
> ...


Maybe I used the term creationism too broadly. By creationism, I meant the range from absolute Biblical literalism, which is very much alive and well in American, to Intelligence Design. I certainly don't believe you can't believe in both God and evolution and be consistent (or possibly even correct!) or that there we have a perfect understanding of evolutionary processes. If you grant that Dobzhansky believes in "creationism" than I would probably accept that label for myself. On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that if you read "creationism" in the popular press, it's probably not with reference to Dobzhansky's mode of thinking. Regardless, I agree with everything you wrote about the need for humility and recognizing how incomplete our understanding is of virtually everything.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gregp said:


> Maybe I used the term creationism too broadly. By creationism, I meant the range from absolute Biblical literalism, which is very much alive and well in American, to Intelligence Design. I certainly don't believe you can't believe in both God and evolution and be consistent (or possibly even correct!) or that there we have a perfect understanding of evolutionary processes. If you grant that Dobzhansky believes in "creationism" than I would probably accept that label for myself. On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that if you read "creationism" in the popular press, it's probably not with reference to Dobzhansky's mode of thinking. Regardless, I agree with everything you wrote about the need for humility and recognizing how incomplete our understanding is of virtually everything.


Well, that's fair.

However flawed ID is (fatally even), one thing it represents is that creationists have accepted the evidence that their views also need refinement and revision. Evolutionists frequently claim that all they want is for creationists to recognize the scientific evidence. Well, they have. 

As this is a religious matter for most, it's no wonder it takes longer than science to reverse course. I would point out science does not exactly turn on a dime. 

IMHO, ID is akin to watching how the sausage is made. Is it good religion or good science? Probably neither, but pragmatically speaking I consider it a step in the right direction. That's probably a little too generous, but I don't claim absolute neutrality. 

So how long were you a snakehandler? :devil:


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Well, that's fair.
> 
> However flawed ID is (fatally even), one thing it represents is that creationists have accepted the evidence that their views also need refinement and revision. Evolutionists frequently claim that all they want is for creationists to recognize the scientific evidence. Well, they have.
> 
> ...


I guess they have recognized the need for scientific evidence, but have really been unable to produce any.

There is always room in science for the refinement of ideas, so creationists only nee to produce scientific evidence that can be reproduced and tested by others. The idea that science won't accept any new information is rubbish.

The true irony though is that creationists wish for science to accept information that indicates that life on earth developed through more godly means, but have no interest in any evidence that goes counter to a 6 day creation story.


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> I guess they have recognized the need for scientific evidence, but have really been unable to produce any.
> 
> There is always room in science for the refinement of ideas, so creationists only nee to produce scientific evidence that can be reproduced and tested by others. The idea that science won't accept any new information is rubbish.
> 
> The true irony though is that creationists wish for science to accept information that indicates that life on earth developed through more godly means, but have no interest in any evidence that goes counter to a 6 day creation story.


I remember reading a study that indicated that the majority of paleontologists believe in God. So it's clear that the contention that Darwinism leads to atheism just doesn't hold water.

It's also true there has been a shift in some of the creationist circles as well; it's a strange thing, though. "Well, we sort of recognize that evolution happens kinda, but we don't really want to believe it so whatever where ever think we can find incompleteness, we'll posit God." The big concession in the American fundamentalist-evangelical religious circles that I've seen has been the admission that "microevolution occurs but macroevolution doesn't." Someone should have read their Darwin before coming up with that one, since his entire theory was based on the cumulative effects of "gradual" change. Once you allow for "microevolution," the camel's nose has already been let in the tent.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

gregp said:


> Once you allow for "microevolution," the camel's nose has already been let in the tent.


And 4+ billion years is a lot of time to work it all out.

So is 4,000 years, really-- 1 million times that gives a lot of scope indeed.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> I guess they have recognized the need for scientific evidence, but have really been unable to produce any.
> 
> There is always room in science for the refinement of ideas, so creationists only nee to produce scientific evidence that can be reproduced and tested by others. The idea that science won't accept any new information is rubbish.
> 
> The true irony though is that creationists wish for science to accept information that indicates that life on earth developed through more godly means, but have no interest in any evidence that goes counter to a 6 day creation story.


ROFLMAO!

You want preachers to start conducting scientific research and producing evidence?

Religion is recognizing the evidence which exists that science has produced. The problem is evolutionism theorizes beyond the point that evidence of evolution exists. That's "ok" for science I guess, but it's ridiculous to imply it's absolute. We are on like the 4th official version of it now anyway. It's really no different than the Native Americans version of creation vs. the Catholic Church's version.


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> ROFLMAO!
> 
> You want preachers to start conducting scientific research and producing evidence?
> 
> Religion is recognizing the evidence which exists that science has produced. The problem is evolutionism theorizes beyond the point that evidence of evolution exists. That's "ok" for science I guess, but it's ridiculous to imply it's absolute. We are on like the 4th official version of it now anyway. It's really no different than the Native Americans version of creation vs. the Catholic Church's version.


I'm having difficulty parsing this, but it might be clearer if you stated what you mean by "evolutionism". Do you mean the origin of life from non-living sources?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

gregp said:


> I remember reading a study that indicated that the majority of paleontologists believe in God. So it's clear that the contention that Darwinism leads to atheism just doesn't hold water.
> 
> It's also true there has been a shift in some of the creationist circles as well; it's a strange thing, though. "Well, we sort of recognize that evolution happens kinda, but we don't really want to believe it so whatever where ever think we can find incompleteness, we'll posit God." The big concession in the American fundamentalist-evangelical religious circles that I've seen has been the admission that "microevolution occurs but macroevolution doesn't." Someone should have read their Darwin before coming up with that one, since his entire theory was based on the cumulative effects of "gradual" change. Once you allow for "microevolution," the camel's nose has already been let in the tent.


Your misunderstanding of science about macroevolution & microevolution is huge. The difference between the two- the creationist and macroevolutionist agree on. And, creationist are certainly not letting the camel's nose into the tent! Microevolution is exactly what it says in Genesis that each kind comes of it's own kind, and not Macroevolution that says cow to whale. There are lots of different kinds of dogs, but they are all dogs from dogs- so, microevolution. Sleezy macroevolutionist will try to confuse people by making one sound like the other, if they can get away with it.

When I was in school paleontologists were mostly macroevolutionist (never heard of any that weren't back then). The missing link and paleontologists were hand in hand. This was heavily preached in science class and you were heavily scoffed and mocked if you did not believe them. This extheory is under the carpet and they shamefully don't want you looking under there to see how foolish they were. I didn't like being hammered by their like religous belief of it. It was almost, sometimes, like being in a hell-fire and brimestone sermon of them trying to convict you of believing in something else. Indeed the cow to whale belief by paleontologists with no evidence convince many people to believe in macroevolution.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

As usual, one of the key elements in your argument is simply false. There is tons of fossil evidence for evolution of species. To take one example, which you grossly distort, here's a link that demonstrates the fossil record of evolution from land mammals to whales:
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html

One quote: The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

WA said:


> Your misunderstanding of science about macroevolution & microevolution is huge. The difference between the two- the creationist and macroevolutionist agree on. And, creationist are certainly not letting the camel's nose into the tent! Microevolution is exactly what it says in Genesis that each kind comes of it's own kind, and not Macroevolution that says cow to whale. There are lots of different kinds of dogs, but they are all dogs from dogs- so, microevolution. Sleezy macroevolutionist will try to confuse people by making one sound like the other, if they can get away with it.
> 
> When I was in school paleontologists were mostly macroevolutionist (never heard of any that weren't back then). The missing link and paleontologists were hand in hand. This was heavily preached in science class and you were heavily scoffed and mocked if you did not believe them. This extheory is under the carpet and they shamefully don't want you looking under there to see how foolish they were. I didn't like being hammered by their like religous belief of it. It was almost, sometimes, like being in a hell-fire and brimestone sermon of them trying to convict you of believing in something else. Indeed the cow to whale belief by paleontologists with no evidence convince many people to believe in macroevolution.


There is absolutely no difference other than time and consequent genetic distance. Common descent occurs through a long process of gradual change: there are no disjoint changes where one species suddenly morphs to another (there are sudden axial changes and structural repetition induced through mutation that do appear to be dramatic, but they are changes of form not of type). The reason we know this is because we can "watch it happen" in the fossil record, we can see the genetic closeness, and we can look at the structural similarities of the physical entities. The evolution of aquatic mammals is a rich and fascinating subject, especially the migration of the blow hole. These are some of the best examples of evolution at work.

Dogs are descended from wolves (the grey wolf if memory serves), so they are an example of gradual "macroevolution" in progress if you like.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that mock others they disagree with, so I'm sorry that you had that experience.


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> As usual, one of the key elements in your argument is simply false. There is tons of fossil evidence for evolution of species. To take one example, which you grossly distort, here's a link that demonstrates the fossil record of evolution from land mammals to whales:
> https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
> 
> One quote: The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).


Whale evolution is a really really exciting topic. I had the chance to observe some grey whales on the Pacific recently: they really are amazing creatures.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gregp said:


> I'm having difficulty parsing this, but it might be clearer if you stated what you mean by "evolutionism". Do you mean the origin of life from non-living sources?


Well specifically I'm referring to speculation regarding the origin of the planet. In terms of biology: inheritance, selection, mutation, prediction et al are observed as facts - evolution. I accept that. Somewhere between those points is the origin of life (I wouldn't say necessarily from non-living sources). 

My personal interests are more in the origin of the planet and the physics side of things since my family mostly either works or has worked in the space program. For instance, my Father worked Flight Simulations and Astronaut Training at the Cape for Apollo.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

One of the more sensible compromises out there:

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Which reminds me-- I still don't have my pirate/global warming mug.

https://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Praise be*

to all who have been touched by the Noodly Appendage!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> to all who have been touched by the Noodly Appendage!


I haven't been touched by the noodly appendage.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> to all who have been touched by the Noodly Appendage!


They've got pills for that now. :devil:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> They've got pills for that now. :devil:


Prozac?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Wafers. But you have to take them weekly.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)




----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

That was d... 

I mean ... jamgood! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Concordia said:


> Wafers. But you have to take them weekly.


I'm guessing your screen name has nothing to do with Lutheranism, otherwise you would know (as every good Lutheran knows) that Holy Communion is only served on the 1st and 3rd Sundays of the month. You can't have the true Body and Blood of Christ _every_ week. That's for Catholics and those high and mighty Episcopalians.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Correct again. Not my club, so I'm only vaguely aware of the rules.

Always consult your own pharmacist before treatment.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I was just making a joke about doctrinal differences between the mainline churches. Concordia is the name of several Lutheran universities, as well as the seminaries, so that is what I think of when I see the name.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

That fact does make Googling for information about my own vices a little more complicated.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Concordia said:


> That fact does make Googling for information about my own vices a little more complicated.


Not if you're into German beer. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> Not at all - religion relies entirely on faith. There is absolutely nothing approaching scientific level evidence to support religion. Religion relies on its own canon to support it.
> 
> Evolution has missing pieces of information, or information that changes over time. Scientific theories commonly do and scientists are okay with that. Creationists want to insert the creation myth into the whitespace without any evidence.
> 
> I am all for creationism, as soon as someone produces something beyond a self-referential book that honestly could have been written by anyone. Where is the scientific evidence of a 6 day creation, where is the evidence of Adam and Eve?


I'm gonna just bite my tongue here. Cheers! :icon_smile:


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I'm gonna just bite my tongue here. Cheers! :icon_smile:


Er, ah > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor > Time estimates, paragraph 2

&

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point

Most Recent Common Ancestor 5000 years ago (Mrs. Noah?) and Identical Common Ancestor a few thousand years earlier? Eve?

Mmmmm.......

SCIENCE!


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

jamgood said:


> Er, ah > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor > Time estimates, paragraph 2
> 
> &
> 
> ...


It also says: "The identical ancestors point for **** sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, with an estimate of the human MRCA living about 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, that is, estimating the IAP to be about three times as distant as the MRCA.[3] Note that both the matrilineal and the patrilineal human mrcas are far more remote still, dating to some 150,000 and 90,000 years ago, respectively"

90-150K is a little longer than 5K years. There is a lot more to this theory than just Eve lived 5000 years ago. I am not familiar with this theory but from the little I read in wikipedia, it is not so simple as to allow us to trace everything back to Eve. None of us should be quoteing something like this without a full understanding.

By the way, two questions for those who say there is "Scientific" evidence for Noah's flood:

1) Where did all of the water come from (if this was a scientific/natural occurrence)? Not the ice caps, there is not enough water in the ice caps to drown the whole world. Is there enough water in the atmosphere? I don't know. Even if there is enough, the only way to force all of the water out of the air as far as I can figure would be to lower the air temp to something like absolute zero where there would be only ice, no 40 day of rain of flood waters??

2) Where did the water go when the flood was over? It had to have drained somewhere. If the whole world is submerged, there is no where for the water to drain.

I suppose someone will say the water was evaporated but if the whole world was covered in water, it would take many months or years for the water to all evaporate.

Also, with so much water reportedly coming down over the entire world surface for 40 days I don't see how you could get the type of erosion that would form a Grand Canyon as there would be minimal down-cutting as the sea level would be coming up rapidly and there would be huge lakes forming above sea level that would be the lowest level for down-cutting, etc,. Plus there would be so much immediate erosion, that all of the water would be so full of mud, rocks etc, everything would erode, not just one small canyon (small in relation to the size of the world). Any hole in the ground would be filled up by the sediment be eroded everywhere as water levels rise rivers cease, and sediment is dropped everywhere.

In order to raise the surface of the sea 29,000 feet (Mt Everest) in 40 days and nights, you would need a worldwide raise in sea level of 725 feet per day assuming constant rain fall (actually more the first few weeks until most of the continents were submerged). (Think about how much rain you get when a major thunderstorm drops several inches of rain, now think of 725 feet in 24 hours)

There wouldn't be anything left. No topsoil to farm etc. It just doesn't work. There is no good scientific explanation for the reported Noah's flood

Or at least that's how I see it from the perspective of a geologist (practicing) (and a non practicing climatologists with a focus on water budget).


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

:icon_study:  :icon_jokercolor:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS,

Do you know if it is possible that the glaciers that Algore claims are going to melt and drown us all would be enough water to submerge the whole world? If so, maybe that's where it went?

:idea:

10 secs on Google - it seems like only a 2% change in solid->liquid=totally submerged. I could be reading that wrong.

https://www.lenntech.com/Water-Quantity-FAQ.htm

"Over 90% of the world's supply of fresh water is located in Antarctica." https://www.lenntech.com/water-trivia-facts.htm

Oceans blah blah ... This is apparently 97% of the total amount of water on earth, 2% of which is frozen.

Of all the water on earth, which is 97,14% of the total amount of surface water, only 2,59% is freshwater. Of this 2,59% another percentage is trapped in ice caps and glaciers, which is about 2%. The rest of the freshwater is either groundwater (0,592%), or readily accessible water in lakes, streams, rivers, etc. (0,014%)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jamgood said:


> :icon_study:  :icon_jokercolor:


ic12337:  :devil:


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

> MichaelS,
> 
> Do you know if it is possible that the glaciers that Algore claims are going to melt and drown us all would be enough water to submerge the whole world? If so, maybe that's where it went?
> 
> ...


If all the glaciers and ice sheets in the world melted, that would result in an approximate two percent increase in liquid water on Earth. That increase would submerge the roughly 28 - 30 percent of the Earth's surface that is dry land?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Lushington, it's been awhile. Glad to see you're posting again!!!


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Lushington said:


> If all the glaciers and ice sheets in the world melted, that would result in an approximate two percent increase in liquid water on Earth. That increase would submerge the roughly 28 - 30 percent of the Earth's surface that is dry land?


Where did that figure come from? I have neard much lower figures. Either way, it aint Waterworld!. I'll try to look this up if I get a minute.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Really quickly, the USGS estimated 215 foot rise in sea level if all of the ice in Greenland and Antartica melted (the ice in the artic doesn't count because it is already floating and if it melts, it won;t raise the water level: ie: when ice melts in your glass, it does not raise the water level in your glass).

Please note that this does not include the rise in sea level from expansion of water due to the rise in temperature that must occur if all of the ice melts. I don't know this off hand but it is significant although I believe a lot less than the 215. 

Whether or not this equates to 30 or more percent of present dry land I don't know but there is a lot of low lying land around the world that would be flooded. there is also a lot of land above 215 feet (we are also still experincing isostatic rebound from the last glaciers in some area so the earth is rising at a very low rate).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

As I understand it, Algore is maybe not saying the top of every mountain would be submerged, but the parts where a large majority of the populations live would be.

Anyone know the % of the population living > 215 feet < ?

I live on about the highest hill in the surrounding metro area of Orlando. We are only somewhere between 121-131 feet above sea level. New York City is 33 feet. OTOH Atlanta, Georgia is 730-1050 feet. 

Stone Mountain here I come! :icon_smile_big:

Thanks for the answer MichaelS!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Here's a link to a USGS article that contains the info that Michael referenced and other interesting bits.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Concordia said:


> Wafers. But you have to take them weekly.


What kind of wafers? cookie wafers?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

jamgood said:


>


Everyone needs a little more of me in their lives.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Howard said:


> Everyone needs a little more of me in their lives.


HM Prison Service? P. T. Barnum? The Brigade of Gurkhas?! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

Ben Stein wraps himself up in a cloak of the lone renegade crying out against Big Science, which was the formula that worked well for coral calcium-selling slickster Kevin Trudeau and his late night "Secrets doctors dont want you to know" infomercials. 

Also, there is a popular misconception that "survival of the fittest" means one species pummels another to climb to the top of the food chain. This is not true. Natural selection is about a indiciduals who have the ability to produce the most surviving offspring, and who have garnered traits that facilitate this - are the ones who get their genes into the gene pool with the most frequency and thus move the species in that direction.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

I think my tourettes is under control, but thought this article would spark some additional conversation:

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

I have some nice (future) ocean from land here in VT for sale at a most reasonable price.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Hey, Michael, are you going to go over and watch Ben Stein at UVM tomorrow afternoon? I'm not, although I have to say it's tempting to come with some of the evidence to deflate him during the Q&A.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Hey, Michael, are you going to go over and watch Ben Stein at UVM tomorrow afternoon? I'm not, although I have to say it's tempting to come with some of the evidence to deflate him during the Q&A.


I actually didn't know this was scheduled and it would be interesting to go but I have meetings scheduled all afternoon. I also try to avoid things like that because I have too much trouble keeping my mouth shut (I also never go to the annual Dowsers convention in VT as I would begin speaking and they would all beat me to death with their dowsing rods and other implements of detecting the natural energy of Mother Earth).

With the state of Vermont's present Secretary of Agency of Natural Resources so focused on Climate Change, it will be interesting to see who is there to discount/trash Stein. I wonder if there will be any state employees?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Hey, Michael, are you going to go over and watch Ben Stein at UVM tomorrow afternoon? I'm not, although I have to say it's tempting to come with some of the evidence to deflate him during the Q&A.





MichaelS said:


> I actually didn't know this was scheduled and it would be interesting to go but I have meetings scheduled all afternoon. I also try to avoid things like that because I have too much trouble keeping my mouth shut (I also never go to the annual Dowsers convention in VT as I would begin speaking and they would all beat me to death with their dowsing rods and other implements of detecting the natural energy of Mother Earth).
> 
> With the state of Vermont's present Secretary of Agency of Natural Resources so focused on Climate Change, it will be interesting to see who is there to discount/trash Stein. I wonder if there will be any state employees?


Seeing respect and tolerance for diversity like this always touches me a little. :devil:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Rossini said:


> HM Prison Service? P. T. Barnum? The Brigade of Gurkhas?! :icon_smile_big:


No Rossini,I didn't expect to be over there. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

MichaelS said:


> I have some nice (future) ocean from land here in VT for sale at a most reasonable price.


For How Much?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Howard said:


> For How Much?


Top of MT. Everst. $5,000 per square inch. How much do you want to buy? It's a great deal!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

WA said:


> Top of MT. Everst. $5,000 per square inch. How much do you want to buy? It's a great deal!


Less than 5,000 dollars.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Howard said:


> Less than 5,000 dollars.


Howard you are so very nice, I guess I should be just as nice. How about $3,000? That is a significant cut in price, right?.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Howard you are so very nice, I guess I should be just as nice. How about $3,000? That is a significant cut in price, right?.


Howard, don't do it! Pathmark cost on that can't be more than $1,000!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Howard, don't do it! Pathmark cost on that can't be more than $1,000!


Oh Howard don't listen to ksinc! The veiw must be worth at least a million bucks!!!


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Howie, better to use your employee discount and start hoarding and arbitraging


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

MichaelS said:


> It also says: "The identical ancestors point for **** sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, with an estimate of the human MRCA living about 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, that is, estimating the IAP to be about three times as distant as the MRCA.[3] Note that both the matrilineal and the patrilineal human mrcas are far more remote still, dating to some 150,000 and 90,000 years ago, respectively"
> 
> 90-150K is a little longer than 5K years. There is a lot more to this theory than just Eve lived 5000 years ago. I am not familiar with this theory but from the little I read in wikipedia, it is not so simple as to allow us to trace everything back to Eve. None of us should be quoteing something like this without a full understanding.
> 
> ...


Dude, I'm not meaning to knock ya or anything, but you are not keeping up with the latest "scientific discoveries" All that water went into the center of the earth. You can read all about it here.

If you go to this page, then you can see that the same kind of "scientists" that support Creation Theory and Intelligent Design fully support this theory (Dare I call it a theory, hell no, this must be scientific fact). But to assure you that this is all on the up and up, let me post a little quote from this page (https://www.ourhollowearth.com/ExpeditionUpdate.htm)

This is good science. The kind folks like ksinc and WA can get behind. I mean, look, they're even quoting Old Testament scripture here.

_ This polar expedition proposes that we seek out that land where our cousins, the Greenland Vikings went, and visit them in their hidden land within the North Polar Opening that is within the hollow of our earth. Indications are that that land is inhabited. The story of the Scandinavian explorer Olaf Jansen and his father who attained that land through the north polar opening in 1829, maintains the people there are friendly, highly advanced in the sciences, arts, and geometry. And that they are ardent worshipers of the Israelite god Jehovah, whom they believe has a throne on the sun of inner earth. Most likely, since their god is Jehovah, these peoples of inner earth are actually the legendary Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, whom the Apocryphal author Esdras wrote, escaped the Assyrians in 687 BC and migrated to a region in the north called Arsareth, taking a year and half to reach that land. It's a veritable paradise. Deuteronomy 30:4 calls it the "outmost parts of heaven" where the lost tribes were driven from their original home in Palestine. Jeremiah called it "the land of the north." (Jer. 3:12-18) Other scriptures refer to it as the "north countries." It is a land where there is much gold, and abundance of precious stones, metals and giant forests. It is a veritable Garden of Eden. *Indeed, Olaf Jansen claims that this is where the original Garden of Eden is located to this day -- within Our Hollow Earth.* He was taken there on a monorail train of inner earth by friendly inner earth inhabitants. It is located on the highest mountain plateau of the inner continent where "...all manner of fruits, vines, shrubs, trees, and flowers grow in riotous profusion. In this garden four rivers have their source in a mighty artesian fountain. They divide and flow in four directions. The place is called by the inhabitants, the 'navel of the earth' or the beginning, 'the cradle of the human race.' The names of the rivers are Euphrates, the Pison, the Gihon, and the Hiddekel." (The Smoky God, p.114)

It is hoped that this expedition can find this outmost parts of Eden, a land within the North Polar Opening at or near 84.4 N. Latitude, 141 E. Longitude, about 1,700 miles directly north of the New Siberian Islands.
_


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

android said:


> Dude, I'm not meaning to knock ya or anything, but you are not keeping up with the latest "scientific discoveries" All that water went into the center of the earth. You can read all about it here.
> 
> If you go to this page, then you can see that the same kind of "scientists" that support Creation Theory and Intelligent Design fully support this theory (Dare I call it a theory, hell no, this must be scientific fact). But to assure you that this is all on the up and up, let me post a little quote from this page (https://www.ourhollowearth.com/ExpeditionUpdate.htm)
> 
> ...


Yeah, it's all true. We go on vacation there every year. Nice place, but it's a little too crowded on the Euphrates side. We usually stay near the Hiddekel. There's a nice Brooks Brothers outlet near Pison. Oh, and be sure to check out some of the local wineries. Apparently all of that fire and ice is good for the grapes.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

android said:


> Dude, I'm not meaning to knock ya or anything, but you are not keeping up with the latest "scientific discoveries" All that water went into the center of the earth. You can read all about it here.
> 
> If you go to this page, then you can see that the same kind of "scientists" that support Creation Theory and Intelligent Design fully support this theory (Dare I call it a theory, hell no, this must be scientific fact). But to assure you that this is all on the up and up, let me post a little quote from this page (https://www.ourhollowearth.com/ExpeditionUpdate.htm)
> 
> ...


Thanks man, I now see the light, I signed up for the expedition and am giving them all of my money as I won't need any to live in the underground paradise they describe.

How could I have EVER thought that the center of the earth was so hot (but where is he11 then?).


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Seeing respect and tolerance for diversity like this always touches me a little. :devil:


I would say my statements about staying away from certain meetings have nothing to do with a lack of respect for what is normally though of as diversity. (I do have a lack of respect for wing-nut "theories".) I do however try to show these people some respect by not going to their meetings and causing a public ruckass by trashing their deeply held beliefs in their turff so to speak!

If there was a public forum where theses things could be discussed in an open and thoughtful manner I would be more than happy to be part of that (and trash the wing-nut thoeries there).

(I wonder if the Interchange could be that "public forum where theses things could be discussed in an open and thoughtful manner"? Nah!!)


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

jamgood said:


> Howie, better to use your employee discount and start hoarding and arbitraging


I don't need rice for anything now except for cooking which my Mother does all the time.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

WA said:


> Howard you are so very nice, I guess I should be just as nice. How about $3,000? That is a significant cut in price, right?.


Do you take installments?


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Res ipsa loquitur


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Howard said:


> Do you take installments?


Is a penny a day to much?

Not sure with the birds eye view you can see the ocean yet, but time will bring it that way. After all- Sea Shells to Sea Shells.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> As usual, one of the key elements in your argument is simply false. There is tons of fossil evidence for evolution of species. To take one example, which you grossly distort, here's a link that demonstrates the fossil record of evolution from land mammals to whales:
> https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
> 
> One quote: The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).


The cow to whale theory and even the cow to hippo to whale theory and other variation has been around for a long time. I first heard of it in the sixties. I was 11 or 12 when color tv's became available to the public. Was I in middle school when touch tone phones came out? Do you know what it is like to use the old dial phones? How about the party line? Gotta listen to your phone jingle; and how many people eves dropped? The point is scienitist didn't know much, because there was know way for them to know much. For the last 40-50 years the discoveries of biology is in the millions. Blood. What is blood? They almost knew nothing about blood back then. Lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, skin, muscles, and the list goes on. When I was in early grade school nobody thought life was further back than maybe 50 million years. 500 million was a big day. Then a billion. They are adding billions like nothing anymore. Why? Because they have to to fit their want to be theory. When you have ten things to macro-evolve into something else, which is all by chance, how long could it happen? 5mil.? 10mil. Now if you discover it is more like fifty things to evolve you now have to up the millions of years by a large amount to maybe 80mil. Then comes along carbon dating. You have to create a formula to match the millions of years you believe the date of everything is. But as time goes by they have to keep changing the formula to meet the new time scales (called cooking the books). And then 20 year later 1,000 things need to evolve, because they keep discovering the body has more and needs it all. So, is a couple hundred million years long enough? There numbers are totally off, because if you add up all that is know today of biology and guess at number chance and add that all up the numbers have to be into the trillions times trillions. And what they discover within the next ten years is going to up the time scale a thousand time or more.

Now if you look at geology, to keep in harmony with biology, and geology has coal with is part of biology- how is coal made? Life has to grow such as plants, animal, fish, birds, etc. and dies and this death gets so thick. Now it needs to be compress and baked. How does that happen? Does it go under for compression and bakeing by subduction (earthquakes)? How does it come up to the surface, so we can use it? How many trillions of years does this take to get a 35 foot thick layer of coal? By the way, the dino age that you belive in, are off by well over trillions of years. So after you do all of your calulations to figure out all of these years it has to take why do they find silver smith items and other man made stuff in veins of coal?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> By the way, two questions for those who say there is "Scientific" evidence for Noah's flood:
> 
> 1) Where did all of the water come from (if this was a scientific/natural occurrence)? Not the ice caps, there is not enough water in the ice caps to drown the whole world. Is there enough water in the atmosphere? I don't know. Even if there is enough, the only way to force all of the water out of the air as far as I can figure would be to lower the air temp to something like absolute zero where there would be only ice, no 40 day of rain of flood waters??
> 
> ...


There is a lot to wonder isn't there? Some people think God has no more ability than man. If this is the way you have been taught then it is hard to believe otherwise. Consider the ant and man. Does not the man have diesel and a big bulldozer and can make a mountain in one day compare what and ant can do in making an ant hill in a couple years. Would you expect an ant to be driving a bulldozer?

40 days of rain (first rain ever). The ground opening up and water pouring up (earthquakes). And the last word asswagered (this maybe slosh slosh- many layers). I can't prove it. Like you I have been taught to believe certain stuff, but anybody can explain it (geology) a different way. There are a number people who come from athiest families and learned science and taught science and praticed science and medicine who walked away from their science teachings because when you look at the overall picture it (macro-evolution) doesn't work. Some of these people have been shown scienticfic thoughts from the Bible. Some people believe in a long earth but not biology macro-evolution. It is interesting that macro-evolutionist Dawkins belives something from outer space brought life to earth and an IDist (I can find his name if you wish) also belives something from outer space brought life to earth and yet these two are on opposite sides of the table. I personally don't like people controlling my thoughts or the direction of it. Your side of the fence I see much of in the news and publications, so I do see it. My side you have to look for it; and both sides have to wonder what to belive. This is short because I have to run. Thanks for writing.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

WA said:


> Is a penny a day to much?
> 
> Not sure with the birds eye view you can see the ocean yet, but time will bring it that way. After all- Sea Shells to Sea Shells.


A penny a day? You must be joking.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Howard said:


> A penny a day? You must be joking.


Maybe I should make that 2 cents every day. That way I can buy a piece of gum everyday.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

WA said:


> There is a lot to wonder isn't there? Some people think God has no more ability than man. If this is the way you have been taught then it is hard to believe otherwise. Consider the ant and man. Does not the man have diesel and a big bulldozer and can make a mountain in one day compare what and ant can do in making an ant hill in a couple years. Would you expect an ant to be driving a bulldozer?
> 
> 40 days of rain (first rain ever). The ground opening up and water pouring up (earthquakes). And the last word asswagered (this maybe slosh slosh- many layers). I can't prove it. Like you I have been taught to believe certain stuff, but anybody can explain it (geology) a different way. There are a number people who come from athiest families and learned science and taught science and praticed science and medicine who walked away from their science teachings because when you look at the overall picture it (macro-evolution) doesn't work. Some of these people have been shown scienticfic thoughts from the Bible. Some people believe in a long earth but not biology macro-evolution. It is interesting that macro-evolutionist Dawkins belives something from outer space brought life to earth and an IDist (I can find his name if you wish) also belives something from outer space brought life to earth and yet these two are on opposite sides of the table. I personally don't like people controlling my thoughts or the direction of it. Your side of the fence I see much of in the news and publications, so I do see it. My side you have to look for it; and both sides have to wonder what to belive. This is short because I have to run. Thanks for writing.


https://vodpod.com/watch/550528-carl-sagan's-cosmos-edited-for-********


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Bob Loblaw said:


> https://vodpod.com/watch/550528-carl-sagan's-cosmos-edited-for-********


Kinda funny.

The big bang theory came out in the 70's, if I remember correctly. Lot of scientist didn't like it. Some Christians decided it was close enough, so hopped on the band-wagon. Through out history some Christians have hopped on this science band-wagon or that science band-wagon only to find out that scientist departed it. The tools of the past were few and crude. To put a theory up was mostly your skill with words as a salesman convinceing people you are right. If you could do that you could make money selling books, lectures, and getting grants. Some of the major skulls for "major theories" you cannot test them (I wonder why?), and few people get to hold them in their hands. To be a theory there has to be doubt, other-wise it is faith. Belief means possible and faith is fact. You can believe in opposeing theories. But, if you have faith in any or them you may be a fanatic.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

WA said:


> Maybe I should make that 2 cents every day. That way I can buy a piece of gum everyday.


How about a nickel every day?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> Kinda funny.
> 
> The big bang theory came out in the 70's, if I remember correctly. Lot of scientist didn't like it. Some Christians decided it was close enough, so hopped on the band-wagon. Through out history some Christians have hopped on this science band-wagon or that science band-wagon only to find out that scientist departed it. The tools of the past were few and crude. To put a theory up was mostly your skill with words as a salesman convinceing people you are right. If you could do that you could make money selling books, lectures, and getting grants. Some of the major skulls for "major theories" you cannot test them (I wonder why?), and few people get to hold them in their hands. To be a theory there has to be doubt, other-wise it is faith. Belief means possible and faith is fact. You can believe in opposeing theories. But, if you have faith in any or them you may be a fanatic.


Actually, you don't remember correctly; that is, unless 1931 was in the 70's.

Follow this link to review some of the evidence that supports the Big Bang theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang.

Oh, and WA, if you don't like the evidence, go ahead and tell us what's wrong with it, instead of just telling us that we all believe it because someone told us to.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> To put a theory up was mostly your skill with words as a salesman convinceing people you are right.


Quoted for hilarity. Facts = who cares? Ability to sell = being right. 'Cause all the other scientists are just waiting around for snake oil, right? :crazy:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Has anyone's opinion on this subject changed yet? hmmm...didn't think so.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Has anyone's opinion on this subject changed yet? hmmm...didn't think so.


It's only the hardcore evolutionists that refuse to change. I am constantly adapting. :devil:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Actually, you don't remember correctly; that is, unless 1931 was in the 70's.
> 
> Follow this link to review some of the evidence that supports the Big Bang theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang.
> 
> Oh, and WA, if you don't like the evidence, go ahead and tell us what's wrong with it, instead of just telling us that we all believe it because someone told us to.


I don't remember hearing about the big bang theory until about 1978. Black-holes were spoken about when I was in high school. I was going to check out an old World Book *Encyclopedias *before writing here, but I forgot.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Howard said:


> How about a nickel every day?


There must be a catch to this right? When ever somebody offers me double or more I step back and think whoa. Since every penny of every day is already plotted out it will take me months to figure out what to do with those 3 extra cents per-day. Not sure my pockets are big enough to hold them all until I figure this all out.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Quoted for hilarity. Facts = who cares? Ability to sell = being right. 'Cause all the other scientists are just waiting around for snake oil, right? :crazy:


You sound like an older brother, big fist and all. They are always right no matter how many whipping your parents give you later.

Older brothers force snake oil on their younger brothers, too.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> You sound like an older brother, big fist and all. They are always right no matter how many whipping your parents give you later.
> 
> Older brothers force snake oil on their younger brothers, too.


Believe it or not, this is not meant to be snarky, but I have not the faintest clue what you said here. And btw, FWIW, I am the youngest brother of six brothers.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I think he called you a bully. Did you pick on your older brothers?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I think he called you a bully. Did you pick on your older brothers?


LOL, yeah. I can remember, when I was two, I laid out my 6'5" brother who is 30 years older than me. 

WA, if LAX has the correct translation of what you said, I am a bully for pointing out you said the facts have no bearing in dominant scientific theories? My god, get together with jazzy1 please.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL, yeah. I can remember, when I was two, I laid out my 6'5" brother who is 30 years older than me.
> 
> WA, if LAX has the correct translation of what you said, I am a bully for pointing out you said the facts have no bearing in dominant scientific theories? My god, get together with jazzy1 please.


You must have been one helluva enforcer on your mini-mite team!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> You must have been one helluva enforcer on your mini-mite team!


You have no idea. I once embedded my teething ring in high carbon steel.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You have no idea. I once embedded my teething ring in high carbon steel.


LOL :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

WA said:


> There must be a catch to this right? When ever somebody offers me double or more I step back and think whoa. Since every penny of every day is already plotted out it will take me months to figure out what to do with those 3 extra cents per-day. Not sure my pockets are big enough to hold them all until I figure this all out.


So how much are you asking?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

WA said:


> Now if you look at geology, to keep in harmony with biology, and geology has coal with is part of biology- how is coal made? Life has to grow such as plants, animal, fish, birds, etc. and dies and this death gets so thick. Now it needs to be compress and baked. How does that happen? Does it go under for compression and bakeing by subduction (earthquakes)? How does it come up to the surface, so we can use it? How many trillions of years does this take to get a 35 foot thick layer of coal? By the way, the dino age that you belive in, are off by well over trillions of years. So after you do all of your calulations to figure out all of these years it has to take why do they find silver smith items and other man made stuff in veins of coal?


Real quickly, most coal does not have to be "baked" (although anthracite might have had a little bit of heat to go with the pressure but not in a subduction zone). It just needs time and compression. If you want to see coal being formed today, look in any peat bog. In just 10,000 years after the last glaciers melted, relatively thick layers of peat have formed in Europe and North America. (Thick enough to have provided a lot of years of fuel for heating, cooking, and making scotch in europe). Its not trillions of years. In the appalachian coal beds we can see the various progressions from swamp to lake to rivers to oceans called cyclotherms (I forget the actual progression but it is repeated vertically showing periods of time with oceans moving in, out etc.

The thick lignite coal beds in the Western US are younger (and thicker due to less compression) than the bituminous coal in Appalachia which are younger and generally thicker than the anthracite coal beds in PA.

In regards to silversmith items in coal, I have never heard of any anthropogenic items found in beds of true Bituminous coal. In peat yes, its pretty common (great reducing environment preserves the bog people found in Denmark, Ireland, and esewhere very well) but not what anyone would call true coal.

As to why coal is often found at depth (its usually not very deep from my perspective), this is a huge geology lesson I don't have time for here but its very basic, simple, and does not require trillions of years etc.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Real quickly, most coal does not have to be "baked" (although anthracite might have had a little bit of heat to go with the pressure but not in a subduction zone)...


Thanks Michael. What kind of work do you do? This one person I worked for he used to get helicopter rides out (droped off) and get rock samples for a mining company, and at the end of the day get a helicopter ride back. Another person I worked for his sister would spend months out wandering alone in Alaska doing the same (rock samples). Glacierial, volcano, earthquakes, etc. would be a nice life time study.

You would make an excellent teacher.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

ksinc said:


> It's only the hardcore evolutionists that refuse to change. I am constantly adapting. :devil:


I am constantly evolving!


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

WA said:


> Thanks Michael. What kind of work do you do? This one person I worked for he used to get helicopter rides out (droped off) and get rock samples for a mining company, and at the end of the day get a helicopter ride back. Another person I worked for his sister would spend months out wandering alone in Alaska doing the same (rock samples). Glacierial, volcano, earthquakes, etc. would be a nice life time study.
> 
> You would make an excellent teacher.


Thanks, but I am a poor teacher!

I am a hydrogeologist at present and have been for the past 25 years. before I went to graduate school I was a lowly geologist. I worked in mining (uranium) and the oil business (mostly drilling gaws wells in the Appalachian basin).

I was never lucky enough to get one of those jobs where you get to go look at rocks all the time but I did have a summer job in college working for the governemtn collecting rock and water samples all over Colorado as part of the National Uranium Resource Evlauation project. That was fun! (Not only did we gert to look at rocks all day, but we got to bars every night to drink beer and talk about rocks. Geologists are interesting):

https://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Geologist


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)




----------

