form_srcid: celdd
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.98
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: celdd
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'celdd%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2007/04/14 17:27:26, Link 68.4.217.122 |
| Author: celdd |
|
FTK: As others have, I’m responding here because of your moderating policies on your site. I’ve noticed that you have progressively come to acknowledge evolution as valid, even if you don’t want to acknowledge it as valid between “kinds” (whatever you consider kinds to be.) As Dave pointed out, your restricted definition of evolution isn’t the same as considered by science in general. On the KCFS forum, you seemed to advocate for the views expressed by Dr. Walt Brown. How do you explain the geologic record that shows, with hard incontrovertible evidence, that there is overwhelming evidence for a steady progression from one-celled life through life as is present today? And furthermore, that the recent advances in biology such as DNA etc. confirm the relationships construed from the geologic record? If there was a creator, why not create all the various life forms at one time? Are you saying that the “designer” has intervened millions of times to create the next species, and the species after that? How do you explain the sedimentology that documents that there were the same suite of environments that there are today (deserts, alluvial plains, beaches, deltas, barrier bars, carbonate reefs, sabkhas, beaches, deep sea, etc.) throughout the geologic column, and the there is little evidence of deposits that were formed by a flood? How do you explain the appropriate types of life are found in each of these environments? Also, given that clays are formed only by weathering of other minerals (they weren’t part of the primordial earth materials), how do you explain the volume of mudstones, claystones, and shales in the earth’s crust? Brown and other creationists seem to suggest that there wasn’t any significant weathering of earth’s minerals before the flood – just a mysterious mist. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 19:08:41, Link 68.4.217.122 |
| Author: celdd |
|
Ftk: From my perspective as a geologist for most of the last 40 years, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence (observations) from paleontology, geology (Stratigraphy), and biology (including molecular and comparative anatomy etc.) that together support the theory of evolution. Essentially all new discoveries from all these fields fit in the framework nicely – maybe sometimes with relatively minor adjustments as is usual in scientific discovery. Although you want to restrict the term “evolution” to what you consider “microevolution,” scientists include what you term “macroevolution” in their understanding. Thus, it’s confusing when you say you accept evolution, then it turns out you don’t really. It’s frustrating that those in the ID camp do not seem to appreciate the full breadth and depth of evidence that there is. Thanks for the best wishes – we’re fine. My youngest is graduating from San Diego State next month and will be working for her teaching credential in Jr. High and High School science next year. |
| Date: 2007/05/02 21:56:32, Link 68.4.217.122 |
| Author: celdd |
| Well, Los Angeles has had about 2.5 inches of rain for this precipitation year which ends in June compared to an average of approximately 12 to 14 inches per year. Where I'm at, south of LA, I would guess we got less than an inch because lots of times LA got rain, but we didn't. |
| Date: 2007/06/10 14:12:04, Link 68.4.217.122 | ||||||
| Author: celdd | ||||||
Are you considering the time element in your understanding of how the relationship of organisms are determined? Based on your replies, it appears that you are referring only to organisms that are present today, and only their “similarity” which from your discussion seems to mean morphological characteristics. Scientists also consider the vertical and lateral distribution of various life forms and their specific characteristics though time. The life forms observed in the rocks, show a sequence of very primitive at the bottom (oldest), the addition of slightly more complex forms next, and on and on. The sequence observed in the rocks parallels the relationships determined from morphological observations alone. As an added bonus, the molecular data also appear to confirm the relationships determined from other branches of science. I haven’t seen that creationists consider the described patterns of distribution, or even attempt to explain them.
You can’t possible believe this. Claiming victimhood is not a strong argument.
Another hint that you are not considering the dimension of time. Much of the evidence supporting evolution IS historical. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 22:11:55, Link 68.4.217.122 | ||
| Author: celdd | ||
To me, all this is saying is noting the trivial fact that the stratigraphic sequence is built up from the bottom up. For example, when you bake a cake and assemble it for presentation, the bottom layer has to go down first, then you put subsequent layers on top of the first layer. Thus, fossil assemblages in the bottom layer must be older than those in the higher layers. Turns out, we observe a sequence of fossil types through time. And correlating bits of these sequences throughout the world, we can get a pretty good idea of how life changed through time. This isn't just a trivial amount of observations (evidence), it's hundreds of years of observations throughout the world. Sometimes, tectonic forces my overturn a stratigraphic sequence. In addition to the sequence of fossils observed, other evidence in the rocks such as texture or sedimentary structures can provide evidence on which way was up. I don't agree that "assume" means you don't know. All it is doing is stating a basis for the observations. |
| Date: 2007/12/03 15:26:29, Link 72.211.192.183 |
| Author: celdd |
|
ANNYDAY: "The thing about scientists is that they're not looking to win, they're looking to be correct." Well said. FTK: It has been frustrating that you seem to want to ignore well established science. I too, when I first saw your posts at KCFS, thought that you genuinely wanted to learn about science. And I did a small part trying to explain things to you regarding geology. However, the past few years have shown that you have no interest in learning about science. You appear to have gotten more and more extreme and dogmatic in your views in attacking mainstream science and supporting creationism and ID. Regarding Pangea: I don’t understand why you think the latest article threatens the idea of Pangea. Can you explain your reasoning? Researchers measured the angles and orientation of sand dunes and the lamina within them at a specific place. That is observed and measured real data. From this data, they inferred the direction of the wind (relative to the sedimentary structures observed and measured) that deposited these sediments. They then used data (measured direction and inclination of magnetic signatures of the sediments, or contemporaneous deposits) that indicated the latitude and orientation relative to the magnetic pole of the sediments when they were deposited. They then used computer models of weather patterns to see where their deposit fit in. The measured results of the wind currents for the inferred site location did not match those predicted for the latitude inferred from the model. It doesn’t mean the interpretation of the existence of Pangea is false, or its overall history (after all, there is a whole world of data that supports it). All it means is that further studies are needed to explain how these two sets of data can be reconciled. This is how science works. By the way, this illustrates one of the glaring deficiencies of Walt Brown’s Hydroplates theory. He makes an overall conjecture, but fails to provide any detailed observations that support it. Every detail in the sedimentary record (distribution of heavy metals, distribution of various rock types, composition, and sizes in the sedimentary particles, interpretations of depositional environment at each place in each formation, the igneous and metamorphic history as recorded in the rock record, the fossil record, etc. etc. etc.), needs to be explained via his theory in order for it to be considered as a viable theory. Even his overall conjectures fail in this respect as explained over and over to you and those that support his ideas. |
| Date: 2007/12/25 09:10:07, Link 72.211.192.183 | ||
| Author: celdd | ||
|
To be fair, this is not an introductory course. from the John Hopkins website:
Still, this course has nothing to do with biology or evolution. That Sal implies that his physics course has any direct relevance to evolutionary theory is absurd. |
| Date: 2008/01/19 11:05:00, Link 72.211.192.183 | ||
| Author: celdd | ||
From the above and in the comments she makes, it appears that FTK is misunderstanding what the article says. It doesn’t say that soft tissue was found. What was found was mineralized (fossilized) soft tissue (ie rock). That is, a fossil for which some of the soft tissue was fossilized along with the usual hard parts such as bone. This is similar to the fossilization of trees to form petrified wood, “which can preserve the original structure of the wood in all its detail, down to the microsopic level.” As for her last question, fossilized soft tissue will survive as long as any other rock of the same composition. Normal chemical and physical weathering processes apply. |
| Date: 2008/01/31 16:53:04, Link 72.211.192.183 | ||
| Author: celdd | ||
|
A quotable quote from this "debate" from PZ Myers: (regarding disucssion about the fossil record in regard to whales referring to Simmons)
PZ Myers, January 31, 2008 There are several suggestions that this be made into a T-shirt on Pharyngula. |
| Date: 2008/03/01 17:45:40, Link 72.211.195.8 |
| Author: celdd |
|
A poster on Dailykos (linky) gives a heads-up that Mark Mathis, producer of Expelled, will be on the Coast to Coast radio show tonight - 11 pm to 2 am PST (check your local listings). Wednesday night, the main guest was Uncle Walt with his views about Noah's Ark. (linky) However, he did get to mention many other topics in his book, including hydroplates, and how for over decades, no one will accept his debate terms. Ugh. What's worse, they took about ten calls at the end, and all but two thought he was wonderful. |
| Date: 2008/03/12 19:56:22, Link 72.211.195.8 | ||
| Author: celdd | ||
Ah - Michael Faraday. The only time I've purchased a celebrity autograph was a short hand-written note from Michael Faraday to Henry-Victoire Regnault thanking him for sending a volume on the steam engine:
It's kind of neat having a tangible connection to someone so famous so long ago. Also appropriate for today is the sentiment that respect and love for scientific advancement is a good thing. |
| Date: 2008/04/22 08:57:41, Link 98.164.204.180 |
| Author: celdd |
| For those who haven't seen it, Matt Chandler who wrote the lyrics for the Beware the Believer video, talks about how it came about over on Pharyngula |
| Date: 2008/04/27 10:38:35, Link 98.164.204.180 | ||
| Author: celdd | ||
FYI, I tried to go to her links in the "10 Ways" post, and got the following message from my virus protection software:
|
| Date: 2008/04/27 13:44:01, Link 98.164.204.180 |
| Author: celdd |
|
to Albatrossity2: I was using Internet Explorer and Mcafee Security Center software. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 18:54:35, Link 68.4.215.28 | ||
| Author: celdd | ||
So, FTK, you consider all the science (evidence) related by Shubin in his book “Your Inner Fish” as merely a story? That’s pretty condescending to all the hundreds of thousands of scientists that have studied and worked so hard over the last 150 years. It’s interesting that you can so easily dismiss the relationships observed in anatomy across living species, the sequence of features among species observed through time in the fossil record, and the chemical and molecular relationships among species as he so eloquently presented and explained throughout his book. Why doesn’t ID provide an equally elegant explanation of these observations? Why does no one in the ID movement try? Do you deny the observed relationships exist? Is your position that God did it step by step by step? And that makes more sense to you? Seriously, I would be interested in seeing your thoughts on “Your Inner Fish.” |
| Date: 2008/07/15 13:17:57, Link 68.4.215.28 |
| Author: celdd |
|
In case you missed it, you (with your closest 299 friends and $1800 to $2400) can still see Expelled!! But you need to hurry - this offer is only good for this summer! For details see here. Kinda desperate if you ask me. Why not wait for the DVD and play it in the church basement? |
| Date: 2008/10/15 22:55:05, Link 68.4.215.28 |
| Author: celdd |
|
Well, McCain just proposed that military personnel, upon discharge, could be used to teach in our schools. And, no need to mess with those messy qualification tests, or other certification requirements. He didn't mention if those army-to-teaching personnel would need a high school diploma, a college degree, or a graduate degree resulting in a teaching credential (a state license to teach). If you served in the Army, according to McCain, you can teach. And that the army teachers would be an improvement to the teachers we have now. I and my daughter who is planning to enter a credential program in the spring went nuts! How can he be so ignorant on the qualifications needed for teachers? |
=====