AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: forastero

form_srcid: forastero

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 107.21.136.116

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: forastero

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 'forastero%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2011/10/05 22:50:01, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 04 2011,17:40)
The only news better than this would be The Discovery Institutes usual Science By Press release wherin they announce an expected long and fruitful partnership of IDScience, BibleCode Science and Yeti Science!

If only they could get along with the UFOlogists.

Ha ha...this brand of SETI/Yeti crypto is an obvious fiscal agenda meant to spark more faith in alien ID than Spirit ID and more faith in a bipedal Bigfoot than non-opposable Bigfoot toes.

Date: 2011/10/06 04:28:03, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,14:53)
"This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS."

It sounds like philosophy to me Ben, not science. You are perhaps confusing the two. Science is concerned with natural world:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse....science

If God exists then surely it is outside of the physical universe?

Also, I don't thin you understand what 'hypothesis' means. In scientific terms, it doesn't mean belief:

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."

Did they test their hypothesis? Did it become a theory?

People are of course free to believe what they would like. Science is actually evidence based, and ID has none - it is simply an argument from incredulity.

Please tell us where a Scientific Method has determined that a bacteria has evolved into anything but a bacteria or a fruit fly has evolved into anything but a fruit fly?

The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Fossil were accumulated and faked, soft t-rex tissues disproved radiomagic dating, punctuated equilibrium was hypothesized to no avail, fruit flies were zapped but to avail, DNA hybridization is racked with fraud because its to no avail. The very fact that the basic tenets of evolution theory changes every decade is enough to expose its faith based pseudoscience.

Date: 2011/10/06 06:58:32, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 06 2011,06:10)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 06 2011,04:28)
Please tell us where a Scientific Method has determined that a bacteria has evolved into anything but a bacteria

Try mitochondria.

 
Quote
or a fruit fly has evolved into anything but a fruit fly?

You don't understand common descent and the twin nested hierarchy, do you.  For your first piece of homework go and find out how many different species of fruit fly there are.

 
Quote
Fossil were accumulated and faked,

What do fakes prove?  Do the faked Hitler diaries prove that Hitler didn't exist?  There are plenty of non-fake fossils.

 
Quote
soft t-rex tissues disproved radiomagic dating, punctuated equilibrium was hypothesized to no avail, fruit flies were zapped but to avail, DNA hybridization is racked with fraud because its to no avail. The very fact that the basic tenets of evolution theory changes every decade is enough to expose its faith based pseudoscience.

We already know that creationist websites tell lies, and that some people believe that lies that they are told by creationists.  You don't need to tell us again.

rossum

Mitochondria? Why ya so hesitant to elaborate?

You dont have the slightest idea how many fruit flies there are but what is your point? Micro-adaptations are stem from preexisting phenotypes selected via an intelligently designed survival mechanism?

Lies? Can you actually defend your defensiveness?

Date: 2011/10/19 21:36:40, Link
Author: forastero
An elaborately designed endocrine system purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli; which btw is just the opposite of the pseudo-scientific natural mutation selection theory that says miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they occur at just the right time and niche

Date: 2011/10/19 22:05:23, Link
Author: forastero
Perhaps you should  watch Expelled http://www.dailymotion.com/video....io_tech

Date: 2011/10/20 03:33:49, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 20 2011,00:44)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 20 2011,15:05)
Perhaps you should  watch Expelled http://www.dailymotion.com/video......io_tech

Well, at least now you're on topic, but why on earth do you imagine anyone here would be interested in a trailer for Expelled? You may notice that this threat is currently 118 pages long and has gone on for 4 years - the commenters here are very familiar with the movie. If I can presume to speak for others here I would say the consensus is that it is total dreck (a view shared by the scientifically literate community). Given what you've posted above I cannot see how you're going to change that.

If you think that the thread has lost its salt then maybe you should take it up with the mode take it up a moderator instead. Come to think of it, I guess am accustomed to threads getting pushed pushed from the top of the first page after about a week so. Oh and Kristine was under the impression that my post on mutations had little or nothing to do with the movie "expelled" so I simply cleared that up for her.

Date: 2011/10/20 03:46:22, Link
Author: forastero
Oh and a way to edit this last post would be nice

Date: 2011/10/20 04:09:41, Link
Author: forastero
Oh and for some reason I do not have permission to post in the new threads. I figured it was due to some sort of probationary period prior to the security pass like they do at the JW Watchtower and Free Masonry

Date: 2011/10/20 11:12:43, Link
Author: forastero
I havnt tried to create any new threads but whenever I try to respond to any new threads, I get a message that says: "You are logged in as forastero but You do not have permission to post in this thread"

Which isnt really weird when one considers the following  

Date: 2011/10/20 11:26:29, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 20 2011,05:56)
Uh, Kristine *is* a moderator.

You might want to pay attention when she discusses topicality. You might also want to pay attention to one of the rules here that gets stricter enforcement than some of the others, that being that moderation messages from non-moderators and discussion of moderation issues are considered annoying.

Hmm, thats weird because the Penn & Teller forum also found me to be very annoying after just a few posts but they just erased them and banned me a few days after my registration.  :(

Date: 2011/10/21 00:05:08, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 20 2011,19:48)
Please take discussion of moderation to private message or email. Second warning.

Are you going to expel me? :O

Date: 2011/10/21 01:26:12, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 20 2011,03:21)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 19 2011,21:36)
An elaborately designed endocrine system purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli; which btw is just the opposite of the pseudo-scientific natural mutation selection theory that says miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they occur at just the right time and niche

What does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Let me guess, it was "designed"?

Very informative...

"Designed" appeals much more to Occam's Razor than your pantheism below

Once upon a time in a material world, the citizens worshiped a messiah named SuperPan whom they believed brought random gifts of new life every now and then. SuperPan was the god of chaos who had to constantly battle with orderly gene codes, purposeful endocrine, and intelligent DNA repair man who he conquered with his trusty spontaneous generation. Always in just the right niche and time, SuperPan would be blessed by mighty Mother Nature’s hand to constantly renew the land. Unfortunately, this belief made man not give a damn about what he already had and survival of the fittest fads and Orwellian scams. They began to chant their creationism del evolution with its primordial brew, mystical mutations, crystal ball chronologies, ape animism, new-age aliens, and radiomagic wands, that proved  way wackier than even the pantheism of Pan

Moral of the story:  test all things and don’t take creation for granted

Date: 2011/10/21 01:56:38, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 06 2011,07:09)
Look, if you can't be bothered to learn anything that doesn't support your point of view, why are you here.  I could answer all of these, but there's no point because you will just whine and cry that it doesn't answer you question.

Why don't you tell us YOUR notion of how the diversity of life came to be and all the evidence that you have for it.

Remember, even if you disprove evolution right here, right now, it DOES NOT mean intelligent design or creationism is correct.  Only positive supporting evidence can do that.   You don't even have that.  I can point to literally millions of peer-reviewed papers over the last 150 years that support evolution.

You can't point to even one that supports your notions... whatever they are.

Do we have all the answers?  No, of course not.  But we have more than you do.

I'm willing to bet anything that you will not describe your notions of how life came about, provide evidence for it, and defend it in the same way that you demand we defend evolution and science.

This, if true, will make you an epic hypocrite.  Prove me wrong.

You call me a hypocrite yet you defend a poster who alludes that science proves that mitochondria evolved from bacteria.

The Big Bang's order from disorder, your own reverence for puncuated equilibrium, the myriad of machines all scurrying around all point to sudden design

Date: 2011/10/21 02:01:27, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 21 2011,01:56)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,00:05)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 20 2011,19:48)
Please take discussion of moderation to private message or email. Second warning.

Are you going to expel me? :O

That depends. Are you going to continue to violate this board's rules of conduct after your two warnings?

Its a double standard to keep asking me to talk about it and also break rules of conduct and intolerance yourselves?

Date: 2011/10/21 03:02:02, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 21 2011,02:12)
1  
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,01:26)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 20 2011,03:21)
   
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 19 2011,21:36)
An elaborately designed endocrine system purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli; which btw is just the opposite of the pseudo-scientific natural mutation selection theory that says miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they occur at just the right time and niche

What does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Let me guess, it was "designed"?

Very informative...

"Designed" appeals much more to Occam's Razor than your pantheism below

Once upon a time in a material world, the citizens worshiped a messiah named SuperPan whom they believed brought random gifts of new life every now and then.

That's all very nice (albeit a bit of a re-run of Harter's 1998 Small and Stupid Gods extended analogy/essay), but it doesn't seem to address the question it's ostensibly a reply to. So... what does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Ha..so you feel my busting rhymes about divine designs was nice but plagiarized? Nice try but that lie dont fly. So recheck your cite big guy

You say puncuated equilibrium via solar radiation (sun god) zapped a bacteria into a mitochondria that eventually turned into horseflies, raccoons, T. rex, and baboons but we say orderly miraculous design.

We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID

Date: 2011/10/21 10:40:20, Link
Author: forastero
Ogre,

We didnt say that "everything is designed"

Even though life is designed by the same molecular building blocks that makes up "the earth", there are still radically different molecular systems. On the other hand, similarities do not at all dismiss design either.

Kepler was another creationist who's inspirations are still being built upon but we still to this day do not understand the laws of solar systems to their fullest and you probably never will.

Like the Woodstock era of music, the enlightenment was a spiritual inspiration that was both used and abused but creationists did the greater works by far.  The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.

No one including most scientists need to fully understand rocket science in order to recognized that rockets are designed and ID abides by KISS or Occam's (also a creationist) Razor, the Scientific Method, and the Laws of Nature; but the theory of evolution does not. For instance:

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation

ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche

Date: 2011/10/21 10:44:57, Link
Author: forastero
Hmm..Keeping me confined like a caged King Kong

Date: 2011/10/21 11:34:26, Link
Author: forastero
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order



See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock

Date: 2011/10/21 11:37:30, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms

Date: 2011/10/21 22:14:51, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 21 2011,11:56)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34)
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order


See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock

Uuhh...you do realize that the Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather an expansion, right?

Oh...nevermind. Apparently you don't.

Of course, even if it had been, your claim would be erroneous. The Big Bang did not create order; gravity (among other forces) did.

Now you believe gravity created all that order presented in that image ?


Rumsfeld, first of all Guth and most others claim that the Big Bang went through initial hyperinflation and super symmetry but has slowed drastically partly do to gravity and entropy. However, a mysterious dark energy "seems" to be making the galaxy accelerate. Some scientist are bringing up relativity in that it only appears to accelerate from our vantage point but in my layman's view its kinda like a bullet picking up velocity as it leaves the barrel but finally slowing due to not only gravity but also entropy in that the energy behind the bullet becomes unorganized somewhat like accuracy; but then at a certain threshold, not only is gravity diminished but that energy that became unorganized earlier, is now concentrated once again as if the bullet suddenly went through a separate explosion. Some hypothesize that multiple supernovas are behind this dark energy but I am inclined to credit it to supernatural events.

Now concerning your insistence that the Big Bang explosion was a metaphor, it seems few scientists agree with you. For instance:

The first minutes of the titanic explosion (Inflation theory): But how are the elements in the universe formed? The scientist “Alan Guth” answered this questions as he discovered another theory which is the ‘inflation theory’, and it was accepted by every scientist, and in this theory he explained the first 3 minutes after the titanic explosion, according to this theory the titanic explosion followed by a huge fireball in an extreme temperature after one part from many millions parts of a second, the temperature decreased to 1022 K, where the fundamental bodies is formed and after 10- 6 seconds the ‘singularity’ became as big as a solar system (it’s radius is 588 x 1010 ),when the temperature became 109 K the radiation became to be emitted after the first second the reaction stopped but universe is still expending until now. The “inflation” theory is considered very important because we knew the 1st minutes after the “Titanic explosion”, and it’s very mysterious explosion because it’s not such a normal explosion to the matter in space but it was the explosion of space itself. http://library.thinkquest.org/C005731....th.html


Alan Guth: We do have a number of pieces of information that we can put together to try use as a basis for constructing theories. Observations about the distributions of galaxies within the visible part of the universe, and the motions of galaxies. Also now very important are observations of the cosmic background radiation — radiation that we believe is the afterglow of the big bang’s explosion itself. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth

The birth of a new universe also does not affect the old one. It would take about 10?37 seconds to disconnect from its parent. However, all an observer would see is the formation of a black hole, which would disappear very quickly. Creating a new universe actually would be quite dangerous since it would result in the release of energy similar to that of a 500 kiloton explosion. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth

An answer came in 1979 when physicist Alan Guth proposed that, just after the primal explosion, the universe temporarily kicked into overdrive and began wildly expanding, doubling and doubling and doubling again. This inflationary epoch lasted the tiniest fraction of a second. But according to the calculations, this was enough to even out the radiation and flatten the curvature — to smooth out the wrinkles in the Big Bang. The Cosmological constant was back. http://www.hbci.com/~wenona....ang.htm


Today, the researchers who make up the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium (GC3) harness the power of supercomputers to look at the birth and infancy of the universe, starting from the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which is believed to have started it all about 15 billion years ago. GC3 is a collaboration between cosmologists, astrophysicists, and computer scientists studying the formation of large-scale cosmological structure. http://www.nsf.gov/news....ers.jsp

Readhead, with Caltech colleagues Steve Padin and Timothy Pearson and others from Canada, Chile and the United States, generated the finest measurements to date of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a record of the first photons that escaped from the rapidly cooling, coalescing universe about 300,000 years after the cosmic explosion known as the Big Bang that is commonly believed to have given birth to the universe. http://www.nsf.gov/od....241.htm

According to current estimates, it burst into being 13.7 billion years ago in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang, with the galaxies congealing out of the cooling debris.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science....ed.html

About 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe burst into being in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang. Out of the expanding and cooling debris eventually congealed the galaxies, great islands of stars of which our own Milky Way is one. http://royalsociety.org/news....ig-bang

Eminent Scientist George Gamow and other scientists believe that Big Bang was a nuclear explosion. Gamow with his collaborators Ralph Alpher, Robert Hermann and James W. Follin, explored how chemical elements like helium and lithium could have been produced out of primordial hydrogen by thermonuclear reactions during the Big Bang. George Gamow put forward a hot Big Bang model in which primordial substance, or ylem, from which all other matter was created was an extraordinarily hot, dense singularity that exploded in a "Big Bang" and has been expanding ever since. http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/in...sm....undance

The term primordial fireball refers to this early time in the Universe. As the Universe continued to expand, its temperature and density dropped, allowing for the formation of atoms. This is known as the 'epoch of recombination', and it was at this time that photons could travel freely throughout the Universe for the first time. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is the record of these photons at the moment of their escape. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos....ireball

About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. http://www.thebigview.com/spaceti....se.html

Date: 2011/10/21 22:23:42, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,12:02)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms

Go back up and read the questions again.

Wayne, the sins of mankind are known to mess with our genes big time via pollution, drugs, outbreaks, STDs, atmospheric degradation, etc etc..

Date: 2011/10/21 22:32:16, Link
Author: forastero
Ogre, it seems you have somehow quoted our dialogue a bit out of context but oh well

Quote
again I say 'huh'?  You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes?  Really?


Of course! It’s the basis of adaptation


Quote
Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.




There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles

Quote
I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here.  What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems.


With all these so called mutations and all this genetic knowledge, you would think that a few “innate” Nucleotide manipulations could turn a fruit fly into something other than a fruit fly; or bacteria into something other than bacteria. Your priest must of felt these phylogenies and/or molecular clock were like brail for the blind because its science  grossly racked with fraud and circular reasoning.  


Quote
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.

That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes

Quote
evidence please...

I will even skip the thousands of renowned creationists quotes from the likes of Faraday, Newton, Pasteur from enlightenment and after and cite your favorite secularist

Einstein: "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

Einstein: “God always takes the simplest way”.

Einstein: “That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

Einstein: Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

Einstein: What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

Einstein: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

Einstein:"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Einstein: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."


Quote
Interesting.  

Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here.  But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.

Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.

Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.

Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct.  But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results).  Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement.  If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring.  If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.

Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature.  Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.

So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument.  Shame, you didn't realize it.

Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.

Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).

Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait.  Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant.  Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two).  repeat 3 or four times.  How many homozygous dominants do you have?  How many heterzygotes do you have?


That’s why its more appropriate to say evolutionism because your scenario is based on faith and/or pseudoscience.  For instance, sickle cell anemia and enzyme eating bacteria are at least somewhat of a negative trait that doesnt even come close to explaining any evolution into a new species. Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.

Date: 2011/10/22 12:52:09, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2011,03:26)
The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:

Quote

ID--superior designer made order from disorder


The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument.

Wesley, I misread that question but partly because I already provided evidence with the  big bang  (from chaos) quotes and the image of earth (order) that I posted above.

Hmm speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

Date: 2011/10/22 13:01:42, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 22 2011,06:55)
So Einstein used "designer-ish" language/believed in Spinozan deism therefore Jesus?

Great well that's that settled. Pub anyone?

Oh wait...

...maybe there are a few missing steps in your reasoning. I'm wondering if you'd accept the argument "Bertrand Russell did not use "designer-ish" language/did not believe in Spinozan deism therefore no Jesus". I'm guessing not. Perhaps reflect on why.

Louis

Said nothing of the sort. I simply asserted that he believed in ID

Date: 2011/10/22 13:04:38, Link
Author: forastero
Oh and Spinoza seems to have believed Divine design and inspiration as well

Date: 2011/10/22 13:11:32, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,08:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:14)
explosions

Dude,

Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.

If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.

I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them.  Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.

For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders.  After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.

If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language.  If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.

To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe.  Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.

Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.

Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.

...but funny how you only provide opinion

Date: 2011/10/22 13:49:46, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,13:01)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32)
   
Quote
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.

That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes

The dog's genome says you are wrong.

Would you be more specific about your hypothesis of "domestic manipulation"? How would it occur, physiologically?
EDIT. This is relevant: http://www.sciencemag.org/content....bstract
Full text: http://www27.brinkster.com/taisets....ent.pdf
Read this and tell us your conclusion, please.

Very interesting article but the dogs that Ogre and I were discussing are not hairless. The fossil record reveals a very wide diversity of wild and domestic dogs and these dogs were purposely bred for desired traits for many millennium

These so called hairless breeds are actually often fully haired as seen above. The mutation is somewhat deleterious in that the hairless forms have missing and/or deformed teeth and are to be kept mostly indoors from the sun. The coated forms do not have these problems.

These hairless dogs were once bred for ritualistic purposes but mostly for consumption. Hairlessness in fact, facilitates for food preparation

Date: 2011/10/22 19:41:09, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,14:53)
Dude,

Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.

If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.

I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them.  Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.

For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders.  After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.

If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language.  If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.

To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe.  Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.

Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.[/quote]
Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.

...but funny how you only provide opinion[/quote]
I'm sorry, you failed to actually answer the questions.

Again, explain the following IN YOUR OWN words.

hyper-inflation
explosion
symmetry breaking (in terms of the 3 minute universe)

I'll also note that you completely FAIL to understand the concept of 'explosion' as metaphor.

The Cambrian 'explosion' lasted for some 50 million odd years.  That's a heck of an explosion.  Why don't YOU show that you understand this by posting the lengths of those 'explosions' you mentioned.  

Funny how EVERYTHING I say can be cited and nothing you claim (except for metaphor) is.  You haven't asked for citations.  Further, if you did, then I predict you would use the classic creationist tactic of demanding evidence for something that no biologist thinks happened anyway... for example, your erroneous thinking that fruit flies should mutate into dogs eventually.

Look, it's very simple.  You are trying to argue some seriously advanced concepts without even a freshman high school student's understanding of the basics.

Why don't we get the basics down first?

50 million years? Thats not at empirical and you sound like the fellow who believes gravity created all all that order in that image I provided in the last page

Anyway, most top cosmologists disagree with you in that they describe two process--a titanic explosion or thermonuclear explosion or primordial fireball leading to expansion and they are not calling it a metaphor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....MHH378Q

The first minutes of the titanic explosion (Inflation theory): But how are the elements in the universe formed? The scientist “Alan Guth” answered this questions as he discovered another theory which is the ‘inflation theory’, and it was accepted by every scientist, and in this theory he explained the first 3 minutes after the titanic explosion, according to this theory the titanic explosion followed by a huge fireball in an extreme temperature after one part from many millions parts of a second, the temperature decreased to 1022 K, where the fundamental bodies is formed and after 10- 6 seconds the ‘singularity’ became as big as a solar system (it’s radius is 588 x 1010 ),when the temperature became 109 K the radiation became to be emitted after the first second the reaction stopped but universe is still expending until now. The “inflation” theory is considered very important because we knew the 1st minutes after the “Titanic explosion”, and it’s very mysterious explosion because it’s not such a normal explosion to the matter in space but it was the explosion of space itself. http://library.thinkquest.org/C005731....th.html


Alan Guth: We do have a number of pieces of information that we can put together to try use as a basis for constructing theories. Observations about the distributions of galaxies within the visible part of the universe, and the motions of galaxies. Also now very important are observations of the cosmic background radiation — radiation that we believe is the afterglow of the big bang’s explosion itself. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth

The birth of a new universe also does not affect the old one. It would take about 10?37 seconds to disconnect from its parent. However, all an observer would see is the formation of a black hole, which would disappear very quickly. Creating a new universe actually would be quite dangerous since it would result in the release of energy similar to that of a 500 kiloton explosion. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth

An answer came in 1979 when physicist Alan Guth proposed that, just after the primal explosion, the universe temporarily kicked into overdrive and began wildly expanding, doubling and doubling and doubling again. This inflationary epoch lasted the tiniest fraction of a second. But according to the calculations, this was enough to even out the radiation and flatten the curvature — to smooth out the wrinkles in the Big Bang. The Cosmological constant was back. http://www.hbci.com/~wenona....ang.htm

Today, the researchers who make up the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium (GC3) harness the power of supercomputers to look at the birth and infancy of the universe, starting from the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which is believed to have started it all about 15 billion years ago. GC3 is a collaboration between cosmologists, astrophysicists, and computer scientists studying the formation of large-scale cosmological structure.
http://www.nsf.gov/news....ers.jsp

Readhead, with Caltech colleagues Steve Padin and Timothy Pearson and others from Canada, Chile and the United States, generated the finest measurements to date of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a record of the first photons that escaped from the rapidly cooling, coalescing universe about 300,000 years after the cosmic explosion known as the Big Bang that is commonly believed to have given birth to the universe. http://www.nsf.gov/od....241.htm

According to current estimates, it burst into being 13.7 billion years ago in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang, with the galaxies congealing out of the cooling debris.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science....ed.html

About 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe burst into being in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang. Out of the expanding and cooling debris eventually congealed the galaxies, great islands of stars of which our own Milky Way is one. http://royalsociety.org/news....ig-bang

Eminent Scientist George Gamow and other scientists believe that Big Bang was a nuclear explosion. Gamow with his collaborators Ralph Alpher, Robert Hermann and James W. Follin, explored how chemical elements like helium and lithium could have been produced out of primordial hydrogen by thermonuclear reactions during the Big Bang. George Gamow put forward a hot Big Bang model in which primordial substance, or ylem, from which all other matter was created was an extraordinarily hot, dense singularity that exploded in a "Big Bang" and has been expanding ever since.
http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.p....undance

The term primordial fireball refers to this early time in the Universe. As the Universe continued to expand, its temperature and density dropped, allowing for the formation of atoms. This is known as the 'epoch of recombination', and it was at this time that photons could travel freely throughout the Universe for the first time. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is the record of these photons at the moment of their escape.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos....ireball

About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. http://www.thebigview.com/spaceti....se.html

Date: 2011/10/22 20:14:53, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32)
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.

AnalogyFAIL.

Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.

Graphic hernia medical procedure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y

Date: 2011/10/23 02:55:06, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:12)
Other relevant reads for our guest:
adaptive allele in deer mice
alleles controlling mimmicry in butterflies
gene controlling armor plates and ecological adaptation in sticklebacks
opsin genes drive speciation in cichlid fishes

Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks

Date: 2011/10/23 03:40:35, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:42)
blah blah blah...

so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?

Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion.  Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).

Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe.  Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.

Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began.  Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion.  Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.

Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts.  Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html

Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.

Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.

Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools.  One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.

Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'.  I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist?  really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.

Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame.
Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Española de Paleontología: 115–22.

Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician.  Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.

The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence.  The first is called the carbon anomaly.  It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers.  Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age.  Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils.
(Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)

The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event.  Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.

Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years.  I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.

Is that sufficiently precise?

I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.  

I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know.  I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons.

Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years.

And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium

Date: 2011/10/23 03:51:39, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,21:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,18:14)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32)
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.

AnalogyFAIL.

Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.

Graphic hernia medical procedure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y

No, you were not clear. Castration doesn't make someone immune to hernias. Since hernias in general involve a weakness in the abdominal wall, eunuchs would still be susceptible. With about 750,000 hernia repairs in people occurring every year, castration is NOT a common treatment for them.
And you might want to read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ki....h) about the kinds of eunuchs and the roles they played in various societies.

Why do I bother addressing this failed analogy? Because ID supporters such as yourself always get it wrong on the details, consistently re-affirming the statement made by Dr. Dr. Dembski himself, that ID does not concern itself with a "pathetic level of detail." You rely on ambiguity and the "popular" understanding of terms to make your arguments sound more informed than they really are. The mis-application of analogy only serves to highlight the weakness of your argument.

Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated

which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias

Date: 2011/10/23 04:04:53, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:54)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,14:03)
The fact remains that many phenotypes in dogs have been linked to specific mutations.
I believe a major determinant of body size was identified, and published in Nature or Science a few years ago.

That article is actually quite interesting.  It points to something that creationists absolutely loathe to hear... that is, simple changes can result in huge morphological variation.

And they, like forastero here, cannot understand that it doesn't matter what we THINK the mutation is (helpful or harmful), what really matters is what actually happens in the environment.

Since dogs have been completely linked with humans for the last few thousand years, it is easy to show how that hairless mutation resulted in a positive advantage for the dog.  They became sacred animals.  In other words, they got all their food and shelter provided to them and no human would harm or allow harm to come them... thus spreading the mutation.

It doesn't matter if the mutation made it impossible for the dogs to go outside or they had bad teeth.  The mutation made the dogs into objects of worship by humans, which massively increased their chances of survival and reproduction.

Same thing happens in nature.  forastero complains about the sickle cell anemia gene.  Of course it's detrimental, but the heterozygous condition is a LOT LESS detrimental than either of the homozygous conditions in an environment with malaria.

This isn't rocket science.  BTW: You still haven't defined, in your own words, what heterozygous and homozygous mean, so I can't be sure that you even understand me.

Nor, have you, forastero explained ANYTHING about the supposed link between the endocrine system and the selection of phenotypes.  I am really, really interested in this... any evidence or even any supporting document for your claim?  Do you even know what a phenotype is?  It really doesn't sound like it.

Ogre, The consumption of hairless dogs nearly drove them to extinction and they are still fairly rare even after lots of efforts to revive them

btw, I am still working on some of your other answers above

Date: 2011/10/23 04:51:00, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55)
Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks

Were you not arguing that mutations where merely "mistakes" which could not cause adaptation? The 4 papers I linked to show the contrary, even though some details may remain unknown.

On the other hand, would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? I'll wait.

You are intellectually dishonest.

Hmm well your abstracts actually dont tell us anything about  mutations do they; but how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?

Date: 2011/10/23 04:53:57, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,01:51)
Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated

which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias

Evidently,  you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

You are welcome to add your own examples

Again, lots of Eunuchs are immune to scrotal hernias

Date: 2011/10/23 04:56:27, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:35)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list.
There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans.
So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".

Oh yeah they're all described but your high priest dont really like to think about them all that much

Date: 2011/10/23 05:03:31, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:55)
Mutations cannot be easily described in an abstract, no. An abstract is not suited for nucleotide sequence alignments.

And there is a difference between a single mutation and billions of mutations (and between evolution and abiogenesis as well).

Quote
how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?

Sounds like ID to me.  :)

I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members

Date: 2011/10/23 05:04:54, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:57)
Link to each one, please.
And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists.

Try google with these things " "

Date: 2011/10/23 05:07:06, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:57)
Link to each one, please.
And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists.
I bet that whenever such "explosion" was described, it wasn't described first by a creationist.

The evidence is that you havnt heard of them cant seem to find them

Date: 2011/10/23 05:12:56, Link
Author: forastero
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

Date: 2011/10/23 05:15:55, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:11)
Quote
I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members

Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good.
You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though.

but on the bottom of page 2, you alluded to the fact that mutations dont make bacteria evolve into anything beyond bacteria

Date: 2011/10/23 05:20:52, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:15)
I don't think you are granted editing rights as a new member, but you can still ask the forum admin/moderator.

Oh darn

but thanks

Date: 2011/10/23 05:22:35, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:11)
Quote
I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members

Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good.
You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though.

Oh and I will check that book out

Date: 2011/10/23 05:29:56, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:52)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list.
There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans.
So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".

forastero must be a big fan of director/producer Michael Bay (Transformers, Armegeddon, Bad Boys, Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell 2)

Actually not really

Date: 2011/10/23 11:28:50, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
   
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.

Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria

Date: 2011/10/23 11:42:18, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
   
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?

Date: 2011/10/23 12:10:22, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,07:52)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years.

And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium

You are making claims, then you need to support them.  Please provide evidence for you assertion that any of the fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time.  The mere fact that you are using a computer shows that this is wrong.

Further, astronomers can see backwards in time and observe that the fundamental forces of our universe are the same 13 billion years ago as the are now.  

You can just ignore the evidence, but it just makes you look like a dummy.   Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Now, as to the book... here's what it says in regards to an explosion:
Quote

The term 'Big Bang' implies some sort of explosion, which is a not wholly inappropriate analogy, except that the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.


So, what exploded?  It couldn't have been a thermonuclear explosion as you think since matter didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.  It couldn't have been matter/anti-matter, etc.

Do you see that word 'analogy'?  A not wholly appropriate analogy.

You are making an argument about AN ANALOGY.  This is just another strawman argument and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life

Date: 2011/10/23 12:28:02, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,11:58)
deny what, you credulous git?  that the cambrian explosion wasn't really an explosion?

i realize you are probably trying to sound stupid here as part of your shtick but i think you are overselling it a tad.  try backing off, mentioning hitler, more perhaps something about moral relativism, less about actual facts.  the dance will last longer.  just a thought luv

Then try to prove that it wasnt an explosion of benthic diversity

Date: 2011/10/23 12:32:56, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:03)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:42)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?

"I can't find evidence of it, which proves that scientists deny it, therefore I can't find any evidence of it, which proves that..."

(note, that may not apply to the whole the list, the cambrian "explosion" is well documented)

BTW, here's what google finds for your "pleistocene explosion": http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf
Hardly denied by the Darwinists.

Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Date: 2011/10/23 12:43:53, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,11:57)
This study might also be of interest: cristal structure of an ancient protein

I will read that in a bit

Date: 2011/10/23 12:49:47, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

Date: 2011/10/23 12:56:03, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,12:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.

Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria

We don't deny it.  We don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Explain, in detail (third request) how the endocrine system selects the phenotype.  In your explanation you need to define phenotype, define the endocrine system, explain the mechanism by which this occurs, and provide sufficient evidence that this is the case.

You have done none of this after multiple requests.  You are making a bald assertion with no evidence.

As to the 'explosions' of the Cambrian and whatever other eras, can you explain what exploded and the mechanism of those explosions.  Evidence for all claims and statements must be provided.  Otherwise, you're just blathering.

While, you are at it, I would appreciate links to peer-reviewed documentation that geologists and paleontologists recognize all of those 'explosions'.  Because I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

Prove me wrong.

Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do

Date: 2011/10/23 13:16:43, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,12:54)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:10)
-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life

The sun is 'dying' (for some value of the word 'dying') by well understood processes that are consistent with constant values of the various fundamental forces of the universe.

BTW: "Uniformitarianism" is not used in the context of the universe, it is used in the context of Geology.

The Earth's rotational spin is slowing because of well understood processes that are consistent with the knowledge of the various fundamental forces of the universe. etc, etc, etc.



Everytime you say something, you really ought to consider whether you back support your claims.  Here, you will get called on them, each and every one.  Note, the additions from your list of claims onto the list of things you need to provide evidence for.

To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

Date: 2011/10/23 13:28:50, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)
Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do

I deny that the endocrine system can influence phenotype or select phenotype.  You have yet to provide any evidence that this is case.

I was not going to teach you about how mutations and natural selection create new life... because they weren't involved in life to begin with.

I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus.  However, the 'new orders' is another fundamental misunderstanding you have about evolution and biology.

Are you willing to learn?  If you are then, we will have to take some very baby steps, because it is obvious that you have quite a few misunderstandings.

But the question remains, are you willing to learn?  That means reading carefully, that means actually considering new information and being honest.  It also means honestly answering any questions that may come up for you.  To that end, I would like to know where you get your current information from, so that I might best prepare some material to show you the deficiencies in that material.  Are you willing to do this?

You see, I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are willing to learn, then there isn't any point.  I can only judge your behavior by what I have seen here on this thread, and honestly, so far it is not impressive.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or not realizing it, but you have been caught in numerous logical fallacies... indeed, almost a textbook argument of the kind creationists use.  Argument by analogy, argument by authority, goalpost-shifting, quote-mining, and that's not to mention the fundamental mistakes in biology, chemistry, and physics so far.  Which, BTW, we have attempted to correct, but you don't seem to be interested in learning.

Just continuing to insist that the Big Bang was an actual explosion of the nuclear or (possibly sub-nuclear) kind shows that you have not even read some of the basics from actual scientists.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Date: 2011/10/23 13:30:20, Link
Author: forastero
Oh and I meant fossil man is much more robust than modern man

Date: 2011/10/23 13:38:36, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human

Date: 2011/10/23 13:41:15, Link
Author: forastero
I'll be back

Date: 2011/10/23 15:45:10, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,13:49)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

jeannot is correct on that score, and certainly the concept of an "explosion" - which is a poorly defined concept at best - doesn't have a lot of use in the field of paleoanthropology (except in terms of the "creative explosion" which was current back in the 1960's but now is little used by paleoanthropologists).

By the way that picture that you claim models earth's processes is horribly inaccurate and leaves out quite a bit. You might try something like this:



Which, at least, is much more accurate.

Though much more limited in scope than my image that is a very nice example of order from disorder but my argument with Jeannot had to do with critter diversity. Now be aware that some seem to insist that I am simply referring  population explosions that isnt the case either.

Googling the geological eras + the key word "explosion" will bring up a plethora of info on this interesting paleobiology.

Oh and please see my arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions via the big bang explosion

Date: 2011/10/23 15:46:35, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,13:59)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:38)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human

Actually, the differences between apes and humans are not that vast...

Only superficially in some areas

Date: 2011/10/23 15:56:01, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

sigh... OK, I'll give you this one... there is a Uniformitarianism in terms of natural philosophy and one in geology.  

Quote
earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again


Because you obviously don't have a clue, the reason that the Earth's rotation is slowing is this big ass object that hangs over our heads all the time... you may have heard of it... the moon?  It's gravitationally coupled to the Earth.  It imparts some of it's motion on the Earth and the Earth imparts some of its motion on the moon.  Since the Earth is much more massive than the moon, the Earth slows only slightly, while the moon speeds up slightly more.  Because of some fundamental laws of motion, when the moon increases in velocity, it recedes from us ever so slightly.  [Note that this is a very basic explanation and should not be argued against.  The math can be found here, as well as evidence for all of the above.  Only arguments from that material will be accepted.]

Also note that this concept has been known since [URL=E Halley (1695), "Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there", Phil. Trans., vol.19 (1695-1697), pages 160-175; esp. at pages 174-175.]1695.[/URL]  The correctly understood answer to the question of why this happens was established in the 1860s.

Given that, I can understand someone who argues this kind of point may not have ever heard of it.  Of course, taking 3 seconds to look up Wikipedia (while not an authoritative source, I generally consider it useful enough for these discussions) and then following the links in the 'references' section for a more complete understanding.

Here are some references for you
F.R. Stephenson, L.V. Morrison (1995): "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, pp.165–202. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1995.0028
Jean O. Dickey (1995): "Earth Rotation Variations from Hours to Centuries". In: I. Appenzeller (ed.): Highlights of Astronomy. Vol. 10 pp.17..44.

Now that that is out of the way.

Quote
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts


Assertion.  Cite evidence.

Define robust in terms of early man.
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.

Thus, you admit there is no uniformitarianism

I made it clear that I made a typographical error and humans are becoming less robust with time but I guess y'all need your straws

Plus, you insist that I go to wiki for definitions yet you cant even bother with looking up things like endocrine system, nucleosynthesis, human robustness, ect ect..

I never seen so many double standards from one cite in my life

Date: 2011/10/23 16:11:51, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
[quote=OgreMkV,Oct. 23 2011,13:11]
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection

Date: 2011/10/23 16:16:17, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:10)
Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.

Google Canine Scurvy

Date: 2011/10/23 16:31:59, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,09:07)
   
Quote


   Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.




There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles
[/quote]

OK, you have got to be a Poe.

Assertion, evidence please.

BTW: 'poo' as you so eloquently describe it, is material that is indigestible by whatever organism is ejecting it.  Interestingly, many things are indigestible, because the organism has lost the ability to digest that material due to mutation.  Oops.

   [quote][/quote]

Ok I'll play your game

Poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.

Date: 2011/10/23 16:55:16, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosions ? http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....df]http

Ha ha... I see that you decided to argue about the one geologic period that I hadnt mentioned in my quote below

Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions

Date: 2011/10/23 17:03:09, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:27)
[quote=forastero,Oct. 23 2011,16:11]
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection

The only scientist I know of who gave a role in evolution to the endocrine system is Carleton Coon, and his views on the subject are more than a little bit racist. Also, Schwartz's work on heat shock proteins. So do, please, elaborate for us.

Wrong again. Carlton Coon and his ilk hated the thought of purposeful adaptation and ID. He was a neodarwinist who like the Darwinist believed in the preservation of favored races via exploitation, eugenics, genocide, war, etc etc ...

Date: 2011/10/23 17:06:52, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 23 2011,16:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.

Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:



However, the claim that many animals are less robust (in the scientific sense of the term) is false.

Wrong again. Pick most any critter I i'll show you a more robust ancestor

Date: 2011/10/23 17:12:15, Link
Author: forastero
except maybe the blue whale but one bigger will pop up sooner or later

Date: 2011/10/23 17:15:21, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,16:55)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosions ? [URL=http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/pubs/Rogers-E-49-608.pdf]http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf]http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....df]

Ha ha... I see that you decided to argue about the one geologic period that I hadnt mentioned in my quote below

 
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions

Oops fixed that link

Date: 2011/10/23 17:18:44, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:15)

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosion? http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf

Date: 2011/10/23 17:20:28, Link
Author: forastero
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter

Date: 2011/10/23 17:22:35, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.

ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..

Date: 2011/10/23 17:24:18, Link
Author: forastero
I'll let you work on that for a while but dont worry I'll be back

Oh and forget to figure out how to define natural mutation seltion

Date: 2011/10/23 17:25:02, Link
Author: forastero
I mean dont forget .....

Date: 2011/10/23 17:34:41, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:23)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:15)

 
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosion? http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf

Exactly what I said, jeanot was talking about population demographics, you were not. As I said in the context of Pleistocene anthropology explosion is always used in the context of populations. I did google all the other periods but, found nothing that supports your point.

Uh,,thats not my link. Its the only link that Jeannot "claimed" to be able to find after he googled "pleistocene explosion"

Its denial at its best but thanks guys for presenting your intellectual integrity to the cyber world

btw, Primitive ego-defenses include, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. Also, devaluation and projective identification are seen as borderline defenses. Projection is attributing your own repressed thoughts to someone else. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists .

Date: 2011/10/23 17:41:30, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:27)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:22)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.

ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..

So it is the creationist meaning of robust that your are referring to and not the scientific meaning then? Because in paleontology and paleoanthropology robust is not a measure of size.

thats so funny its sad

So not to look like the cop out that it is, why dont you provide the "anthropological" definition of robustness

Date: 2011/10/23 17:45:09, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,17:37)
This seems an appropriate link RE: Tardbucket.

Btw, only the eugenics or supremacist minded would constantly and publicly project the word tard

Date: 2011/10/24 23:57:42, Link
Author: forastero
The sad thing about all the ad hominems is that they weren't even funny. What is funny but true is that according to the ancient philosophers "Ad hominem attacks were the ultimate sign the agony of defeat” and usually by those influenced by the spiritual logos

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." By Albert Einstein

Date: 2011/10/25 00:07:30, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 23 2011,23:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,15:22)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.

ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..

Hahaha, oh wow.

The concept of island dwarfism disagrees

Those Island dwarfs had more robust ancestors too

Date: 2011/10/25 00:11:54, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 25 2011,00:03)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,00:57)
The sad thing about all the ad hominems is that they weren't even funny. What is funny but true is that according to the ancient philosophers "Ad hominem attacks were the ultimate sign the agony of defeat” and usually by those influenced by the spiritual logos

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." By Albert Einstein

Oh yeah?  Well, according to even ancienter spirits, you eat poo.

See how that works?   :)

The inquiring mind knows that everyone eats poo and around the clock

Date: 2011/10/25 00:15:35, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2011,07:21)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
References to Of Mice and Men and factual information aside, I think our new friend didn't expect the Spanish inquisition!

Ok, I'll admit this was posted for comedic value and doesn't add anything to the discussion, but when I left yesterday the thread was 3 pages, and now it's 6.


I'm a slow reader...

Dude, I left at four pages to go watch Tron: Legacy with the boy and came back to 6 pages.

I hope we didn't break him.  I mean, who are we expecting to actually support his statements>!>!>

So thats your excuse to avoid explaining your so called natural mutation selection?

Date: 2011/10/25 01:04:52, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 24 2011,00:32)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:20)
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter

the horse?

the blue whale?
EDIT: given the billion of species that existed I'm pretty sure you can find an ancestor that was more robust than a extant descendent... or weaker. Depends on which ancestor you pick.

What's your point?

So you want to add multi-toed beasts to horses ey?

Then here's a Hyracodontid (in the background to the right)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature.....e_1.jpg

P.S I had to delete your image and mine because for some strange reason I can no longer post or qote anything with images

Date: 2011/10/25 01:10:02, Link
Author: forastero
Quote
Assertion.  Evidence Please.

And really.  Please explain exactly what the ENDOCRINE system is and how it SELECTS phenotypes.

For extra points, please explain what a phenotype is.


Just google words like Epigenetic phenotypic plasticity and/or methylation and the endocrine system and you’ll find millions of articles about how ancestral phenotypes are selected by neurotransmitters and various hormones. A phenotype is an observed expression of a gene or combination of genes. Iow, an individual trait or combination of traits that make up an individual. A genotype is combination of genes.


Quote
OK, you have got to be a Poe.

Assertion, evidence please.

BTW: 'poo' as you so eloquently describe it, is material that is indigestible by whatever organism is ejecting it.  Interestingly, many things are indigestible, because the organism has lost the ability to digest that material due to mutation.  Oops.


Hmm..actually poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.

Quote
You might think that, but that only shows how clueless you are about what mutation is and what a genome is.

Consider the human genome.  3 billion pairs of nucleotides, approximately 1.5% of which codes for proteins.  The chimpanzee genome differs by about 1.23%.  So, when you do some math...

The human genome differs from our nearest relative by 33 million changes.  So, as an estimate, you need about 33 million changes from one organism to another.  This varies among organisms of course.  

You, and other creationists, are the only people who actually think something like this should be possible in evolutionary theory.

It's called a straw-man attack and, as a rhetorical device, it can be effective.  In a forum like this, not so much.

I would encourage you to learn about what scientists actually say about evolution... not what creationists have quoted them saying, but their actual peer-reviewed papers.

BTW: We all note that this is STILL an attack on evolution and NOT evidence for design.  Evidence for design please.


Endocrine adaptation is a fact with many verified examples but your so called natural  mutation selection is pseudoscience and probably why you refuse to try to explain it

Btw, chimps and humans actually differ by around 5% and chimps.  Mice and human share about 98 %.

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks....f  Chimp Chromosome structure is also much different from humans in that they have have 10% more DNA , more alpha-hemoglobin and Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans. Plus, the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes.

Quote
Assertion.  Evidence please.

BTW: I can, in cats, point to a mutation, that results in a different phenotype.  We know where it happened, when it happened, and which organism had the specific mutation.  That mutation has carried through to a completely new breed of cat.

BTW2: I note that you didn't mention the use of the endocrine system in the selection of phenotypes here.  Tell us... please.


Cross breeding dogs does not involve mutations or even real species, so what is your point? I didn’t mention endocrine because cross breeding is phenotypic selection via domestically extracted traits from animals from all over the world. The Endocrine system was involved though

You could mention a cat yet again you didn’t.


Quote
And yet, I can provide mathematical evidence, experimental evidence, observational evidence for everything I say...

and you can't.

Tell you what.  Define species for me and I'll provide the evidence of the change you describe.  How about that?



Again you say you can provide evidence but you don’t.

Species? That depends on whether you are a clumper or splitter? Darwinism is racist in its origin-see preservation of favored races where they called different races different species but in my opinion, if two critters can interbreed and produce fertile offspring then they should be considered the same species no matter how separated they are.

Quote
Assertion.  Evidence please.

I'll point out here that you are using another rhetorical device.  It's called 'goalpost shifting'.  You make a claim, when that claim is defeated you say something like, "No, that doesn't deal with this claim."

Here we were talking about the massive evidence supporting adaptation and how mutation does not automatically lead to death, but improved fitness.  Then you claim that this does not explain speciation.

Of course it doesn't explain speciation.  It wasn't intended to, but you have to shift the goalposts to make it look like your argument hasn't been totally devastated.

Tell you what. If you so choose, pick an argument and stick to it, then we can to.

BTW: I can provide dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing single generation speciation and at least on showing a single generation genus change.  But that paper is only from 30+ years ago, I don't know why I should expect anyone to know it.

So let me be very clear here.  You don't understand cosmology.  You don't understand genetics.  You use strawman attacks against positions no actual scientists hold.  You think quotes are evidence.

Yeah, about what I thought.

I'll make the same offer to you that I do to all creationists.  I will voluntarily teach you using actual science.  My only requirement is that you want to learn how the world actually works.

At the least, it will give you a better understanding of what you have to do to make valid arguments both for ID and against evolution.

I predict that you won't do it.  No creationist I have dealt with in over 20 years has accepted.  I know why... do you?



Before you made this post, I admitted that I provided the Einstein quotes because I thought you were requesting evidence for scientist who believed in ID. Now you are going to desperately grab that straw  


Speciation? Goal post shifting? You are projecting your own conformist fervor again.  First of all your best examples (enzyme eating bacteria & cycle cell anemia) aren’t even at the speciation level. No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.

Date: 2011/10/25 01:23:33, Link
Author: forastero
Btw, the above is in response to OgreMkV

Date: 2011/10/25 01:43:46, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (George @ Oct. 25 2011,01:33)
Quote
Hmm..actually poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.


Absolutely.  But your point is?  How does this demonstrate design?  Is it to do with the detritus component underpinning complex ecosystems?

Bet you've got great watermelons this year.

Ogre asked me to give an example of a derivative of a design

Date: 2011/10/25 01:52:12, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:04)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 24 2011,00:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:20)
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter

the horse?

the blue whale?
EDIT: given the billion of species that existed I'm pretty sure you can find an ancestor that was more robust than a extant descendent... or weaker. Depends on which ancestor you pick.

What's your point?

So you want to add multi-toed beasts to horses ey?

Then here's a Hyracodontid (in the background to the right)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature.....e_1.jpg

P.S I had to delete your image and mine because for some strange reason I can no longer post or qote anything with images

Oh and here is a close up

http://www.nawasreh.com/vb....reh.jpg

Date: 2011/10/25 01:58:11, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:43)
Quote (George @ Oct. 25 2011,01:33)
Quote
Hmm..actually poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.


Absolutely.  But your point is?  How does this demonstrate design?  Is it to do with the detritus component underpinning complex ecosystems?

Bet you've got great watermelons this year.

Ogre asked me to give an example of a derivative of a design

Oh and the answer your other question is yes.  Ogre also asked me to prove how derivatives of designs are part of designer cycles

Date: 2011/10/25 06:04:30, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (George @ Oct. 25 2011,02:00)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:43)
Quote (George @ Oct. 25 2011,01:33)
 
Quote
Hmm..actually poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.


Absolutely.  But your point is?  How does this demonstrate design?  Is it to do with the detritus component underpinning complex ecosystems?

Bet you've got great watermelons this year.

Ogre asked me to give an example of a derivative of a design

You might care to elaborate on how you know poo is a "derivative of design" rather than designed itself.  Given the Designers inordinate fondness for beetles, creating a rich and varied supply of poo may be the central focus of design effort.  The engineering specification, as it were.

Interesting observation concerning beetles and I cant believe it didnt dawn on me earlier.

My original quote: "There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative [of the digestive system] but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles"

Dung beetles were often symbolic of the creator or fertility to  Egyptians, Buddhist, Taoists, south East Asians, Minoans, Phoneticians, Indo-Europeans, various Amerindian, etc.  The dung often represented chaos that was formed by the great potter into either new life or the sun-ball. The ball taken into the earth would reemerge the metamorphosis of the dung beetle pupa. Some Scholars feel that Egyptian sarcophagus within cow-pie-like pyramids also corresponds to this symbolism. Cattle were also very important to the religion of the Egyptians and I a wonder how much of a connection there could be. Actually the megalithic astrologers were also cow people who routinely sacrificed cattle and feasted at the orgies of Baalzebub (demon + zebu or bull) = Lord of the Flies = chief bullshitter = Satan. Baalzebul can alo mean lord of the mansion, laughty house of god, mountain assembly, which equates to megaliths like ziggurats (mountain of god) or those structures mentioned above. Demonic fertility rituals and alien depictions have been closely associated in ancient cave and rock art in classical Mesopotamian/Mediterranean/MesoAmerican religions. Could Ziggurats, like the Egyptian pyramids, also represent a cow-pie? Could the so called ancient depictions of alien craft actually represent glorified demonic dung beetles?

Date: 2011/10/25 06:07:59, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.

Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted

Date: 2011/10/25 06:10:44, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Quote
Could Ziggurats, like the Egyptian pyramids, also represent a cow-pie? Could the so called ancient depictions of alien craft actually represent glorified demonic dung beetles?


Yawn.

Been there, done that.

Are you saying that this book actually goes into dung beetle mythology and/or ziggurat correlations?

Date: 2011/10/25 06:17:59, Link
Author: forastero
I dont think they are alien craft unless you consider the supernatural alien

Date: 2011/10/25 06:20:07, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:13)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted

Sigh. Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Greates....&sr=1-4

So, here's what is currently accepted: The origin of species that we observe around us has no telic input whatsoever. Unguided evolution is the origin of biological diversity.

A specific example:  Yanoconodon allini shows a transition between modern mammals and their distant ancestors which illustrates a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-action

Evolution explains the origin of mammalian ears via a series of such data points.

How does ID explain the origin of mammalian ears?

,,,and I will read these soon and right after I read another article that Jeannot provided for me.

Date: 2011/11/01 01:44:24, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:13)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted

Sigh. Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Greates....&sr=1-4

So, here's what is currently accepted: The origin of species that we observe around us has no telic input whatsoever. Unguided evolution is the origin of biological diversity.

A specific example:  Yanoconodon allini shows a transition between modern mammals and their distant ancestors which illustrates a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-action

Evolution explains the origin of mammalian ears via a series of such data points.

How does ID explain the origin of mammalian ears?

I doubt if there are any blind watch makers and genes are not really selfish

And your second link is just more pseudoempiricism and circular reasoning. I mean, to resurrect so called ancestral genes, y’all are implementing modern evolutionism to infer so called primordial evolution in order to infer modern evolutionism. Plus, no small mutations are known to fine-tune anything, especially these hopeful monsters

In all honesty articles like these just sadden me because they only prove to me how desperately lost so many of you really are.

Date: 2011/11/01 01:57:59, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 25 2011,11:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:04)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 24 2011,00:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:20)
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter

the horse?

the blue whale?
EDIT: given the billion of species that existed I'm pretty sure you can find an ancestor that was more robust than a extant descendent... or weaker. Depends on which ancestor you pick.

What's your point?

So you want to add multi-toed beasts to horses ey?

Then here's a Hyracodontid (in the background to the right)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature.....e_1.jpg

P.S I had to delete your image and mine because for some strange reason I can no longer post or qote anything with images

So is the blue whale a robust critter of not?
What about the horse?

Why is this relevant to the debate?

Baleen whale fossils are extremely rare but giant fossil whales have been found, including one with a 4-meter skull from Chili and I believe an even larger one was recently found there. I think most blue whale skulls average 3.5 meters without the blubber.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i....286.jpg http://news.discovery.com/animals....il.html
Plus, sperm whales in the same Miocene vicinity are larger than modern representatives so ……

Date: 2011/11/01 02:04:29, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:13)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted

Sigh. Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Greates....&sr=1-4

So, here's what is currently accepted: The origin of species that we observe around us has no telic input whatsoever. Unguided evolution is the origin of biological diversity.

A specific example:  Yanoconodon allini shows a transition between modern mammals and their distant ancestors which illustrates a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-action

Evolution explains the origin of mammalian ears via a series of such data points.

How does ID explain the origin of mammalian ears?

Migrating jaws and ears is just more silly conjectures; and again, so called homologies in no way prove evolution or dismiss intelligent design. In fact, a loving creator not only wants to give all life a fair shake but also to live in ecological balance and harmony. Homologies also instill empathy with man.

Plus, this incessant referral to everything found during the so called age of reptiles as reptilian is just one more of the myriad ways that evolutionism retards science. The myriad mammal-like reptiles are actually mammals, many of which can still be found living today. Come to think of it, I bet most Cambrian critters can still be found living today.

Oh and while we’re on the subjects of giant mammalian sea critters, some dolphins were bigger and badder than even megalodon (giant great white)

P.S. sorry but please ignore the second half of my above response to you for that was actually meant for a different member

Date: 2011/11/01 02:08:52, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,11:57)
This study might also be of interest: cristal structure of an ancient protein

This is just more pseudoempiricism and circular reasoning. I mean, to resurrect so called ancestral genes, y’all are just implementing modern evolutionism to infer so called primordial evolution in order to infer modern evolutionism. Plus, no small mutations are known to fine-tune anything, especially these hopeful monsters

In all honesty articles like these just sadden me because they only prove to me how desperately lost so many of you really are.

Date: 2011/11/01 02:15:49, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2011,20:28)
Did we break it?

Hey forastero, there's something that WAS more robust in the past... creationists.  These modern guys have no stamina.

...and we're still wondering why you're  avoiding my last big response to your last big response

Date: 2011/11/01 02:35:29, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 25 2011,15:39)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.

Some advice.  You really need to check your information before posting here.  We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian.  Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that.  Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.

rossum

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Zhang, X.-L., Hu, S.-X., Chen, L., Han, J., Zhu, M., Li, Y. and Chen, L.-Z., Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China, Nature 402:42–46, 1999.

Janvier, P., Catching the first fish, Nature 402:21–22, 1999.

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Han, J., Zhang, Z.-F., Yasui, K., Janvier, P., Chen, L., Zhang, X.-L., Liu, J.-N., Li, Y. and Liu, H.-Q., Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys, Nature 421:526–529, 2003.

Date: 2011/11/01 03:00:09, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 25 2011,07:41)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 25 2011,13:35)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,07:07)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.

Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted

What's with creationists' inordinate fondness for using "ya" instead of "you" (FL, JoeG, etc.)?  It's almost like it's meant to emphasize the slack-jawed stupidity of the ideas being advanced--as if the standard incompetence in spelling and grammar isn't enough of a clue.

It's:

a) sarcastic arrogance (they think their drivel is the equal of science, thus they themselves in their ignorance are the equal of someone who actually knows what they are talking about)

b) profoundly anti-intellectual (they discount actual knowledge, actual study, actual effort as being unworthy of them or at least worthless because it contradicts them, they thus eschew the trappings of intellectual life, for example by pretending to be "just plain folks").

It's the psychology that underpins this crap that fascinates me the most nowadays.

Louis

History  shows us that many a golden age status quo were not only the most elitists in their propaganda but also usually the most preposterous.

Date: 2011/11/01 23:02:06, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms

A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  For example, I disagree.  I think that, "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," was the original evolution of the first Metazoan, back well before the Cambrian.

Note that plant body forms are not mentioned.  All land plant phyla appeared after the Cambrian.  Why is that?

Note the word "virtually", not all but "virtually all".  Many animal phyla, but not all of them, and no land plant phyla at all appeared in the Cambrian.  Looking at the figures, nine animal phyla and no land plant phyla appeared in the Cambrian, of a total of 45 phyla.  Nine of 45 is 20% of metazoan phyla.  Important, but not overwhelmingly important.

 
Quote
Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla,

Animal phyla.  Again, your sources are omitting plant phyla.  Ever wonder why your sources are leaving out inconvenient data?

 
Quote
some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.

And some estimate a lot less.  Where is the evidence to support this estimate?  After all, the people giving the estimates are scientists, and you know that scientists can't be trusted when it comes to evolution and biology.

Quote
as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

Bwahahaha!  You don't read this stuff before you post it, do you.  1988 is not "recently", it is ancient history for biology.  We hadn't even sequenced the human genome in 1988.  That may be recent for theology, but it isn't recent for biology.

Quote
And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

The non-fossilised ones were usually squishy.  I wasn't talking about the one that we have fossils for in that sentence.  You might also look at the dates for the Cambrian Explosion and the dates for actual early fish fossils.  We have probable chordates, such as Pikaia, from just after the Cambrian Explosion but no vertebrates.  The vertebrates appear later.

Your creationist/ID sources are supplying you with faulty information.  You really need to double check what they tell you before posting.  Be sure that we will check things if you don't.

rossum

because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment

Date: 2011/11/01 23:24:41, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum

In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

Date: 2011/11/02 02:41:49, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 24 2011,18:48)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:41)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:27)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:22)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.

ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..

So it is the creationist meaning of robust that your are referring to and not the scientific meaning then? Because in paleontology and paleoanthropology robust is not a measure of size.

thats so funny its sad

So not to look like the cop out that it is, why dont you provide the "anthropological" definition of robustness

Okay so, had to watch my team lose game four of the world series and then go to work. Here is your definition of robusticity.

You might want to ask yourself why australopithicines come in robust and gracile forms even though they are approximately the same size and body mass.

Yes bone strength is one factor of robusticity but strength correlates with mass, density, nutrients, etc etc
Although I definitely agree that robusticity is very epigenetic, bone density/robusticity has still decreased steadily through time

Secondly,  the robustness in Australopithecines is dealing strictly with their chewing apparatuses. Plus, there was quite a bit of sexual dimorphism with males being much larger and more robust. Interestingly Australopithecines get get shorter stature but more robust chewing apparatus over time. For instance:

A. anamesis supposedly stood between 5 to 6 ft tall, had a very robust skull and chewing apparatus but more human like post cranial than those listed below

A. afarensis stood up to 5 feet tall and had gracile apparatus

A. Aficanus stood up 4.5 ft tall and had gracile chewing apparatus

A. robustus stood up to 4 ft tall and had robust chewing apparatus

Ar. ramidus was about 120 cm 4 foot tall and weighed about 50 kg (110 lbs). The skull and brain are small

Date: 2011/11/02 02:45:44, Link
Author: forastero
Oops I didnt want to include Ardipithecus ramidus at the bottom

Date: 2011/11/02 03:02:31, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,17:50)
Oh, and you wanted an example where the modern form is more robust that the primitive form

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......siensis

First of all, this represents a very small sample size and there is a lot of disagreement on what kind of human this actually is. Heck, some scientists are actually calling it an Asian Australopithecine. I am of the opinion that its some sort of Negrito that still inhabit areas. It could also be an H. erectus under pressures of Island dwarfism

Anyway, this is a poor example and you havnt at all clarified your stance

Date: 2011/11/02 03:47:23, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)
Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do

I deny that the endocrine system can influence phenotype or select phenotype.  You have yet to provide any evidence that this is case.

I was not going to teach you about how mutations and natural selection create new life... because they weren't involved in life to begin with.

I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus.  However, the 'new orders' is another fundamental misunderstanding you have about evolution and biology.

Are you willing to learn?  If you are then, we will have to take some very baby steps, because it is obvious that you have quite a few misunderstandings.

But the question remains, are you willing to learn?  That means reading carefully, that means actually considering new information and being honest.  It also means honestly answering any questions that may come up for you.  To that end, I would like to know where you get your current information from, so that I might best prepare some material to show you the deficiencies in that material.  Are you willing to do this?

You see, I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are willing to learn, then there isn't any point.  I can only judge your behavior by what I have seen here on this thread, and honestly, so far it is not impressive.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or not realizing it, but you have been caught in numerous logical fallacies... indeed, almost a textbook argument of the kind creationists use.  Argument by analogy, argument by authority, goalpost-shifting, quote-mining, and that's not to mention the fundamental mistakes in biology, chemistry, and physics so far.  Which, BTW, we have attempted to correct, but you don't seem to be interested in learning.

Just continuing to insist that the Big Bang was an actual explosion of the nuclear or (possibly sub-nuclear) kind shows that you have not even read some of the basics from actual scientists.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

From Darwin to Dawkins, evolutionists have always tried to suppress the idea of non-random biological events because it suggested theism. In your own fervor to deny purposeful selection, you have willfully conformed to the dogma of materialistic randomness of super-race Mother Nature Selection   preached to you by the slave trade schools of Anthropology and racists eugenics.

A genotype’s Polyphenisms are the reaction norms that are selected across a range of environments by the very flexible and dynamic endocrine system but in accord to it’s cell’s epigenetic code.  This system selects, regulates, controls, activates, programs, reorginizes, transduces ,disrupts, turns on, turns off, binds to DNA receceptors, modifies nucleotide bases, splices, edits,  transcribes, aquires, learns, memorizes, Imprints, methylates, demethylates, canalises, deacylates, acetylates etc etc etc….

Oh and where did I say the Big Bang was nuclear anything?
I simply gave several examples of how scientists explain it as an explosion

Date: 2011/11/02 04:11:42, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc

Date: 2011/11/02 13:13:38, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,07:52)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

I have no hostility towards design.  I have designed things myself.  I have no hostility towards Jesus, though I think of Him as a Bodhisattva, which might be seen as hostile by some.  As you might have surmised from my avatar, I an Buddhist, and I can assure you that Buddhism has no problems with either evolution or atheism.  Both origins and gods are irrelevant to the goals of Buddhism.

I do have problems with unscientific explanations based on an unevidenced designer, whose proponents will not even put a date on when the designer/s worked.

ID is a political, not a scientific movement.  It has just enough 'scienciness' to make it look scientific to non-scientists and to make it politically plausible.  It does not have enough science to actually qualify as science.

If the designer did design the bacterial flagellum, then when did this event happen, and what evidence do you have to support that date?

rossum

According to Buddha, one shouldnt make haughty claims of whats the gods cant and cant do until one reaches a of very high plane of spiritual knowledge. Your passion for the teachings of materialists men over spiritual enlightenment prove that you havnt reached this plane

Yes spiritual because, Buddhism is about leaving the material and becoming one with the demonic goddess in tantric meditation, which leads to many a secret sadomasochisms and was indeed incorporated by the likes of Hitler

The Brahmajala Sutta seems to indicate creationism but maybe you can give us your take on the following
39. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the ?bhassara Brahma-world.[7] There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
40. "But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahm? appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahm?. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
41. "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahm?, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
42. "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'
"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.'
43. "Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who re-arose there after him.
44. "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were created by him, by Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'

Date: 2011/11/02 13:15:03, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,07:42)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:02)
because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment

And your evidence for land dwelling organisms in the Cambrian is ... ?

rossum

Which ones?

Date: 2011/11/02 13:18:07, Link
Author: forastero
Oh and Buddha would never dismiss texts based on age as Rossum does

Date: 2011/11/02 13:45:45, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 02 2011,04:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,05:24)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum

In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

How can one be hostile to something one doesn't believe in and to all intents and purposes does not exist outside of the imaginations of various stripes of theists/deists?

Your confusion, incoherence and projection are noted.

Louis

The persistent  nature of your beliefs, defensiveness,  and hostility indicates a negative derivative or cult of the Great Designer

Date: 2011/11/02 13:49:27, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 02 2011,10:36)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum

In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

I'm sorry; I missed the part where you answered the question.  If you'd be so kind, maybe you could point that part out to me.  Again.  I know I'm being dense.  Thanks.

Millions of miraculous machines scurrying about prove a Great Designer. The scriptures and the millions of miraculous conversions prove which religion is legit

Date: 2011/11/02 13:59:25, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2011,10:45)
BTW: You STILL haven't talked about your position and evidence for it.

Perhaps you should ask your question of me again.  Since I appear to have forgotten it since you have been gone for over a week.

Yes you are still avoiding my responses to you on page 8 and 9 and also for about the tenth time you have avoided my request for you to describe in your own words natural mutation selection and where it leads to different orders etc..

Date: 2011/11/02 14:09:36, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:44)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

 If you are interested in transitional fossils, you might find my chapter by chapter review of "Your Inner Fish" enlightening.

You see, people like you really are intellectual cowards.  You are scared to look up things that may interfere with your belief system.  

Inner Fish? Is that based on Earnst Haekels' fraud filled fetal fish propaganda used by the Nazis to promote abortion, eugenics and infanticide?

Date: 2011/11/02 14:15:57, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 25 2011,07:18)
forastero,

You have shifted the goal post again.  "The endocrine system selects the phenotype" does not equal epigenetics.

Here, this is from the first scholarly paper using the search terms you have given us  
Quote
. A unifying theme of disease epigenetics is defects in phenotypic plasticity--cells' ability to change their behaviour in response to internal or external environmental cues.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17522677


Phenotypic plasticity, doesn't mean what you think it means.

Epepigenetics is a type of phenotypic plasticity and its extremely dynamic so...

Why do you limit epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity definition to diseases?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about so...

Who are you trying to fool?

Date: 2011/11/02 20:12:30, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,15:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:13)
According to Buddha, one shouldnt make haughty claims of whats the gods cant and cant do until one reaches a of very high plane of spiritual knowledge. Your passion for the teachings of materialists men over spiritual enlightenment prove that you havnt reached this plane

And where did you find this gem in the Tripitaka?  Buddhism generally tends to ignore gods.  They aren't particularly relevant to following the path.

Quote
Yes spiritual because, Buddhism is about leaving the material and becoming one with the demonic goddess in tantric meditation, which leads to many a secret sadomasochisms and was indeed incorporated by the likes of Hitler

Bwahahaha!  You lose - Poe's Law.  Your knowledge of Buddhism in general, and of Tantric Buddhism in particular, is obviously insufficient.

Quote
The Brahmajala Sutta seems to indicate creationism but maybe you can give us your take on the following...

Certainly.  A being dies from a very high plane and is the first to be reborn in a newly formed lower plane: "Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahm?."

Being on his own, since he was the first to be reborn in the empty palace in the lower plane, he wishes for companions: "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahm?, in companionship with him."

Since he wished for companions, and they duly appeared, he suffers from the delusion that he caused them to appear, when in fact it was the exhaustion of their previous karma.  However, he continues with his delusion and claims great powers for himself, on the basis of his mistaken understanding: "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'"

The being claiming to be Brahm? is mistaken.  This is nothing to do with creationism, but about the mistaken claims of a powerful god to be, "the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be."  You, or your source, has misunderstood the meaning of this passage.  The Brahmajala sutta points out a number of errors found among non-Buddhists.  This passage is from the section about the error of believing in an eternal creator-god who made the world.  Contemporary Buddhists often use it to argue against followers of the Abrahamic religions.

As I said before, your knowledge of Buddhism is insufficient.  All you have done here is to shoot yourself in the foot.  The god claiming to be the creator is making a mistaken claim, based on his own error.

You would do well to restrict yourself to arguing about topics where you have some knowledge.  Buddhism is not one of them.

rossum

Hmm so your saying the story represents one spirit being impersonating a creator and another spirit being dismissing his claims? Sounds like a demon is involved and like the Hinduism that Buddhism sprang from, Buddhist venerate and worship demons. This is why Buddhism is so violent in its essence with many war gods worshiped by violent Bodhisattva, Bushido, S?hei, and Kamikaze warriors. War gods with a long history human sacrifice and Kapala skull caps. Could be why the Buddhist nations have the highest rate and number of abortions and infanticide.  Of coarse in China, atheism exponentiates the practices. Pedophilia is also rampant among the Buddhist monks.The Buddhist also often follow a racist Hindu-like caste system.

Tantric rituals involve transforming one’s soul by invoking goddess possession
Virtually all Tibetan Buddhist meditators seek to become enlightened through the use of Tantric rituals to reach spiritual goals (or Sadhanas) incuding knowledge, giving thanks, salvation, transformation, entering Buddha-fields or abode of the deities, good karma, rebirth, nirvana, and ultimately one with a goddess. Utmost secrecy is the cornerstone of tantric rituals. Tantric rituals include consumption of meat and alcohol, breath control, playing musical instruments and most importantly deity yoga, which involves mantras (repetitious chanting of prayers and spells with rosarys and prayer wheels until one becomes divine Buddah in body speech and mind), mandala trance (sandpainting of the celestial mansion or residence of the deities), visualizations of the deity, sexual intercourse with the deity, worship of the deity. The principal tantric deities are Shadakshari (four-armed incarnation of the Dalai Lama), Vajrayogin? ('the Wrathful Lady' or 'the Fierce Black One') and Tara. Avalokite?vara and Chakrasamvara are the male counterparts of these goddesses. These duel-sexed goddesses (Dakines) represent fully enlightened Buddahs and/or yidams (tutors, protectors, and consorts to Buddahood) that the tantic meditator must ultimately become one with what is referred to as the completion stage or Mother tantra. Often regarded as one in the same, these goddesses are the supreme deities (ishtadivas) of the Tantric pantheon. “No male Buddha, approaches them in metaphysical or practical import” Tara is the Indo-European earth and fertility goddess with aliases throughout the world involving zodiac cosmology, temple mounds and ritual human sacrifice, frenzied pedophilia and mutilation . In fact, Tara, Ishtar, Astarte, Inanna, Ashtoreth, Aphrodite , Dea Syria, Astarte, Cybele, Aphrodite, Kore, Mari, Artemis, Arduinna, Diana, Damara, Arianhrod, Artio, are interrelated (different pagan cultures developing name variants as traditions changed and the ages passed). Her male counterparts also include Baal-Thor-Zeus.  Dakini Dakini

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....cms6yIA
Other goddess like Chakrasamsara/Vajrayogin? 'the Wrathful Lady' are Just like the Hindu kali ChakraSamvara/Vajrayogin? with a vajra in her right hand and a kapala (skull cup) in her left hand which is filled with blood that she partakes of with her upturned mouth. Her head is adorned with a crown of five human skulls and she wears a necklace of fifty human skulls. She is depicted as standing in the center of a blazing fire of exalted wisdom. the curved drigug knife in her right hand shows her power to cut the continuum of the delusions and obstacles of her followers and of all living beings. Drinking the nectar of blood from the kapala in her left hand symbolizes her experience of the clear light of bliss.[15] the severed-headed form of Vajrayogin? is similar to the Indian goddess Chinnamasta who is recognized by both Hindus and Buddhists.[17]

Date: 2011/11/02 20:13:59, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2011,15:18)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2011,13:11)
Well, can't say I'm surprised that forastero has bought 100% into the Darwin-->Hitler meme.

Not to mention the Buddha-->Hitler meme.

He probably knew  I was right

Date: 2011/11/02 20:14:45, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,15:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:15)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,07:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:02)
because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment

And your evidence for land dwelling organisms in the Cambrian is ... ?

rossum

Which ones?

Any land dwelling organism from the Cambrian will do.  Show us your evidence please.

rossum

Cant name any can you?

Date: 2011/11/02 20:20:08, Link
Author: forastero
I mean you cant even name one Cambrian land animal

Date: 2011/11/03 00:37:30, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 02 2011,20:50)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,20:20)
I mean you cant even name one Cambrian land animal

Are you talking about Protichnite or Climactichnite fossils?

ETA - I found some confetti. Does that mean I can name the kind of dance at the New Year's Party?

Interesting fossil tracks and supposedly laid down in tidal flat sandstone.  There are similar sandstone beds and critter tracks at the bottom of the sea today but then the Climactichnite tracks could very well be of those various benthic worms that come to shore just to breed as does modern Odontosyllis phosphorea. The Protichnite tracks are being labeled as those of a Euthycarcinoid, which to me looks like a big benthic sand flea

Date: 2011/11/03 00:49:01, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2011,04:21)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 25 2011,15:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.

Some advice.  You really need to check your information before posting here.  We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian.  Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that.  Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.

rossum

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Zhang, X.-L., Hu, S.-X., Chen, L., Han, J., Zhu, M., Li, Y. and Chen, L.-Z., Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China, Nature 402:42–46, 1999.

Janvier, P., Catching the first fish, Nature 402:21–22, 1999.

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Han, J., Zhang, Z.-F., Yasui, K., Janvier, P., Chen, L., Zhang, X.-L., Liu, J.-N., Li, Y. and Liu, H.-Q., Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys, Nature 421:526–529, 2003.

How long did this "explosion" take again? Remind me.

Wont rightly know  fur sure until we reach the promised land but obviously fairly quick since so many are found in the same rock.

Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" . This is why top evolution gurus Gould and Eldridge came up with their theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain the utter lack of intermediates in the fossil record .

Scientists usually label fossil layers according to geologic eras based on index fossils but they should be labeling them as eco zones. For instance the Cambrian is a seafloor zone that always contains seafloor critters.

Date: 2011/11/03 03:09:39, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.

Date: 2011/11/03 12:39:42, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?

You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?

I already said in Occam terms that the Cambrian represents a benthic ecosystem that appeared suddenly via creation by God as did our earth and our intricate solar system. A planet and solar system that all run together like a finely tuned machine in order to allow that life to exist hear on earth.

When you Buddhist and pseudist gonna explain why you dance to the tune of spontaneous generation from primordial soup that accidentally exploded into a super huge zoo?   Oh I remember. There was this thing called abiogenesis where spontaneous but accidental aggregation of lipids and proteins formed primitive spaghetti monsters from the fountain of soup. Then occasional heights of solar activity came down from the heavens to cause Saltation or punctuated equilibrium that miraculously lead to greater rates of mutation which in turn lead to sudden explosions of diversity.  Unfortunately for you, top biologists astrobiologists destroyed your theory.

Louis Pasteur, a devout Christian creationist and skeptic of Darwinism would finally disprove the fallacy called Spontaneous Generation in 1859. Pasteur referred his findings as The Law of Biogenesis, which is now the fundamental law of biology. However, Darwin's The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life lead to a revival of the spontaneous biogenesis or generation theory. From this arose the modern evolutionary movement, which is now thought to have occurred in six phases: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing); (2) Chemical Evolution (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen); (3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets); (4) Organic Evolution ( Spontaneous origin of organic life from a rock) (5) Macro Evolution (Mutation theory) and (6) Micro evolution. Pasteur would endure years of opposition, ridicule and outright hatred from evolutionary pseudo-scientists. But why would such a contradictory position be entertained? Because, as Dr. George Wald of Harvard, indicated, the other alternative, special creation, simply is not acceptable.

Many years later Chandra Wickramasinghe and fred Hoyle who calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes. He claimed: The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olson, have detailed why your biogenesis theories are ridiculous

Date: 2011/11/03 12:57:57, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2011,06:16)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,00:49)
Wont rightly know  fur sure until we reach the promised land but obviously fairly quick since so many are found in the same rock.

So, given your knowledge of how quickly such rocks form can you put some boundaries on "fairly quick"?

Days? Years? Thousands of years?

What?

Fossilization is a fairly rare event because it needs just the right and often miraculous processes to occur, Thus, for you to suggest that these Cambrian fossils just happened to fossilize over and over again over millions of years in the same select vicinities is just boulderdash

Oh and rocks can occur in seconds

Date: 2011/11/03 12:59:22, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,08:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,03:09)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.

Come now, you don't really expect us to think you read something that requires a trip to the library?

The odds are that you grabbed both the hearsay and the reference from this site.

ETA: Forgot to mention that you couldn't even get that much right. Here's what the page said:

Quote

[...] Commenting on the puzzling status of the Ediacaran (Vendian) fossils, the Russian paleontologist Mikhail Fedonkin writes:

We are now in the situation Charles Darwin found himself in about 150 years ago. He was puzzled by the absence of the ancestors of the Cambrian invertebrates, considering this fact as a strong argument against his theory of gradualistic evolution of species. We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian fauna as well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state."5


Mistaking something explicitly attributed to Fedonkin as something Darwin wrote seems about your speed.

I actually own the book and will dig it out just for you

Date: 2011/11/03 13:16:00, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc

So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.

I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter

Date: 2011/11/03 14:49:30, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:59)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2011,10:45)
BTW: You STILL haven't talked about your position and evidence for it.

Perhaps you should ask your question of me again.  Since I appear to have forgotten it since you have been gone for over a week.

Yes you are still avoiding my responses to you on page 8 and 9 and also for about the tenth time you have avoided my request for you to describe in your own words natural mutation selection and where it leads to different orders etc..

Oh.  that?

OK, so if I answer it AGAIN, then you will answer all of my questions?  

Excellent, I'll hold you to that.

First of all, you have a fundamental misunderstanding (color me surprised).  Orders are not a level at which mutation and selection play a part.  Orders are large groupings of taxonomically similar species and genuses.

Consider the following:
Kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

This can easily be remembered by the phrase
King
Phillip
came
over
for
good
sex
(well, that's what I heard!)

Now, where are populations of organisms in this list?  The species level.  Where are individuals on this list?  The species level.  

All the action, as it where, happens at the species and (very, very rarely) the genus level (i.e. I only know of one speciation event that was significant enough to result in a change of genus*)

Now, why will mutation and selection NOT result in a change of family or order?

Because the family and order groupings are based on very specific anatomical features that, because of the nature of evolution, will not change.

for example, the order Carnivora is based on organisms that have the following characters:
carnassial teeth
no fewer than 4 toes on each foot
well developed canine teeth
6 incisors, 2 canines
many have 'dew claws' or vestigial first digits

And yet, organisms in as wide a range as polar bears to palm civets are all in this category.  The requirements for fitting into this order are listed.

It will be nearly impossible for a population of non-carnivores to evolve into carnivores.

What you are asking is that a species shed all the characteristics that make it a part of whatever order it currently is (if you use Artiodactyl as an example, then the population would have to gain two toes, change the entire morphology of it's foot, change from herbivore to carnivore (with the unique digestive system of artiodactyles disappearing and being replaced by a carnivore system (i.e. three chambered stomach going away, shortening intestines, biochemistry devoted to plant material converting to meat, etc.))  etc. etc. etc.

Do you begin to see the picture?

No one, not a single real scientist on the planet would suggest that is even possible, much less a requirement that evolution be able to accomplish.

Basically, you are asking how evolution can turn a duck into a crocodile and the answer is, it can't.  If you believe that this falsifies evolution, then you don't even know what evolution is, much less be capable of developing coherent arguments against it.



* interestingly, this paper (which I have asked if you wanted earlier) shows that a mutation in a plant species did result in a change of genus.

Hmm I am glad that we agree that animals don’t mutate into other classes of animals. And here I always thought Panda’s Thumb believed herbivorous pandas mutated from Ursines. I guess you would also say that herb eaters like afarensis or habilis didn’t mutate into meat eating homos? Come to think of it, the priest over at Nat. Geo. have been saying the vegi orangutan is genetically closer to meet eating homos than are chimps. Of course you don’t really believe that.

Interestingly, epigenetic plasticity does allow some animals to alter to or from strict carnivorous and herbivorous diets. You should read up on it sometime

Date: 2011/11/03 15:24:29, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,11:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,01:09)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.

Thanks, forastero.  So Darwin talked about the biota (first known use of this word: 1901) of the Vendian (1952), in a book published in 1993.  

When did Darwin die?

Yeah, its called a citation

Date: 2011/11/03 15:34:10, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,14:12)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc

So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.

I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
[URL=http://www.mendeley.com/research/bacterial-hormone-scb1-directly-controls-expression-pathwayspecific-regulatory-gene-crypti


c-type-i-polyketide-biosynthetic-gene-cluster-streptomyces-coelicolor/]http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor[/URL]

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter

You said...

"Endocrine system determines phenotype"

Do you still support that claim or not?  If you do, then evidence has been asked for several times and now, once more.

Further, I note that you have not acted in good faith, I answered your question, quite thoroughly I might add (and in my own words), you have not yet done so.

Finally, I would like to point out that the BURIAL EVENT probably did occur in seconds.  It's called a landslide.  I'm sure you can find a video of one on youtube.

However, the landslide (even if underwater on the continental shelf) burial event is NOT the Cambrian Explosion.  That is the surge in diversity that occurred over the Cambrian Period, which lasted for about 50 million years... I believe I have already given sufficient evidence for the dating of the Cambrian.

Your turn... I would appreciate answers to my questions now.  Thanks.

I am glad we agree that the Cambrian fossils were buried quickly by a great calamity but when scientists talk about Cambrian explosions, they are not referring to the burial part.

A genotype’s Polyphenisms are the reaction norms that are selected across a range of environments by the very flexible and dynamic endocrine system but in accord to it’s cell’s epigenetic code.  

The endocrine system interacts with the immune and nervous systems to select, regulate, control, activate, program, reorginize, transduce ,disrupt, turn on, turn off, binds to DNA receceptors, modify nucleotide bases, splice, edit,  transcribe, acquire, learn, memorize, Imprint, methylate, demethylate, canalise, deacylate, acetylate etc etc etc….

From Darwin to Dawkins, evolutionists have always tried to suppress the idea of non-random biological events because it suggested theism. In your own fervor to deny purposeful selection, you have willfully conformed to the dogma of materialistic randomness of super-race Mother Nature Selection   preached to you by the slave trade schools of Anthropology and racists eugenics.

Date: 2011/11/03 15:35:58, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2011,15:26)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,15:24)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,11:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,01:09)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.

Thanks, forastero.  So Darwin talked about the biota (first known use of this word: 1901) of the Vendian (1952), in a book published in 1993.  

When did Darwin die?

Yeah, its called a citation

But I thought your library was packed up?

Yeah I'm renovating

Date: 2011/11/03 15:47:08, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,14:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc

So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.

I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
[URL=http://www.mendeley.com/research/bacterial-hormone-scb1-directly-controls-expression-pathwayspecific-regulatory-gene-crypti


c-type-i-polyketide-biosynthetic-gene-cluster-streptomyces-coelicolor/]http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor[/URL]

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter

Earth, Moon, and Stars.

This is NOT a change in PHENOTYPE.  This is the activation of a gene.  

OK, I think it now obvious to anyone who does know what's going on that you don't.

Again, I'd appreciate those questions answered.

Activations and deactivation are one of the ways that the endocrine system selects expressions of a gene's polyphenisms

"In polyphenic development, hormones control a switch between alternative developmental pathways so that individuals with identical genotypes can develop dramatically different phenotypes. The hormones that control polyphenic development (juvenile hormone, ecdysteroids, and a few neurohormones) are the same as those that control insect metamorphosis. Hence an understanding of the endocrine regulation of metamorphosis has proven essential for understanding the control of polyphenic developmental switches."

http://www.biology.duke.edu/nijhout....ism.htm

Date: 2011/11/03 15:51:46, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2011,15:38)
It's amazing that with the books all packed up you can remember the name and pages numbers of the appropriate sections. Designer be praised!

I have used the quote several times but didnt quote the original source. I will get the original source though for the many straw grabbers

Date: 2011/11/03 16:13:11, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,06:08)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,20:12)
Hmm so your saying the story represents one spirit being impersonating a creator and another spirit being dismissing his claims?

No.  The Abrahamic god, worshiped by Jews, Christians and Moslems, is mistaken and his claims are in error.  He claims to be the Immortal Omnipotent Creator, but his claims are wrong.   He is long lived, but not immortal.  He is powerful, but not omnipotent.  He didn't create the world, but is deluded in thinking that he did.

 
Quote
Tantric rituals involve ...

There are two possibilities here.  First, you have been initiated into one of the Tantric lineages, and in the process sworn yourself not to reveal its secrets to the uninitiated.  In this case you are an oath breaker and not to be trusted.  Second, that you have not been initiated and that you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge.  Again, what you say is not to be trusted.  I consider that the second possibility is more likely.

Tantras are secret.  Even when they are written down, they are written in coded language so that the uninitiated cannot understand them.  Knowing that the translation of "a red herring" is "a pink fish" does not help you get to the real meaning of the text.  The words of a written Tantra are deliberately designed to be misleading to the uninitiated.  You cannot learn Tantra from a book; you have to be initiated.

rossum

Wow! I always heard that the Buddhist big wigs considered Jesus a great prophet but I didnt know that their scriptures cited him and Abraham as arrogant

Its not so secret when you got the likes of everyone from the Beatles to the Nazi SS going to Tibet to learn Tantra. Heck Paul McCartney even manages tantric schools

The heavy duty tantra is so secret due to its sadomasochism, pedophilia, so called compassionate torture, self mutilation etc etc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....4D099R0

THE SHADOW OF THE DALAI LAMA: SEXUALITY, MAGIC AND POLITICS IN TIBETAN BUDDHISM http://www.american-buddha.com/shadow.....lai.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....s6cNxbY

I was a Tantric sex slave – June Campbell
www.trimondi.de/EN/deba02.html

The Emperor's Tantric Robes - an Interview with June Campbell
www.anandainfo.com/tantric_robes.html

Kloset Kalu, the Secret Lover
www.american-buddha.com/kloset.kalu.htm

Buddhist Clergy Sexual Abuse: Annotated Bibliography
www.trimondi.de/EN/deba01.html

Best-selling Buddhist Author accused of sexual abuse – Don Lattin
www.american-buddha.com/sogyal.htm

Buddhist Sect Alarmed by Reports that Leader Kept His AIDS a Secret - John Dart
www.aegis.com/news/lt/1989/LT890302.html

Anonymous letter to American Buddha
www.american-buddha.com/letter%20from%20anonymous.htm

Tibetan Buddhist Master infects Gay Disciples with HIV
www.flameout.org/flameout/gurus/tibetan.html

Sonam Kazi Family Values
www.american-buddha.com/kazi.family.htm

www.american-buddha.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=340

Echoes of Nalinika: Monk in the Dock – Enid Adam
www.american-buddha.com/echoes.nalinika.htm

Karaoke Monk booted out – BBC News Asia
www.american-buddha.com/karaoke.monk.htm

Buddhism and Misogyny (historical overview) – V. and V. Trimondi
www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-1-01.htm

The “Tantric Female Sacrifice" – V. and V. Trimondi
www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-1-03.htm

Beatings are nothing new
www.taipeitimes.com/News/archives/2000/01/22/0000021071

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth - Michael Parenti
www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html

Monks arrested over sexual abuse of Sri Lankan war orphans
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se....O8.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....846.stm

Buddhism’s pedophile monks – Uwe Siemon-Netto
www.american-buddha.com/pedophile.monks.htm

Princeton Prof. says no to Sri Lanka Child Monks
www.american-buddha.com/child.monks.htm

Date: 2011/11/03 16:34:09, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,15:56)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,14:49)
Hmm I am glad that we agree that animals don’t mutate into other classes of animals. And here I always thought Panda’s Thumb believed herbivorous pandas mutated from Ursines. I guess you would also say that herb eaters like afarensis or habilis didn’t mutate into meat eating homos? Come to think of it, the priest over at Nat. Geo. have been saying the vegi orangutan is genetically closer to meet eating homos than are chimps. Of course you don’t really believe that.

Interestingly, epigenetic plasticity does allow some animals to alter to or from strict carnivorous and herbivorous diets. You should read up on it sometime

You'll not very carefully what I said and didn't say.

I said that carnivores have carnassials and that artiodactyles have three stomachs.  

I said that no one, not even biologists expect mutations to change an artiodactyl into a carnivore (of the order carnivora).

Since then, you have changed your mind and now you want me to explain how the common ancestor of bears resulted in both pandas (which are effectively obligate herbivores) and polar bears (which are effectively obligate carnivores).

Do you see the difference in what you are saying?  I doubt it.

Your claim was for me to explain how mutations and natural selection could change orders of species.  This is exactly as I described it.  This is having an ancestral species that is an artidactyl, given time, will have descendants that are members of carnivora.  This is, of course, impossible.  It is extremely unlikely that all the traits of carnivores would arise in exactly the same way a second time, especially from an order that it already specialized in another direction (three stomachs, for example).

However, you have shifted the goalpost and are now demanding the evolutionary history of bears.  Note that even though the giant panda is almost an obligate herbivore, it STILL has the characteristics of the order carnivora (carnassials, a short intestinal tract (which is why it must eat so much, it's digestive system is very poor for the food it consimes), 4 toes per limb, etc).

Perhaps you should read, the evolutionary history of bears.  

Kemp, T.S. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Mammals. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-850760-4.

Wang Banyue and Qiu Zhanxiang (2005). "Notes on Early Oligocene Ursids (Carnivora, Mammalia) from Saint Jacques, Nei Mongol, China" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 279 (279): 116–124. doi:10.1206/0003-0090(2003)279<0116:C>2.0.CO;2.

Krause, J.; Unger, T.; Noçon, A.; Malaspinas, A.; Kolokotronis, S.; Stiller, M.; Soibelzon, L.; Spriggs, H.; Dear, P. H.; Briggs, A. W.; Bray, S. C. E.; O'Brien, S. J.; Rabeder, G.; Matheus, P.; Cooper, A.; Slatkin, M.; Pääbo, S.; Hofreiter, M. (2008-07-28). "Mitochondrial genomes reveal an explosive radiation of extinct and extant bears near the Miocene-Pliocene boundary". BMC Evolutionary Biology 8 (220): 220. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-220. PMC 2518930. PMID 18662376.

Soibelzon, L. H.; Tonni, E. P.; Bond, M. (October 2005). "The fossil record of South American short-faced bears (Ursidae, Tremarctinae)". Journal of South American Earth Sciences 20 (1–2): 105–113. doi:10.1016/j.jsames.2005.07.005.

Qiu Zhanxiang (2003). "Dispersals of Neogene Carnivorans between Asia and North America" (PDF). Bulletin American Museum of Natural History 279 (279): 18–31. doi:10.1206/0003-0090(2003)279<0018:C>2.0.CO;2.

Kurtén, B., 1995. The cave bear story: life and death of a vanished animal, Björn Kurtén, Columbia University Press

Or better yet, (here's another question you will chicken out on and not answer), what is your explanation for the apparent confusion here?  Why would a member of the order carnivora, with all the carnivore specializations, be eating plants?  Please explain with with specific references to the designer and why his designs make no sense.

Again, you make a claim, but do not back it up.  Citation please, specifically of this: "epigenetic plasticity does allow some animals to alter to or from strict carnivorous and herbivorous diets"

And please show EXACTLY how the phenotype changes.  I would expect that you not make the same mistake previously and say that activating a gene a change in phenotype.  At a minimum, I need the scientific paper reference.  I would really like a summary of the paper in your own words so that I know you understand this.

I'll just add these two to the list of questions you have yet to answer... here:

define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man  (The Daily Mail is not peer-reviewed evidence and you have not cited evidence for other claims)
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time
Describe how you explain the diversity of order carnivora such that the same order contains obligate carnivores and obligate herbivores.  Relate this information to the information provided regarding the evolutionary history of these organisms (IOW: Let's compare what you say and what I say to the actual genes of these critters).
Provide a citation that shows how an environmental change causes a change in the phenotype that would allow an animal that is an obligate carnivore to change to an obligate herbivorous diet.
Provide a summary of the research in your own words.

This is quite a list and it will only get larger.  I suggest you start tackling it.

"given enough time" Is that kinda like the monkey that that took a billion years to type a novel or the tornado that made a 747 in the junk yard?

Ooh back to bears and cats again but this time with some teeth. This could be the penal system's first sign of evidence against me since they shipped me here

So did the

Please do elaborate in your own words the mechanics of how the polar bear and Panda mutated from Ursus arctos?

Date: 2011/11/03 18:12:44, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,16:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,16:13)
Wow! I always heard that the Buddhist big wigs considered Jesus a great prophet but I didnt know that their scriptures cited him and Abraham as arrogant

You heard wrong.  Buddhism doesn't do prophets, we leave that to the Abrahamic religions.  Jesus is normally considered to be a Bodhisattva.  Abraham we don't think about much, since we ignore most of what he said.  All the best bits were repeated by Jesus anyway, and being prepared to make a human sacrifice of your own child to appease a bloodthirsty god is definitely un-Buddhist behaviour.  It is YHWH we see as arrogant, claiming to be what he isn't.

 
Quote
{list of Buddhists doing unwise actions}

Yes, some Buddhists fall short of the standards they should be following.  So?  People of all religions, and of none, do sometimes fall short of moral standards.  Timothy McVeigh was American, does that mean all Americans are morally wrong and that no moral person can be an American?  No, I don't think so either.

rossum

Oh yes Buddhist do have so called Messianic prophesies http://www.maitreya.org/english....ism.htm

Adi Da was suggested by his devotees to be Maitreya: "an All-Surpassing God-Man yet to come -- a final Avatar, the ultimate Messiah, a consumate Prophet or Enlightened Sage, a Spiritual Deliverer who will appear in the 'late-time', the 'dark' epoch when humanity is lost, apparently cut off from Wisdom, Truth and God. Buddhists call that Expected One 'Maitreya'." [19]  Carolyn Lee. "Adi Da: The Promised God-Man Is Here: The Ruchira Sannyasin Order of Adidam Ruchiradam:” Jesus within Buddhism. It has been suggested that within Mahayana Buddhism the legendary Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara developed out of Jesus having been in Tibet and India. 44 For one reason, this bodhisattva is thought to have reached his earliest known (legendary) form around the second or third century C.E.,45 which timing is appropriate for the hypothesis. For another reason, the book by Professor John Holt of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine, suggests that the origins of the Avalokitesvara cult was in northwest India in the second century.46

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....YtPx--U
The Kalachakra Tantra contains the prophecy of a holy war between Buddhists and so-called "barbarian" Muslims (Skt. mleccha). http://www.berzinarchives.com/web....ng.html

In accordance with a prophecy in the Sutra on Magical Perception, Padmakara transformed himself into the monk Wangpo Dey in order to convert King Ashoka. Having established Ashoka in unshakable faith, during a single night he erected in this world one million stupas containing the relics of the Tathagata. He also subdued several non-Buddhist teachers, was poisoned by one king but remained unharmed. When he then was thrown into the river he made the river flow upstream and danced about in mid-air. Through that he became known as Powerful Garuda Youth.

The Buddha gave him this prophecy: "Many aeons ago you were the gelong Chöchi Lodro. Now you are Zipji Muchee, and in a future life you will become Buddha Amitabha." For thousands of millions of years Zipji Muchee practised the Dharma. He vowed that he would not achieve buddhahood until every being who prayed to be in his buddha-realm could be born there. Eventually his wishing-prayer was fulfilled, and he became Amitabha. The buddha-realm he manifested is known as Déwachen. Ten aeons/kalpas have passed since Amitabha established that realm.

Timothy McVeigh was just one agnostic who confessed: "science is my religion".  Buddhism is violent in essence and influences many. Oh and another reason tantric rituals are kept secret is because often involve casting spells

Date: 2011/11/03 19:19:21, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 03 2011,13:48)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,13:26)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,10:39)
     
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?

You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?

Answer of "No, I haven't" duly noted.

Quite. But if forastero wants to read about Darwin's opinions on slavery, start here.

Though I am not counting on it, somebody may actually learn something.

In The Origin of Species, By the Preservation of Favoured Races, Darwin writes: “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man”

Darwin continues: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaafhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his meanest allies will be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 17

In 1870 Max Muller, an evolutionist anthropologist from the Anthropological Review of London, had divided human races into seven categories. Aborigines appeared at the bottom, and the Aryan race, that of the white Europeans, at the top.

H. K. Rusden, a famous Social Darwinist, had this to say about the aborigines in 1876: "The survival of the fittest means that might is right. And we thus invoke and remorselessly fulfil the inexorable law of natural selection when exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races… and we appropriate their patrimony coolly".32


And in 1890 the Vice-President of the Royal Society of Tasmania, James Barnard, wrote: "the process of extermination is an axiom of the law of evolution and survival of the fittest." There was therefore, he concluded, no reason to suppose that "there had been any culpable neglect" in the murder and dispossession of the Aboriginal Australian.

The policies aimed at aborigines did not end with massacres. In a frenzied attempt to to find the "missing link", many members of the race were treated like experimental animals. The Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. held the remains of 15,000 people of various races. 10,000 Australian aborigines were sent by ship to the British Museum with the aim of seeing whether or not they were the "missing link" in the transition from animals to human beings. Museums were not just interested in bones, at the same time they kept brains belonging to aborigines and sold them at high prices. There is also proof that Australian aborigines were killed to be used as specimens. The facts below bear witness to this ruthlessness: A death-bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland in 1866, graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen.
Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney for 20 years from 1874, was particularly heavily involved. He published a museum booklet which appeared to include Aborigines under the designation of "Australian animals". It also gave instructions not only on how to rob graves, but also on how to plug up bullet wounds in freshly killed "specimens".

A German evolutionist, Amalie Dietrich (nicknamed the 'Angel of Black Death') came to Australia asking station owners for Aborigines to be shot for specimens, particularly skin for stuffing and mounting for her museum employers. Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens.

A New South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of dozens of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the 10 best skulls were packed off for overseas.35 All in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the 'missing link'.

Along with museum curators from around the world, Monaghan says, some of the top names in British science were involved in this large-scale grave-robbing trade.3 These included anatomist Sir Richard Owen, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith, and Charles Darwin himself. Darwin wrote asking for Tasmanian skulls when only four full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigines were left alive, provided his request would not 'upset' their feelings. Museums were not only interested in bones, but in fresh skins as well. These would provide interesting evolutionary displays when stuffed.


The extermination of the aborigines continued in the 20th century. Among the methods employed in this extermination was the forcible removal of aborigine children from their families. A news story by Alan Thornhill, which appeared in the 28 April 1997 edition of the Philadelphia Daily News, recounted this method used against the aborigines in this way: "keep state welfare agents from taking them away. "The welfare just grabbed you when they found you," one of the stolen children reported, many years later. "Our people would hide us, paint us with charcoal." "I was taken to Moola Bulla," said one cattler worker who was stolen as a child. "We were about 5 or 6 years old." His tale was one of thousands heard by Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission during its heart-wrenching inquiry into the "stolen generation." From 1910 until the 1970s, some 100,000 aboriginal children were taken from their parents... Light-skinned aboriginal children were seized and handed out to white families for adoption. Dark-skinned children were put in orphanages.36
Even now, the pain is so great that most stories were printed anonymously in the commission's final report, "Bringing Them Home." The commission says the actions of the authorities at that time amounted to genocide as the United Nations defines it. The government has refused to follow the inquiry's recommendation that a tribunal be set up to assess compensation payments for the stolen children.

Darwin gave the following account of Tasmania's Black War:[27] "All the aboriginals have been removed to an island in Bass's Straits, so that Van Diemen's Land enjoys the great advantage of being free from a native population. This most cruel step seems to have been quite unavoidable, as the only means of stopping a fearful succession of robberies, burnings, and murders, committed by the blacks; but which sooner or later must have ended in their utter destruction. I fear there is no doubt that this train of evil and its consequences, originated in the infamous conduct of some of our countrymen."

But it wasnt just Darwin's survival of the fittest that led to the genocide and slavery of Amerindians, Jews, Gypsies, and Africans etc... The Darwin family including Galton, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Hitler etc also hated and feared the idea of race mixing and thus much of their anti slavery talk preferred eugenics and or genocide over slavery

Date: 2011/11/03 19:24:17, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,18:32)
Color me curious... how would "digging out" Fedonkin's book help you with the fact that you claimed Charles Darwin wrote something that he did not write?

Its a extremely cited book and contains the original source of course

Date: 2011/11/03 19:28:51, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,16:31)
only 1080 atoms.

That was a typo. There are various access keys here but they no longer work for me

Date: 2011/11/03 19:42:01, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,16:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,16:13)
Wow! I always heard that the Buddhist big wigs considered Jesus a great prophet but I didnt know that their scriptures cited him and Abraham as arrogant

You heard wrong.  Buddhism doesn't do prophets, we leave that to the Abrahamic religions.  Jesus is normally considered to be a Bodhisattva.  Abraham we don't think about much, since we ignore most of what he said.  All the best bits were repeated by Jesus anyway, and being prepared to make a human sacrifice of your own child to appease a bloodthirsty god is definitely un-Buddhist behaviour.  It is YHWH we see as arrogant, claiming to be what he isn't.

 
Quote
{list of Buddhists doing unwise actions}

Yes, some Buddhists fall short of the standards they should be following.  So?  People of all religions, and of none, do sometimes fall short of moral standards.  Timothy McVeigh was American, does that mean all Americans are morally wrong and that no moral person can be an American?  No, I don't think so either.

rossum

“By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going” (Hebrews 11:8.
Abraham's communication with God was all about the comfort from faith in the coming Messiah who would be willing to pay the ultimate price for us. Abraham faced with the killing his own son helped him to understand and remember this coming sacrifice of the Messiah.

Chakrasamsara/Vajrayogin? 'the Wrathful Lady' Just like the Hindu kali ChakraSamvara/Vajrayogin? with a vajra in her right hand and a kapala (skull cup) in her left hand which is filled with blood that she partakes of with her upturned mouth. Her head is adorned with a crown of five human skulls and she wears a necklace of fifty human skulls. She is depicted as standing in the center of a blazing fire of exalted wisdom. the curved drigug knife in her right hand shows her power to cut the continuum of the delusions and obstacles of her followers and of all living beings. Drinking the nectar of blood from the kapala in her left hand symbolizes her experience of the clear light of bliss.[15] the severed-headed form of Vajrayogin? is similar to the Indian goddess Chinnamasta who is recognized by both Hindus and Buddhists.[17]

Date: 2011/11/03 19:53:25, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,19:31)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,18:12)
Oh yes Buddhist do have so called Messianic prophesies  http://www.maitreya.org/english....ism.htm

You are just showing your ignorance of Buddhism.  The Maitreya is a Buddha, not a Messiah.  A Messiah is a concept from Judaism, not Buddhism.  Please don't get you religions mixed up.  It merely shows up even further your basic lack of knowledge about the stuff you are copying from the Internet.

 
Quote
Adi Da was suggested by his devotees to be Maitreya

And his devotees were wrong.  The Maitreya Buddha has not come yet.

 
Quote
The Buddha gave him this prophecy:

The Buddha is a Buddha, not a prophet.  Again, you are misunderstanding Buddhism.  If you apply concepts from Judaism directly to Buddhism, you will usually be making an error.

 
Quote
Timothy McVeigh was just one agnostic who confessed: "science is my religion".

Irrelevant.  I said that he was an American, which is correct.  I said nothing about his religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  My point obviously missed you completely.  My apologies for my mis-estimate of your level of comprehension.

 
Quote
Buddhism is violent in essence and influences many.

Go through the Bible and count up the number of people God kills, or orders to be killed.  Go through the Tripitaka and count up the number of people the Buddha kills, or orders to be killed.  Compare the two numbers, and get back to us on which of the two religions "is violent in essence".  We can agree that Buddhism influences many.

 
Quote
Oh and another reason tantric rituals are kept secret is because often involve casting spells

And you know this how?  If they are secret, then you don't know what happens in them.  If you know what happens in them, then they aren't secret.  Or perhaps you believe that everything you read on the Internet is true?  That would explain a few things.

rossum

Wow! You you cut off your own scriptures to save your face. Bottom line is that Buddhism references Messianic prophecy.

The phenotypic plasticity of epigentiic immunity (also referred to as the biological arms race) is another way of explaining the Hebrew war against the Canaanites.. This magnificently designed system sends out macrophages (myocytes, monocytes etc..) to encapsulate and destroy cells infected by antigens, viruses, bacteria etc..

Canaanites such as the Amalakites and the Mycenaean Greeks were given over to very depraved lifestyles such as fornication,necrophilia, bestiality, coprophillia, rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest,, pedophilia, and human sacrifices. Thus it is more than likely that all the beast and children were slaughtered to prevent the spread of not only deadly behavior, but STDs. Lev 18:03-26.The Hebrews and other peoples of the Exodus were the immune system of God's creation and emerged from that immune cell known as the Ark, which inhabited that cleansing Flood--that great apoptosis which removed the malignant killers of the trees and megafauna

Date: 2011/11/03 20:17:38, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,19:40)
He cuts and pastes real gud.

Interestingly, he didn't take out the footnote numbers.

You do realize that copying someone else's work without attribution is immoral and potentially illegal depending on the age of the quote?

BTW: you copied it from here: http://www.harunyahya.com/disaste....s03.php

Now why can't you just make a simple link to things you cut and paste.

We're asking for your own words here so that we can be sure you understand the concepts.  sigh..

Just out of curiosity, did you read the quote you posted?

I found this interesting
Quote
In polyphenic development, hormones control a switch between alternative developmental pathways so that individuals with identical genotypes can develop dramatically different phenotypes.


Did you miss the word that I bolded?  Again, you are simply describing known functions.  Crocodile sex is determined by the temperature at which the eggs incubate.  So what?

That DOES NOT mean that if I keep a crocodile cooler, then it will switch to a female.  It doesn't mean that if I inject estrogen into a male human, that I will get a female human.

I think we may have a difference of opinion about what PHENOTYPE means.

That's why I keep asking you to define the words that you use.  It's not my fault that you don't understand these concepts.

BTW: Copying and pasting (as shown above) does not mean you understand a concept.  

Your specific claim is "The endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype."  This is not development, this is not metamorphasis.  This is a very specific claim.  Do you continue to maintain that this claim is correct?

If so, then please provide evidence where an organisms endocrine system caused a phenotypic change.  If not, then we can stop worrying about.

BTW: Still haven't answered your questions, even after I answered yours.  This seems to indicate an aversion to legitimate discussion and the back and forth of ideas.

Oh, BTW: I already provided you with a series of papers regarding the evolutionary history of the ursids.  If you read those articles I presented you will see one article on the biochemical changes among species, although I'm sure OM would enjoy schooling you on the subject.

Still waiting...

If I right in my own words you ask for outside evidence. If I copy and paste outside evidence you claim that its not what I think it is.  No wonder you constantly project goal pole shifting and cut off your own science to save your face.

Btw, I copied and pasted Darwin's racism stuff from a whole bunch of sites. Oh and while you are suing me for plagiarism, I'll counter with your slander but I win because copy rights dont apply when it comes to non-profit, educational teaching. Your welcome

Btw 2, every "good" scientist knows that development  a lifelong process of acquiring and learning and also includes parental effects of the previous generations. Anyway what is your point? The article is clearly about natal and post natal endocrine influenced polyphenisms.

Btw 3, practice what you preach and put in your own words your so called mutated Ursidae

Date: 2011/11/04 01:35:21, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
Forastero,
I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term?

We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters.

The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones.

Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc..

Date: 2011/11/04 01:47:50, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
By the way Darwin died long before the Vendian fossils were discovered. Not sure how he could have written about them.

I am not surprised that he would write it though because he wrote in his origins a great deal on the “sudden appearances” in the Cambrian and the so called “primordial” layer beneath the Cambrian. I am thinking the word Vendian was emphasized in brackets but I will soon find out precisely where this quote is originally coming from.  

The  rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century by a creationist,[6] Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology

"the sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations, the entire absence , as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature.” P 349 Origin 6th edition

and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7] Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 315–316

Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."


On the sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata. In The Origin
Darwin writes: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which many species in several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with nearly equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character. Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…”
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

Date: 2011/11/04 02:05:51, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2011,22:52)
-----------
Even if the activity of the endocrine system affects development at that point, so what?

If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any phenotypic traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself.

Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles, it's merely against one particular detail.

-----------
As for the estimated number of atoms in the known universe (representing the 118 known elements, or some subset thereof) - what's that got to do with anything? So what if the odds of getting one particular combination of enzymes is low? The presence of life (or of a particular species) doesn't depend on getting exactly that combination; it depends on getting a combination that works. And a lot of that working depends on the enzymes reacting with each other, doesn't it? So if the organism depends on enzyme A reacting with enzyme B, all it really depends on is having an A and a B that react with each other.

-----------
In evolutionary terms "fitness" refers to reproductive success. That doesn't make those with "fitness" more right than the others, it merely notes that they were more successful at producing descendants. Describing the results of this, and making predictions of which groups will be more successful in the future, at the expense of the less successful, does not imply approval or endorsement of that result. Expecting a result and approving of it are not the same thing.

-----------
Quote
(forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

In contrast to what? What would constitute an incomplete state?

-----------
Re "given enough time"
When the number of differences in the DNA of two species is X, and the average rate of persistent DNA change for each is R, then a first approximation of "enough time" since their common ancestor would be somewhere in the neighborhood of (1/2)X/R. (The (1/2) is because both of them have been evolving since that divergence. I almost forgot that detail.)

-----------

Henry

concerning biological mechanisms, the evidence that these mechanism need to be complete on arrival is tremendously better than his assertion that biological mechanisms sprang from random nothingness. But I will let Professor Behe deal with that one. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007...._t.html

Date: 2011/11/04 02:11:55, Link
Author: forastero
The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event.

Oops, in this quote from a few posts above, I meant to say  one era and not one event

Date: 2011/11/04 02:51:13, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24)
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.

2) So it's OK to steal someone else's words if it's from multiple sites?  Got it thanks.

Slander (to quote the Spaniard "I don't think it means what you think it means") a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.  I have not slandered you.  You are using someone else's words without attribution.

As I said (I guess you don't read gud either) that it is unethical or immoral (I forget which I used) and potentially illegal.  It's unethical because you are posting someone else's words as if they were your own.  You are not giving someone else credit for the work they have done.

You really think copyright doesn't apply in those cases sometimes?!?!?  Why are all creationists rules lawyers... oh yeah, the are used to finding justifications for ignoring the rules of their holy book.

3) The article is about metmorphosis.  Insects have a 'natal'  really?  

I'll remind you AGAIN.  You claimed "The endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype".  I want an example.  You are posting articles on metamorphosis.  Plus, the traits in this article all polyphenic.  You won't get an an argument that the expression of these traits can change by the environment. We see it all the time.  But that is NOT what you claimed.  You said that "endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype".  I want an example. And I want to know that you understand what you said and why what you said is wrong.  You keep pointing out things that have nothing to do with what your claim was.  If you abandon that claim, fine.  Then say so.  We still agree on all the other stuff.

Learning???!?!?!  So, are you claiming that the endocrine system can change what I've learned too?  If you aren't, then I can't imagine why you brought it up.  

Parental effects?  Like what?  MY mom came to visit this week, does this mean I'll suddenly have a widow's peak when I didn't before?  

3)  What mutated ursids?  I stated that you were confused about the concepts you were talking about.  This is true.  Your initial claim was to have a species mutate into a different ORDER.  I explained to you why this is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

If you didn't understand it, then I suggest you ask for clarification... just like I have been asking you for clarification for almost a month and not getting anything.  Unlike you, I will answer requests for clarification.

BTW: Those were all my own words.  You can put that into any search engine you like and (except for the cites) will not find that text anywhere else on the internet.  Your claims are therefore refuted.

Do you understand the difference between requiring an artidactyl to mutate into a carnivore and the evolutionary history of an order?

Do you want the entire mutational difference between that last common ancestor of polar bears and pandas and every mutation that led to the modern forms?  Well, I can't do it.  No one can.  No one will ever be able to.  It's an impossible request.

That doesn't change the simple fact that both pandas and polar bears are ursids, carnivores, vertebrates, and animals.  That doesn't change the fact that the DNA in pandas is more similar to polar bears than it is to cats, dogs or other carnivores.  That bear DNA is more similar to other carnivores than it is to artidactyls or cetaceans.  That bear DNA is more similar to other vertebrates than it is to fruit flies or beetles.

Can your notions do better?  Fine, use ID or creationism principles and determine the correct nested hierarchy of carnivores.  Explain what your results are and how you go them.  Then we'll apply the results to an unknown and see what we get.

Um again, I copied and pasted just a few times but you still seem to be basing your arguments on your own dramatization and obviously only reading the smug ad homenims, which reduces to narcissist cronyism .

So here is one more appropriate cut and paste

Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth. It is believed that narcissists have two layers of rage. The first layer of rage can be thought of as a constant anger (towards someone else), and the second layer being a self-aimed wrath. Primitive ego-defenses include, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. Also, devaluation and projective identification are seen as borderline defenses. Projection is attributing your own repressed thoughts to someone else. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists .

Date: 2011/11/04 03:01:56, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24)
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.

Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear

Date: 2011/11/04 10:44:21, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:01)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,03:01)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24)
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.

Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear

If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then I guess there's not much point.  (Much like the earlier question. I've already answered you.  If you don't like the answer or don't understand it, that is not my problem.)

BTW: You do know that Behe accepts common descent right?

What pages did you discuss any mutation or natural selection mechanism? Where did you discuss in your own words any bear and cat evolution? It seems to me that you only offered a few links. You incorrectly touched upon domestic selextion, epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity,  the Big Bang, and so called uniformitarianism.  You also admitted to only just now "learning" about about epigenetic plasticity but any real or sane biologist would know that epigenetic plasticity is common knowledge

I have provided this thread both a good example and a good definition of the Endocrine system's selection of polyphenisms but you simply kicked against the goad

Date: 2011/11/04 11:17:13, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:10)
Here's another question for your list of ones you won't answer.

Why do you require impossible evidence for science (i.e. evidence that no actual science requires and all scientists acknowledge that doesn't exist) and not require the same level of evidence for your own position.

You haven't even told us your position, though it sounds vaguely YEC.  Would you be willing to argue with someone who is a ID supporter but says that the designer is not God and the Bible has nothing to do with design?

Would you be willing to subject your notions to the level of scrutiny that you are giving to science?

If 'no' to any of the above, why?

So you admit no scientist can't even explain the notorious   prokaryote to eukaryote and ape to man dichotomies?

I debate theistic evolutionists, Buddhist, alien seed mongers, creationists, and IDers and learn from them too.  Some are much more right than others and it often comes down to the individual. Things like DNA and soft tissue in fossils, thermodynamics etc indicate a young earth to me. I believe the Bible. I believe life was created but adapts slightly by epigentics and not random mutations.

Date: 2011/11/04 11:22:31, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2011,11:09)
If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself.

Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles of evolution, it's merely against one particular detail.

Where is your evidence?

The fact that it works the same way in all Eukaryotes indicates that it first appeared in its complete state simultaneously in all those critters and hasnt mutated.

Date: 2011/11/04 11:27:07, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 04 2011,10:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35)
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
Forastero,
I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term?

We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters.

The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones.

Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc..

I'm sorry, did you answer the question?  I'll make it simpler for you: multiple choice.

Q. Do you believe the Cambrian is a period of time?

a) yes
b) no

I realize that you don't actually want to be pinned down on anything because you have no idea what you're talking about.  But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors (I know, you think it does.  You're wrong.).

So, how about it?  Yes?  Or no?

I clearly indicated that it was not a specific era but rather a eco zone

Date: 2011/11/04 11:39:57, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,11:18)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:44)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:01)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,03:01)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24)
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.

Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear

If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then I guess there's not much point.  (Much like the earlier question. I've already answered you.  If you don't like the answer or don't understand it, that is not my problem.)

BTW: You do know that Behe accepts common descent right?

What pages did you discuss any mutation or natural selection mechanism? Where did you discuss in your own words any bear and cat evolution? It seems to me that you only offered a few links. You incorrectly touched upon domestic selextion, epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity,  the Big Bang, and so called uniformitarianism.  You also admitted to only just now "learning" about about epigenetic plasticity but any real or sane biologist would know that epigenetic plasticity is common knowledge

I have provided this thread both a good example and a good definition of the Endocrine system's selection of polyphenisms but you simply kicked against the goad

Dude, listen closely.  You said

"The endocrine system selects phenotypes."

You didn't say anything about polyphentic systems, which I think we all agree with. You didn't say anything about hormonal control of metamorphasis... again which no one disagrees with.

There is a big difference between the endocrine system selecting any/all phenotypes, which is what you said and what your final claim that hormones can sometimes affect the development in polyphenic genes.  YOU didn't mention epigenetic plasticity until being hounded on it for several pages.

Do you understand now?  I am being difficult, because you aren't being precise.  You made a claim and still have not backed it up.

Either drop the claim and use one of the changed claims you used between then and now or provide evidence of (for example) some hormone changing someone's phenotype to give them a widow's peak.

THIS is why I wanted you to define your words.  We could have avoided all this idiot crap and cleared this up 5 pages ago if you had just defined "Phenotype" and noted that you include polyphenic genes in this definition.  

See how easy this is?  

Now, what's really very interesting, is that at no point have I disagreed with anything you have said.  Although I'm disagreeing now because I'd like you to quote my reference to The Big Bang and uniformitarianism.  Because I don't think you can do it in the context we have here.

Do you want the mechanisms for mutation... ok here you go:
hydrolysis
modification of bases
cross-link DNA
dimerization
frameshift caused by insertion of non-base chemicals
transposon and viral insertions
uncorrected replication error
UV radiation
chemical induced (bisulfite for example)
etc. etc.

Those are the mechanisms for mutation (well, some of them).

Do you want the actual mutations that resulted in the diversity of bears?  Well, again, there is a paper that discusses some of it.  But as I said here there is no way that we will ever know the exact mutational and genetic history of anything.  The past is past, we can compare and see how different things are and, from that, infer the distance (in time) of the last common ancestor.  We can compare morphology and determine relationships that way.

By demanding this level of detail, you have just shown that you are not interested in the science of what's going on here.

Tell us, forastero, what is your position?

BTW: You are still not discussing in good faith.  I have repeatedly answered your questions.  In two cases, I have answered your questions and you did not read them.  It is now your turn.

BTW2: Just out of curiosity... what was your entire point with the "endocrine system selects phenotypes" thing?  If you think that somehow discredits evolution, then I think you are sadly mistaken.

BTW3: Learning.  Yes, I do that.  It's cool to learn.  However, I will learn from sources that I consider trustworthy.  If you said the sky was blue, I'd go check.  And I'm not a biologist.  But that's OK.

You still owe me that list of questions and a quote from me in this thread where I used the Big Bang and uniformitarianism as discussion points.

First of all, I have been teaching you all along that polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a a single genome but you just kick against the goad. Secondly, you are confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms.

Development is a lifelong process and hormones are constantly involved

I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better

I have been very clear on my position

Date: 2011/11/04 11:44:28, Link
Author: forastero
Oh and again,development not only a life long process but generational process since we acquire so much that are parents experience

Date: 2011/11/04 11:53:00, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 04 2011,11:41)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:47)
 
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
By the way Darwin died long before the Vendian fossils were discovered. Not sure how he could have written about them.

I am not surprised that he would write it though because he wrote in his origins a great deal on the “sudden appearances” in the Cambrian and the so called “primordial” layer beneath the Cambrian. I am thinking the word Vendian was emphasized in brackets but I will soon find out precisely where this quote is originally coming from.  

Wesley has already told you where it comes from - twice!

Please see a doctor about what is causing your cognition difficulties.

I see that you left out the following from my quote--the part that makes argument mute

The  rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century by a creationist,[6] Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology

and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7] Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 315–316

"the sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations, the entire absence , as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature.” P 349 Origin 6th edition

Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."


On the sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata. In The Origin of a species
Darwin writes: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which many species in several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with nearly equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character. Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…”
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

Date: 2011/11/04 11:59:55, Link
Author: forastero
Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now.

But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face

Date: 2011/11/04 12:18:44, Link
Author: forastero
Ogre

polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a single genoTYPE to be more precise

Date: 2011/11/04 12:27:53, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2011,12:24)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,09:59)
Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now.

But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face

Jesus once said; "Forastero?  What a lying sack of shit.  He's going to hell for sure."

Wrong again.

Date: 2011/11/05 00:47:44, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,12:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:39)
First of all, I have been teaching you all along that polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a a single genome but you just kick against the goad. Secondly, you are confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms.

Development is a lifelong process and hormones are constantly involved

I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better

I have been very clear on my position

You have not been teaching all along about polyphenisms.  If you think you have, then you are a very poor teacher.  Let me explain:

Teaching is not just lecturing, it also involves checking for understanding.  Since, it seemed to you that I did not understand you (not to mention that I asked for clarification no less than five times), you should have explained better.  You did not.

You did not talk about epigentics until late into the conversation.  You did not talk about polyphenisms EVER until I brought it up.  

So, you are expecting me to read your mind maybe?

Fine I'm confusing polymorphism and polyphenism.  maybe if YOU HAD ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS a week ago, we could have avoided all this.

I see now that you are taking a slightly different view of phenotype than I do.  Again, if you had answered my question a week ago, then we wouldn't be at this point.

BTW: What was the entire point about this discussion again?

Quote
I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better


Do you really not understand how natural selection works?  Do you really not understand how mutation works?

I want to understand something here, so I'm asking a question.  You said  
Quote
name all the so called mythological mutation


Are you saying that the mutational effects I listed don't exist?

OK, here goes.  A random event occurs in a gamete in a female lion.  That gamete is fertilized, with several others and develops into a cub.  That cub is born in a litter with several other cubs.

The random event is that a particular base in the DNA of the cub has been replaced with a different base.  This was not caught by the zygotes repair mechanisms.  Unfortunately, this change will now be reflected in every single cell of the cub, including the sex cells.

Even more unfortunately, the protein that no longer functions correctly was directly responsible for the elongation of limbs in the cub.  The cub was born with very short limbs... almost non-existant.

Since the cub can barely move and certainly cannot fight it's littermates to get at milk, it starves to death in short order.

It was selected against.  In the wild world, having short limbs is deadly.  The cub could not fight, run, chase, or keep up with the pride.  That mutation appeared and then exited the gene pool of the population quite rapidly.  This is called evolution.

Interestingly, a similar mutation has appeared in domestic cats and has thrived, probably in no small reason that humans find the short legged cats 'cute'.  So, in a different environment, the mutation has been selected FOR and now there is a large community of Munchkin breeders.  BTW: the mutation appears to have occurred several times throughout history, lending credence to the suggestion that it is a simple mutation somewhere with a particular gene.  The first documented case was in 1964 and it was rediscovered and began being bred for in 1983.

Now, over time, this mutation and other like it could result in a huge diversity of domestic felines... much like the massive diversity seen in domestic dogs, much of the diversity of which can be traced through human history.

For example, rotties were first known in ancient Rome.  The Rhodesian Ridgeback can be traced to the 17th century in South Africa.  

I'm willing to submit that the species we know of as dogs (Canis familaris) are instead a cline of very closely related species.  This depends on how you define species of course, but a dachshund and a Great Dane cannot mate naturally and/or could not carry hybrid offspring to birth.  In this way, they are, in terms of mating, physically separated.

If all of the medium sized dogs were to disappear, there could be a very valid argument made for the separation of toy dogs and large working dogs into two different species.

You have not been clear on your position... as obviously I am still asking about it.

Are you, as seems to be implied, a Young Earth Creationist?

Well your last two posts simply reveal you reduced to
Hitleresque Big Lie propaganda(The bigger the lie and the more its repeated, the more its believed).

Actually I have mentioned the term polyphenisms a few times and several pages back. On the other hand, how can you not understand that the selection of ancestral phenotypes is the same as selecting polyphenisms and where did you ever mention them?

How were you hounding me about epigenetics when it was you who tried to ridicule me after my informing you how its controlled mostly by the endocrine system?

My view hasnt changed at all. The major polyphenisms are selected directly and non-directly by the interaction of hormones and neurons.

Again, the entire point of the discussion is that yo have everything backwards. That is mother nature doesnt select mutations that just happen to appear at just the right time and place. What happens is that stress hormones select phenotypes in accord to time and place.

I never said that mutations didnt exist. Just go back to the hairless dogs that we covered at the very beginning of our discussion. Like your short legged cats, its a mutation that is non-viable when homozygous. Likewise not all ridgebacks have ridges and there is a  connection to crippling dermiods and homozygoes ridges. I will inform you though that short legs isnt always a negative with cats. It could actually help them clime or scurry through burrows. Likewise not all DNA sequence changes are random. Some are Bauplan by design and a few are directional.

Like I told you before, you are just picking out mutations that dont really make the dog in its essence but rather usually detract from it in  one way or another. More importantly they arnt even leading to new species, let alone whole new classes. Btw, I have witnessed tiny dogs eagerly mounting much bigger dogs that were were lying down; and yes, a great dane can produce tiny puppies.

Date: 2011/11/05 00:59:55, Link
Author: forastero
Oh Ogre, I almost forgot. Your cat and dog examples are a poor representation of brown bear to polar bear and dichotomies because the white fur of polar bears is more than likely an epigenetic regulation of melanin and hollowing.

The Panda is a whole different beast and I dont believe that its chromosomes fused with a grizzly bear but its sesmoid thumb morphology is more than likely epigenetic as it is in so many other beast

And thanks. Its great that you step up to the plate

Date: 2011/11/05 01:15:32, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2011,13:34)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:22)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2011,11:09)
If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself.

Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles of evolution, it's merely against one particular detail.

Where is your evidence?

The fact that it works the same way in all Eukaryotes indicates that it first appeared in its complete state simultaneously in all those critters and hasnt mutated.

Evidence for WHAT?

I didn't make a claim there; I pointed out that your argument doesn't do what I presume you're wanting it to.

Your claiming a big If with no umph

Date: 2011/11/05 03:10:51, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,14:43)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:42)
blah blah blah...

so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?

Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion.  Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).

Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe.  Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.

Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began.  Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion.  Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.

Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts.  Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html

Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.

Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.

Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools.  One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.

Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'.  I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist?  really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.

Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame.
Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Española de Paleontología: 115–22.

Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician.  Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.

The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence.  The first is called the carbon anomaly.  It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers.  Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age.  Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils.
(Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)

The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event.  Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.

Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years.  I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.

Is that sufficiently precise?

I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.  

I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know.  I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons.

Oh yes, I did talk about the Big Bang... in terms of an explosion.  Had nothing to do with genetics, the endocrine system, or phenotypes.  BTW: Do you want to state it correctly or shall we just call that one a draw?  You learned something (hopefully) and I learned something.

How about forastero?  You still think something exploded (either a chemical, nuclear, or sub-nuclear high speed exothermic reaction) to cause the Big Bang?

Oh yeah, the rest of my quote describes the Cambrian.  Curiously, there several references to peer-reviewed work in there.  And I think, IIRC, that those are my words, explaining the definition of the Cambrian Era.  When I type "Cambrian" into google, I get lots of geologic era links, several fossil links, a school district in West Jose, a granite countertop company, but no biomes... I wonder why that is?

BTW: As I recall, you brought up uniformitarianism and made the claim that radiometric dating is invalid because of... what?  and your evidence is...?

Actually, you had had looked into some billions of years-old crystal ball chronologies  when I said:

Its pseudoempericism to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years. Plus, please tell me how this type of radiometric dating

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

I gave you many quotes from top scientists who claimed "explosion" including from your own links. Plus the priest that developed the Big Bang theory said it was an explosion and Einstein concurred that the priest was right.

Again for the fifth time, try googling Cambrian and benthic

What geologic columns? You can find stratigraphic relatively  in recent terms but uplifting destroys, mixes and or contaminates very ancient stratigraphy. Even Cenozoic sites are a jumbled hodgepodge dated by preconceived ideas.  Even De Vince knew that. Just look at a geological map. Its a mosaic spread out horizontally in all kinds of crazy looking mosaics based on index fossils, which were supposedly originally dated by depth. This is circular reasoning. Plus, we are finding living index fossils all the time

Date: 2011/11/05 03:18:38, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 04 2011,12:09)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:53)
The  rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century by a creationist,[6] Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology

Please define "sudden". Please define "rapid".

A day?
A year?

What?

faster than a modified monkey on roidz and caffeine can type his ABCs

Date: 2011/11/05 03:50:09, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 04 2011,17:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,02:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:10)
Here's another question for your list of ones you won't answer.

Why do you require impossible evidence for science (i.e. evidence that no actual science requires and all scientists acknowledge that doesn't exist) and not require the same level of evidence for your own position.

You haven't even told us your position, though it sounds vaguely YEC.  Would you be willing to argue with someone who is a ID supporter but says that the designer is not God and the Bible has nothing to do with design?

Would you be willing to subject your notions to the level of scrutiny that you are giving to science?

If 'no' to any of the above, why?

So you admit no scientist can't even explain the notorious   prokaryote to eukaryote and ape to man dichotomies?

I debate theistic evolutionists, Buddhist, alien seed mongers, creationists, and IDers and learn from them too.  Some are much more right than others and it often comes down to the individual. Things like DNA and soft tissue in fossils, thermodynamics etc indicate a young earth to me. I believe the Bible. I believe life was created but adapts slightly by epigentics and not random mutations.

Well the Bible has over 100 references to a flat earth. Also it is pretty clear that the sky is solid and heaven sits above. Why can this be ignored but everything else must be taken literally? The truth is that YECs are cafeteria christians just like everybody else and that the anti science and the rest are just cultural badges to use against perceived enemies. People are seeing through this and are leaving christianity in droves.

You give the game away when you say debate. In a debate you ignore 90% of what the opposition says and hit on the 10%. For people who seek the truth will worry about the other 90%, Ask any of the ex-YECs on this board.

A young earth can't explain:

limestone caves nearby that are caused by a number of very slow processes.


Why the grand canyon meanders.

Fossils are laid out in the order that supports common descent, not in body size or how fast they can out run the flood.

Sediments are obviously laid down by many different processes.

No dinosaurs with modern mammals. Different habitats doesn't wash as Fossils of dinosaurs are found all over the world in many different habitats.

etc. etc.

If I was a YEC and after the truth, these kind of things would keep me up at night. If I was a cultural warrior full of bluster, I'd just ignore it and search for my next debating point.

Nope no flat earth stuff in the Bible

Those so called mammal like reptiles are modern mammals

Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity

Again, your geologic column  is faith based

Date: 2011/11/05 03:57:15, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,03:29)
A real live one

Quote

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......


Yet the fundamental forces remain the same. To account for a young universe the change in speed of light would have fried adam and all other life. Strange how on one hand all of the universal constants have been perfectly designed for life but then they can be warped to suit a young universe.

As for the rest, wow they are certainly making creationists stupider - Fruit and vegetables have less minerals? Not if you shop at the right places.

Star migration is slowing?? WTF

speed of light ? thats all? Anyway, the amount of light hitting the earth has definitely changed and does change a lot. Your Gould scriptures will tell you that

And Wrong

And yes

Date: 2011/11/05 03:58:43, Link
Author: forastero
Dear Michael and Ogre

Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism
by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
The eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State on May 18, 1980, is certain to be remembered as one of the most significant geologic events in the United States of the 20th century. The explosion, on May 18, was initiated by an earthquake and rockslide involving one-half cubic mile of rock. As the summit and north slope slid off the volcano that morning, pressure was released inside the volcano - where super hot liquid water immediately flashed to steam. The northward-directed steam explosion released energy equivalent to 20 million tons of TNT, which toppled 150 square miles of forest in six minutes. In Spirit lake, north of the volcano, an enormous water wave, initiated by one-eighth cubic mile of rockslide debris, stripped trees from slopes as high as 850 feet above the pre-eruption water level. The total energy output, on May 18, was equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT - approximately 20,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs.
http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthel....ns.html by Chris Ashcraft by Chris Ashcraft

the eruption at Mt. St. Helens on May 18, 1980 was an important geological event because we were able to witness and document large-scale catastrophic processes, which are otherwise extremely rare. For creation science, the event was most notable because of the rapid deposition and erosion that provided a sizable model of the type of activity likely to have taken place during the great Biblical flood of Noah. The work done at the volcano during its eruption by the creation scientist, Steven A. Austin, et. al. to document this event is a highly recommended study.
Stratified layers up to 400 feet thick formed as a result of landslides, pyroclastic flow, mudflows, etc., during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Fine laminae from only a millimeter thick to more than a meter high formed in just a few seconds each. A deposit more than 25 feet in thickness, and containing upwards of 100 thin layers accumulated in just one day on June 12, 1980. Naturalists have long claimed that stratified layer such as those found in the geological column have accumulated over vast periods of time, and these laminates represent long season variations or annual changes. However, the Mt. St. Helens deposits have demonstrated that catastrophic processes are able to create these geological formations in a short
Perhaps the most remarkable catastrophic events to have occurred at Mt. St. Helens was the rapid erosion that was accomplished by mudflows, landslides, and waves of water. On March 19, 1982 a small eruption melted the snow that had accumulated in the crater over the winter, and a resulting mud flow eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep. The deepest of the canyons pictured at right has affectionately been called the little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River, and is one-fortieth the size of its namesake. The small creek that now flows through the bottom would appear to have carved this canyon over a great length of time, but this unique event has demonstrated that rapid catastrophic processes were instead responsible for this canyon. The Grand Canyon in Arizona has also been claimed for some time to have been carved gradually by the Colorado River, but it is now becoming clear this American icon is as well the result of catastrophic erosion.
Loowit Falls Canyon (pictured at right)
“Spilling from the crater, Loowit Falls reshapes the north slope of the volcano. ‘You’d expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old,’ says Peter Frenzen, monument scientist, ‘but this was cut in less than a decade." National Geographic, May 2000, p. 121.
As a result of the volcanic eruptions, thick deposits of fine laminate accumulated that was later eroded into large canyons. Naturalists have long claimed that these features, which are common to earth's geology, were accomplished over great lengths of time. The rapid production of these formations at Mt. St. Helens provided evidence that catastrophic mechanisms, such as those ongoing during the Biblical flood, could instead be responsible.



Oh yeah and the Toutle River  meanders threw it

Date: 2011/11/05 04:20:34, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 04 2011,20:27)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35)

We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters.

Can you explain isochron dating and tell me why it is wrong?
 
Quote
The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones.

I would like more information on why you think every geological era had an ice age. Where can I find the evidence for the Mesozoic ice age?
 
Quote
Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc..

I would be interested in learning how different ecological zones came to be stacked vertically. When you say mammals and dinosaur fossils are found in the same vicinity do you mean the same strata? Because if they are not found in the same layer it doesn't support your postion at all.

Just google things like Cambrian ice age or Jurassic ice age etc

Again, They are not stacked on top of each other

You didnt read my position carefully, dinosaurs and mammals may have often lived in much different niches but when they are found in the same vicinity its their strata are automatically separated or referred to as contamination

Do a study on paleoecology

Date: 2011/11/05 04:22:22, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:15)
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.

No canyons snake the same because no giant giant forces snake the same

Date: 2011/11/05 04:29:03, Link
Author: forastero
Most importantly though is that fact that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues

Date: 2011/11/05 11:35:15, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven

The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.

Date: 2011/11/05 11:59:59, Link
Author: forastero
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur http://www.nature.com/nature....a0.html

Mososaur soft tissue http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html

Ichthiosaur soft tissue http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....1690467

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil http://www.nature.com/nature....a0.html

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs....0..871M

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html

Date: 2011/11/05 12:05:42, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,19:22)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:15)
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.

No canyons snake the same because no giant giant forces snake the same

Exactly - a canyon that is created over millions of years will meander like the grand canyon


with the mt St Helens comparisions:

The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation.

The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

Edit: wrote St Helens instead of Grand Canyon

More pseudoempiricism from you. Various anomalies at St Helens and abroad show that super chaotic cataclysm forces dont always snake the same way as you say. Some gouge out vertically some not so vertically

Date: 2011/11/05 12:15:02, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,08:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,00:47)
Well your last two posts simply reveal you reduced to
Hitleresque Big Lie propaganda(The bigger the lie and the more its repeated, the more its believed).

Actually I have mentioned the term polyphenisms a few times and several pages back. On the other hand, how can you not understand that the selection of ancestral phenotypes is the same as selecting polyphenisms and where did you ever mention them?

How were you hounding me about epigenetics when it was you who tried to ridicule me after my informing you how its controlled mostly by the endocrine system?

My view hasnt changed at all. The major polyphenisms are selected directly and non-directly by the interaction of hormones and neurons.

Again, the entire point of the discussion is that yo have everything backwards. That is mother nature doesnt select mutations that just happen to appear at just the right time and place. What happens is that stress hormones select phenotypes in accord to time and place.

I never said that mutations didnt exist. Just go back to the hairless dogs that we covered at the very beginning of our discussion. Like your short legged cats, its a mutation that is non-viable when homozygous. Likewise not all ridgebacks have ridges and there is a  connection to crippling dermiods and homozygoes ridges. I will inform you though that short legs isnt always a negative with cats. It could actually help them clime or scurry through burrows. Likewise not all DNA sequence changes are random. Some are Bauplan by design and a few are directional.

Like I told you before, you are just picking out mutations that dont really make the dog in its essence but rather usually detract from it in  one way or another. More importantly they arnt even leading to new species, let alone whole new classes. Btw, I have witnessed tiny dogs eagerly mounting much bigger dogs that were were lying down; and yes, a great dane can produce tiny puppies.

I'll admit, I learned something about various things here.

However, you are still making wild and so-far unsupported claims.

Quote

That is mother nature doesnt select mutations that just happen to appear at just the right time and place. What happens is that stress hormones select phenotypes in accord to time and place.


But if you are NOT talking about a polyphenic gene or a poly morphic gene, then you cannot say this.

Do you maintain that EVERY gene is controlled by the endocrine system?  I think that this is the MAIN point of contention all along.  You have never said that some genes are controlled by the endocrine system, you seem to be saying that ALL are.

And so what if they are, it still doesn't mean evolution is wrong.

If so, then I'll need the peer-reviewed documention to show this.

Quote

Like I told you before, you are just picking out mutations that dont really make the dog in its essence but rather usually detract from it in  one way or another.


Really, define 'detract'.  You seem to think that there is something that makes a perfect dog.  Which one is it, Dane's or Whippets?  Are all other dogs, less dogs because they have short-leg mutations that detract from dogginess?

Quote

More importantly they arnt even leading to new species, let alone whole new classes.


I've made my claim and I think it could be supported.  However, would you like a list of speciation events.

I've already explained why your need to create new classes is ridiculous and not expected of evolution.  It certainly isn't expected in one human lifetime.

But that's not important to you, just whatever you think helps your case.

So, basically, the entire discussion we've been arguing over was a complete waste of time as far as this discussion goes.

You are still making claims that have no basis in reality (that every phenotype is controlled by the endocrine system)*.

Oh and the last bit.  A female Great Dane can have very little puppies... but a female dachshund cannot have very large puppies.


_

* This sentence, which you used, is still so fraught with error that i think my confusion was understandable.  You may not see it that way, but your confirmation basis.  You are a very poor teacher.  If you had just answered the questions when I asked them, we could have avoided all this.

Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.

Date: 2011/11/05 12:25:15, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,08:54)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,00:59)
Oh Ogre, I almost forgot. Your cat and dog examples are a poor representation of brown bear to polar bear and dichotomies because the white fur of polar bears is more than likely an epigenetic regulation of melanin and hollowing.

The Panda is a whole different beast and I dont believe that its chromosomes fused with a grizzly bear but its sesmoid thumb morphology is more than likely epigenetic as it is in so many other beast

And thanks. Its great that you step up to the plate

Why?  My examples are what happens.  I'll need peer-reviewed evidence that polar bears and brown bears are actually the same species and that if you put a brown bear in the arctic it will become a polar bear.  I'll need evidence that an epigenetic change will last for 100,000 years (the time of the earliest recorded polar bear).

Please quote where I said a panda fused with a grizzly.  What I said, is that the panda maintains the entire range of traits that identify it as belonging to order carnivora.  In that way, a panda is more like a brown bear than a horse.

Please quote the evidence from a peer-reviewed study that the panda's thumb is epigenetic.

It's a damn shame that you won't step up to the plate.  You keep making claims with absolutely no supporting evidence.

I'll repeat... even if much of the changes are epigenetic and environmental (which is not the case), then it  still does not mean creationism is right and evolution is wrong.

Care to deal with the Flood geology? Or do you want to provide any evidence that I'm asking for?

Some brown bears and polar bears are more closley related to each other than are some polar to polar bears and brown bears are to brown bears.

Just google sesmoid and epigenetic and mechanical loading

The relationship of epigenetics to mechanobiology can be seen, for example, in the development of sesamoid bones, which Sarin and colleagues expressed as “mediated epigenetically by local mechanical forces.”2  Sarin VK, Erikson GM, Giori NJ, Bergman AG, Carter DR. Coincident development of sesamoid bones and clues to their evolution, The Anatomical Record, 1999; 257(5): 174-180.

There are all kinds of stimuli that could keep the melanin switch turned off

Date: 2011/11/05 12:28:42, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2011,12:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,09:59)
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Mososaur soft tissue http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html

Ichthiosaur soft tissue http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1690467

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs........0..871M

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html

Fossilisation, and in a couple of cases incompletely-mineralised bone, muppet.  Not soft tissue.  Did you actually follow the links?

If I was talking to most people, I would assume you would know the difference between fossil impressions and the actual tissue.  But I'm talikng to someone who thinks pterosaurs, mosasaurs and sharks are dinosaurs, so I'm not optimistic.

See, those stay in denial  dont deserve a good teacher

Date: 2011/11/05 12:41:33, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,09:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,03:10)
Actually, you had had looked into some billions of years-old crystal ball chronologies  when I said:

Its pseudoempericism to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years. Plus, please tell me how this type of radiometric dating

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

I gave you many quotes from top scientists who claimed "explosion" including from your own links. Plus the priest that developed the Big Bang theory said it was an explosion and Einstein concurred that the priest was right.

Again for the fifth time, try googling Cambrian and benthic

What geologic columns? You can find stratigraphic relatively  in recent terms but uplifting destroys, mixes and or contaminates very ancient stratigraphy. Even Cenozoic sites are a jumbled hodgepodge dated by preconceived ideas.  Even De Vince knew that. Just look at a geological map. Its a mosaic spread out horizontally in all kinds of crazy looking mosaics based on index fossils, which were supposedly originally dated by depth. This is circular reasoning. Plus, we are finding living index fossils all the time

Oh yeah here we go again.  Do you read what we write?

1) look up isochrons, explain in detail why all isochron dating methods are wrong and yet they still all converge on the same date.

2) The sun is 'dying' by known physical, chemical, and nuclear processes that are consistent with known processes.  In fact, it is also known that these processes are exactly the same as they were about 13 billion years ago... because we can see these processes in action 13 billion years ago.

3) Earth's rotation and Lunar rotations are caused by the exact same thing, a transfer of energy from the Earth to the Moon, causing the Earth to slow and the Moon to speed up, moving away from us.  This is simple, very simple, physics.  It is a known, explained process that does not mean fundamental laws are changing.

4) currents change all the time.  Major currents also change, just more slowly.  This is a known and explained process that does not indicate fundamental laws are changing.

5) Earth's internal heat is based on radiation.  When the process or radioactive decay occurs (a known process that does not indicate fundamental laws are changing) that means there is less material to warm the interior of the Earth.  

I could go on, but there is no point.

You, forastero, are confusing the fundamental laws of nature, with the natural process of entropy as energy flows are used to create work and some of that energy is lost to non-productive heat.  

There is nothing in this list that implies or indicates in any way that a fundamental law, force, or character is changing.

I have previously asked you for evidence for the latter three of these claims and you did not provide any.

Quotes!?!?!? Who cares?  An explosion is a simple explanation for people who can't understand expansion.  I'll ask you again... what exploded?  Since even sub-atomic particles and matter/anti-matter didn't exist until AFTER the big bang... what exploded?

The Cambrian was an era.  The benthic fossils that you are concerned with were FOUND in a variety of rocks that are Cambrian in age (i.e. 530 mya and 580 mya).  The reason, of course, that all the life was benthic is because a) There were no land dwelling species at the time and b) the formations that caused the majority of the fossillization were underwater landslides on continental shelves and canyons.

I don't understand why you can't understand this.

No, they are not.  The geologic column was developed and used for construction purposes well before Darwin was born.  In fact, the early (Christian) geologists could look at the fossils in a rock column and tell you what kind of rock it was and what kind of rock was above it and below it.

Interestingly, your claim here makes a mockery of entire fields of industry that are making billions of dollars per year (oil, diamonds, coal, etc).  So, since they are making money (lots of money) off what you claim to be inaccurate, I think that pretty much trumps your claims.

No, we do not find living index fossils all the time.  That's why they are index fossils because they lived for a very specific amount of time and then no more were ever found.  Like I said, oil geologists use index fossils daily.  It works.

If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.

Date: 2011/11/05 12:52:25, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,09:20)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,03:57)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,03:29)
A real live one

 
Quote

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......


Yet the fundamental forces remain the same. To account for a young universe the change in speed of light would have fried adam and all other life. Strange how on one hand all of the universal constants have been perfectly designed for life but then they can be warped to suit a young universe.

As for the rest, wow they are certainly making creationists stupider - Fruit and vegetables have less minerals? Not if you shop at the right places.

Star migration is slowing?? WTF

speed of light ? thats all? Anyway, the amount of light hitting the earth has definitely changed and does change a lot. Your Gould scriptures will tell you that

And Wrong

And yes

Citation please for the fruits and bones thing.  I asked well over a week ago.  None yet.

The amount of light hitting the Earth has changed... duh.

This is a well known phenomena that the sun goes through cycles of lowered and increased radiative output.  It is in no way evidence for or implying that any fundamental laws of the universe are changing.

I have given all kinds of examples on bone density diminishing over time in several critters and the only thing you could respond with was an island dwarf. Again, they call them island dwarfs because they're ancestors were more robust.

Vitamin loss in vegis http://www.lifeextensionvitamins.com/vewivii....co.html

Oh and physicians do understand the growth and degradation that sin can have on a body over time as do good stewards of the earth

Date: 2011/11/05 12:56:22, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2011,12:47)
Forastero the strange, would you clarify something for me? I cannot fathom your position, but I am trying.

I gather that you endorse the reality of various geological eras, including the Triassic (250 mya - mya), the Jurassic (199 mya to 145 mya), and Cretaceous (145 mya - 65 mya).

You do that when you say, "speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions."

In that passage you assert that there occurred "explosions of life" during each of these eras, explosions that stand as evidence for ID. Because it would be unintelligible to simultaneously make assertions regarding events of those eras and deny that those same eras existed/occurred at all, I conclude that you endorse the chronologies to which those eras refer, including the eras spanning the period 250 mya through 65 mya.

Moreover, because you describe the occurrence of biological "explosions" during these eras, including the eras spanning 250 mya through 65 mya, it follows that endorse the notion that life was present during those ancient eras, sometimes "exploding" into radiations of additional diversity and complexity.

---

Now you argue that it is "ridiculous" to say that dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years, yet observe that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues. In so saying, you perforce are denying that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

So, put these two assertions together for me:

"there existed geological eras spanning 250 mya through 65 mya during which life was thriving and diverse, sometimes evidenced by 'explosions' of diversity."

And

"dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago, but rather much more recently, recently enough to permit the preservation of soft tissue."

Is it your belief that these geological eras occurred, complete with exploding diversity, but that dinosaurs did not live during those eras? Is it therefore your belief that the evidence (the geological column, radiometric dating, etc.) in fact correctly establishes the existence of those eras, yet the evidence that associates dinosaurs with those eras - grounded in the same geology and physics - is completely mistaken?  

In which case, then, it follows you are asserting that other forms of life did the exploding during, for example, the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous explosions. What forms were those?

Or, perhaps is it your belief that the eras themselves did not exist at all, and that the entirety of geological and physical evidence through which these eras have been inferred and dated actually arose through other, very recent processes - sufficiently recent to permit the persistence of "all kinds" of dinosaur tissue.

In which case your assertion that "explosions" occurred during those eras that stand as evidence for ID becomes completely unintelligible, as you cannot simultaneously deny the eras and make assertions about them.

It also follows that when you use terms like "Triassic" and "Cretaceous" you are in fact using private terms that bear no relationship to those terms as employed by sciences of geology and paleontology. You therefore deny yourself access to research referencing these eras using these terms in their ordinary scientific senses. Given that, what evidence do you have for the occurrence of "explosions" of life during the eras of your own invention?

Or, perhaps you aren't denying that dinosaurs did live 250 - 65 mya, but rather are saying that the tissues to which you refer didn't originate with dinosaurs. Also completely unintelligible, given your assertion that "all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues."

Or...?

I have clearly said in Occam terms that those eras represent only a antediluvian and post flood  eras with many eco zones

Date: 2011/11/05 14:08:54, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:05)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.

Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.

Ha ha..do you also believe the Nazis deserved to learn your creed?

evolutionism has always been the most intolerant to every one who wasn't of their "favored race" and creed. Heck, this very website has has expelled me from all other forums and banished me to this one thread like the plague.

Btw 2 I am sure those old cat and dog societies can be down right uppity but they are known to allow mutations so what is it about the short legged cat?

Date: 2011/11/05 14:41:06, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2011,12:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,09:59)
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Mososaur soft tissue http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html

Ichthiosaur soft tissue http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1690467

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs........0..871M

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html

Fossilisation, and in a couple of cases incompletely-mineralised bone, muppet.  Not soft tissue.  Did you actually follow the links?

If I was talking to most people, I would assume you would know the difference between fossil impressions and the actual tissue.  But I'm talikng to someone who thinks pterosaurs, mosasaurs and sharks are dinosaurs, so I'm not optimistic.

Thanks, John, that was my next project... to look those up, but (as I predicted mind you), he went with impressions that soft tissue left in soft, fine grained sediment.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....4XLc-t4

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs

Two different immunological assays were used to identify the remains of a bone matrix protein, osteocalcin (OC), in the bones of dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates. Antibodies raised against OC from modern vertebrates showed strong immunological cross-reactivity with modern and relatively young fossil samples and significant reactions with some of the dinosaur bone extracts. The presence of OC was confirmed by the detection of a peptide-bound, uniquely vertebrate amino acid, {gamma}carboxyglutamic acid (Gla). Preservation of OC in fossil bones appears to be strongly dependent on the burial history and not simply on age. These results extend the range of protein preservation in the geologic record and provide a first step toward a molecular phylogeny of the dinosaurs.

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted July 29, 2000
These scientists analyzed samples from two vertebrae and a rib fragment of a Triceratops from North Dakota, USA, isolating 130 base pairs of its 12S rRNA gene (ribosomal RNA, a type of RNA found in the ribosomes of cells, where protein synthesis occurs). 100% of the base pairs matched those of the turkey (and 94.5% were similar to many of the other bird RNA samples tested). If true, this find certainly strengthens the argument that birds and dinosaurs are closely related.

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue


The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", with complete dentitions, dermal scales, vertebral columns, stomach contents, and  cartilage. This shark probably reached lengths of 6 meters or more in the Western Interior Seaway during the late Cretaceous. http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html

“I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Furthermore, she added, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”
“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed(or seen perhaps?) before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!’” Mary Schweitzer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....7316912 A video with her own words

...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006....aur-dna

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

Date: 2011/11/05 14:47:30, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.

1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...

Just look at your quote on the radical gradients of solar forces

I'm the one that brought up uplift. Its why your geologic column myth is a joke

And I'm still waiting on how you calibrate your dating technique

Date: 2011/11/05 22:56:36, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,15:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,14:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.

1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...

Just look at your quote on the radical gradients of solar forces

I'm the one that brought up uplift. Its why your geologic column myth is a joke

And I'm still waiting on how you calibrate your dating technique

gradient of solar forces... which solar forces?  Gravity, temperature pressure, solar winds, what?  All neatly explained by the laws of physics that you say are changing.  They aren't and there is no evidence or even hint that they do.

Yes, uplift.  What do you think uplift is?  On what scale do you think uplift occurs?  What is uplifted?   From where?  

I and two others have already told you how radioactive dating techniques are calibrated... I S O C H R O N S

here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html

Are you asking how we know what the half life of materials is?  Because that's pretty easy too.  You watch one, measure the mass of the parent material before, measure the mass of the daughter material after.  Once you know how long it for x amount of material to decay, then it is a trivial math exercise to determine half life.

Or are you against math too?

Please keep in mind that you are obviously ignorant of this knowledge and you choose to remain so, since the source material for this linked to article is 1969 to 1996.

You could have found out the answer to your question in about 5 minutes had you typed 'calibration radioactive dating isochron' into Google.  You choose not to do that.  Your ignorance reflects poorly on your subject.  I was wrong, that happens, you choose to remain ignorant about a subject that you are arguing about.

Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings

Date: 2011/11/05 23:32:43, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2011,17:19)
Forastero -

I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on when the flood occurred, which eras preceded the flood, and which followed.

We should really call them 'foresteras,' given that you have severed yourself from any connection to the standard chronology as parsed relative to the worldwide geological column and the passage of deep time it records. But since you make specific claims using standard nomenclature vis explosions for many geological periods, describe your eras in those terms.

When was the flood? Which eras preceded the flood, and which followed?

The Antediluvian world was described somewhat in the Bible. The Nephilim were destroying the environment and the megafauna, and each other but the lord preserved much of his magnificent creation for us in the fossil record.  It was fairly tropical in my opinion.  The ice age was after the flood. The earth has been  warming and many inland seas have been drying up since the ice age and humans have a lot of influence.

The explosions of life and ice ages are from your scriptures but explained that I'm a lumper and not a splitter

Date: 2011/11/06 02:32:23, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,19:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity

Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?

Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.

Nope I never accused everyone in the world of lying

Actually I gave quite a few examples of soft tissue

Your analogy is equivalent to saying that since cloud-to-ground lightening strikes dont "snake" exactly the same way, then its in no way equivalent

Date: 2011/11/06 02:45:10, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,22:56)
Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings

Not that there'd be anything wrong with isochrons validating isochrons--the physics is well-established--but that ignorant claim is just not true:

Cyclostratigraphy confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years

And there's really no question that the sun can't be enormously older or younger than around four and a half billion years.

As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson

I'll pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy

A popular argument for old earth is the  Milankovitch cycle theory.  The theory has necessitated the belief in multiple ice ages and of late has been incorporated toward everything from climate change to Isochon dating.

Famous astronomer Fred Hoyle once said:  “If I were to assert that a glacial condition could be induced in a room liberally supplied during winter with charged night-storage heaters simply by taking an ice cube into the room, the proposition would be no more unlikely than the Milankovitch theory.”

First of all, the changes in summer sunshine postulated by the theory are too small to generate an ice age. Several other problems also render these cycles unlikely.
Ice-core samples reveal multiple, rapid oscillation (usually 100 year cycles) throughout the last Milankovitch period (100,000 years) those so called 100,000 year Milankavich cycles that they claim they see in the cores could just as easily represent 100 year oscillation cycles.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi....bstract
http://www.nature.com/nature....a0.html

In order to revamp support for the theory, evolutionists garnered supporting evidence from deep-sea and ice cores.  Sediment cores older 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods. Isochon dating is in turn calibrated by these core sediments. Obviously this can be very circular in reasoning

Oh and contamination is also still a problem

Date: 2011/11/06 02:57:50, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson

It wasnt just rain. The volcanic mid Atlantic ridge opened as did the fountains of the deep. Giant ice meteors  also hit the earth

Date: 2011/11/06 17:45:22, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:12)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:52)
I have given all kinds of examples on bone density diminishing over time in several critters and the only thing you could respond with was an island dwarf. Again, they call them island dwarfs because they're ancestors were more robust.

Vitamin loss in vegis http://www.lifeextensionvitamins.com/vewivii....co.html

Oh and physicians do understand the growth and degradation that sin can have on a body over time as do good stewards of the earth

Ummm.... you do realize that bone density =/= robustness.

Bone density is a measure of the mass of the bone in a unit volume.  For example, ostriches have a lower bone density that cats, even though the ostriches are larger and even have thicker, more robust bones.  Why?  Because bird bones are much less dense.

sigh...

I'm fairly certain that life extension vitamins.com is not exactly peer-reviewed.  If they link to a peer-reviewed article, then I suggest you just link to that.

Define 'sin'.

Calculate the effects of sin on the various body parts, I would suggest a graph with the 'sinfullness' correlated with the degradation in body parts over the last 100,000 years... oh wait, that's older than the Earth by a factor of about 15...

This is getting crazier and crazier.

Peer reviewed? Who peer reviewed your " All U.S. kids suck at everything" quote; the anticreationists at Planned parenthood? Fyi, that study on mineral loss was done University of Texas and peer reviewed by The Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

Speaking of  fruits and vegetables, your cat and ostrich analysis is like comparing apples and oranges. The animals are designed for different activities but if you look at larger cat and ostrich ancestors their bones will not only be denser than modern representatives due to higher rates of nutrition and probably activity too but also stronger simply due to mass

Of coarse you deny the power of emotions, morality and consciousness. Special interest evolutionists feel a very deep desire feel all is relative

Date: 2011/11/06 17:52:10, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
Here is your e
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.

1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...

Here is your exact quote Ogre:"The amount of light hitting the Earth has changed... duh.
This is a well known phenomena that the sun goes through cycles of lowered and increased radiative output.  It is in no way evidence for or implying that any fundamental laws of the universe are changing."



Yes, I am the one who first brought up uplifting. All kinds of stuff gets uplifted and in often miraculously designed and derivatively designed ways

Um dude, thats about what I said about oil dudes too

Date: 2011/11/06 17:57:22, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,15:12)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,14:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:05)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.

Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.

Ha ha..do you also believe the Nazis deserved to learn your creed?

evolutionism has always been the most intolerant to every one who wasn't of their "favored race" and creed. Heck, this very website has has expelled me from all other forums and banished me to this one thread like the plague.

Btw 2 I am sure those old cat and dog societies can be down right uppity but they are known to allow mutations so what is it about the short legged cat?

Naxis deserve to learn everything I have to teach them too.  However, much like you, they often choose not to learn.

I have no creed.

Really.  Here's the definition of evolution (even IDists agree on this)

Change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Please show me were 'favored race', 'creed', 'intolerance', etc is in this definition.. because I must have missed it.

BTW: Just so you know, just because a few people 150 years ago held a certain idea, that does not mean it is central dogma on which the entire science of Biology is based.  The central idea of Biology is based on reproducible evidence.

You were expelled to this forum so that you would stay on topic (it was obvious that you choose not to stay on topics on the other threads).  You have been allowed to remain here, in fact, I don't recall anyone actually being banned from here... unlike ALL of the forums that support YOUR ideas.  Heck, there's a whole thread dedicated to the permanent bannings of users in those other forums... most of which is just for asking questions (much like those you refuse to answer).

Please do not attempt to take a concern troll attitude.  You have to actually be persecuted to be do that.

BTW: I'm sure that if you learned about the subject, you might find the answer (hint: 1983).

I’m, glad we agree that epigenetics is not evolution but whats so special about 1983 topicality?

Oh yeah, wasn’t that the year that atheistic concern trolls could finally cuss out Christians with keyboards and constitute trumped up tardicus topicality in order to suit me for some copy& paste lingo; like hipocriticos trying to save face while playing their mutationist bingo?

Well so sorry to spoil your willful illusions of supremacist grandeur preached to you by the two slave trade schools of anthropology and The Scopes Eugenics trial whom have been making man-made apemen since the Beagle took off to exploit foreign lands.

…and now with your Phylogenies showing chimps as more human than apes and African humans as closets to the apes, and ape-men with black skin and afros. Ha ha..its all politics. In fact the ape genome projects are all backed by liberal politicians with American tax dollars through sinister institutions with a long history of racists and homosexual and transhumanist’s agendas. A transhumanist agenda catapulted by the likes of Darwin and his cousin Galton, Margaret Sanger, The Rockefellers, and ecofeminists like Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh and her Time Warner sponsored Great Ape Trust.

Oh and the above is just one more reason that you bitterly feel that U.S. kids suck at everything

Date: 2011/11/06 18:13:35, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2011,07:45)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,02:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,19:07)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity

Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?

Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.

Nope I never accused everyone in the world of lying

Actually I gave quite a few examples of soft tissue

Your analogy is equivalent to saying that since cloud-to-ground lightening strikes dont "snake" exactly the same way, then its in no way equivalent

You are lying here too.

You did NOT give examples of soft tissue.  You gave examples of the IMPRESSION of soft tissue that was made in soft, fine grained sediment.

You have not shown that you even understand the difference between tissue and rock.

You never did tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang.

On the 'snaking canyons' thing.  All of lightening is explained by the physics involved.  Likewise canyon formation is explained by the chemistry and physics involved.

There is a fundamental difference between carving a straight channel in soft sediment and a multi-curved path carved through very hard rock.

What's the difference?

Remember how narcissists dismissing everything without reading?  If you would have read the articles you would have seen quotes like

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
Two different immunological assays were used to identify the remains of a bone matrix protein, osteocalcin (OC), in the bones of dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates. Antibodies raised against OC from modern vertebrates showed strong immunological cross-reactivity with modern and relatively young fossil samples and significant reactions with some of the dinosaur bone extracts. The presence of OC was confirmed by the detection of a peptide-bound, uniquely vertebrate amino acid, {gamma}carboxyglutamic acid (Gla). Preservation of OC in fossil bones appears to be strongly dependent on the burial history and not simply on age. These results extend the range of protein preservation in the geologic record and provide a first step toward a molecular phylogeny of the dinosaurs.

Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....4....4XLc-t4

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted July 29, 2000
These scientists analyzed samples from two vertebrae and a rib fragment of a Triceratops from North Dakota, USA, isolating 130 base pairs of its 12S rRNA gene (ribosomal RNA, a type of RNA found in the ribosomes of cells, where protein synthesis occurs). 100% of the base pairs matched those of the turkey (and 94.5% were similar to many of the other bird RNA samples tested). If true, this find certainly strengthens the argument that birds and dinosaurs are closely related.

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html

“I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Furthermore, she added, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”
“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed(or seen perhaps?) before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!’” Mary Schweitzer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....7....7316912 A video with her own words

...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006.......aur-dna

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

Oh and btw not even mineralized impression fossils couldnt last in such a fine state over so called millions of years of uplift

again you scoffing without reading

“Spilling from the crater, Loowit Falls reshapes the north slope of the volcano. ‘You’d expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old,’ says Peter Frenzen, monument scientist, ‘but this was cut in less than a decade." National Geographic, May 2000, p. 121.

Date: 2011/11/06 18:17:37, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (khan @ Nov. 06 2011,18:04)
forastero would be closer to being understood if it used sentences

Or if the creationists caste were allowed the upper class privilege of  editing

Date: 2011/11/06 22:00:36, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2011,20:27)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:45)
Peer reviewed? Who peer reviewed your " All U.S. kids suck at everything" quote; the anticreationists at Planned parenthood? Fyi, that study on mineral loss was done University of Texas and peer reviewed by The Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

Speaking of  fruits and vegetables, your cat and ostrich analysis is like comparing apples and oranges. The animals are designed for different activities but if you look at larger cat and ostrich ancestors their bones will not only be denser than modern representatives due to higher rates of nutrition and probably activity too but also stronger simply due to mass

Of coarse you deny the power of emotions, morality and consciousness. Special interest evolutionists feel a very deep desire feel all is relative

Hmmm... It just crazier and crazier.  This is hilarious.

Did you actually read the article you linked to?  Please explain, in detail, how the following reasons for lower vegetable nutrition indicate a diminishing of fundamental laws of nature and/or sin.

Quote

When asked about the apparent drain, commercial plant breeders refuse to comment, but clues have emerged as to why today's vegetables are not what they should be. It has to do with the way commercial growers do business.


Quote

Desirable traits for commercial growers who want produce to ship well, look good, and weigh a lot, but undesirable traits for consumers who buy produce as a source of nutrition. Plant jockeys call it "the dilution effect." More water and pith, less vitamin content.


Quote

Most commercial fruit, including tomatoes, is picked green. Green fruit doesn't have a chance to sun-ripen; it's artificially ripened with ethylene, a natural plant hormone. Ethylene is what causes tomatoes to turn pinkish. Produce deprived of sunlight doesn't have a chance to develop sunlight-related nutrients such as anthocyanins...


Quote


Other plant vitamins can also be affected by premature picking


Quote

Changing climates, commercial fertilizers, and changes in soil composition have also been identified as reasons for the vitamin drain in commercial produce. Increasing carbon dioxide levels are known to significantly diminish important trace minerals, including zinc.


There's more, but I'll stop there.  I expect an answer to the question.

BTW: Further evidence that US kids suck at science.  Reading and critical thinking are important in science, you seem to lack them.

I'm NOT comparing cats and ostriches... I'm comparing the relative density of the bone.  Again, a topic you brought up, then don't understand.  If you didn't mean bone density then you shouldn't have said it.

Quote me where I deny emotions, morals, and consciousness.  Go ahead, I'll wait.

Human sin and greed are leading to exactly what I said

Quote

Changing climates, commercial fertilizers, and changes in soil composition have also been identified as reasons for the vitamin drain in commercial produce. Increasing carbon dioxide levels are known to significantly diminish important trace minerals, including zinc.


Oh and btw, sin actually has strong correlations to morality, emotions and conscience

Concerning bones, the original challenge was how animals and man were becoming less robust or with less bone density over time. First you tried  Homo floresiensis as as an attempt to prove of the opposite  compare two totally different critters, which just seems like more of same goalpost shifting that you constantly project on to me.

Date: 2011/11/06 22:22:33, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2011,20:37)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:52)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
Here is your e  
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.

1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...

Here is your exact quote Ogre:"The amount of light hitting the Earth has changed... duh.
This is a well known phenomena that the sun goes through cycles of lowered and increased radiative output.  It is in no way evidence for or implying that any fundamental laws of the universe are changing."



Yes, I am the one who first brought up uplifting. All kinds of stuff gets uplifted and in often miraculously designed and derivatively designed ways

Um dude, thats about what I said about oil dudes too

You didn't finish your work.  You were supposed to explain how that statement implied or supported that the fundamental laws of physics are changing... forgot about that did you?

BTW: Here's an interesting article... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......riation

There are 57 references.  I especially like this quote from the Wikipedia article

Quote
The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period).[29][30] The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[30]


References
Usoskin, I. G.; Solanki, S. K.; Kovaltsov, G. A. (2007). "Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints" (PDF). Astronomy & Astrophysics 471 (1): 301–309. Bibcode 2007A&A...471..301U. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077704. Retrieved 3 June 2011.

Solanki, Sami K.; Usoskin, Ilya G.; Kromer, Bernd; Schüssler, Manfred; Beer, Jürg (2004). "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" (PDF). Nature 431 (7012): 1084–7. Bibcode 2004Natur.431.1084S. doi:10.1038/nature02995. PMID 15510145. Retrieved 17 April 2007., "11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction". Global Change Master Directory. Retrieved 2005-03-11.

Whoops

"secret e-mails"... How did they do this in the 60s and 70s?

Oh never mind, just put on your tinfoil hat.

No, for, not ALL KINDS of stuff gets uplifted.  Only some stuff in very specific locations.

You are just randomly selecting a comment and then applying it to a totally different topic.  It's really funny how far you will go to avoid discussion, when you know you fracked up.  (BTW: What was exploding during the Big Bang?)

No, that's not what you said.  I said that oiil 'dudes' use geology because it works.  You claim that the geological science that they use on a daily basis is wrong.

Let's see, they are making billions of dollars per year, using my version of science... and no one makes a dime using yours.  Bye bye, thanks for playing.

Where did I ever say the laws were changing. You dont have to change laws to make change. For instance, the human body, the earth, the solar system etc..

oh yes, all kinds of things get uplifted. Heck, Ive seen sand, coral, shells, fossils, rocks, minerals, gems, metals etc etc uplifted atop mountains. Ice, lava, and water get uplifted too

In the 60 and 70s, phone calls were fairly common

No, actually, I said that you didnt understand their geology or their geology maps but that they would probably like your survival of the fittest creed

Date: 2011/11/06 22:28:53, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2011,20:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:57)
I’m, glad we agree that epigenetics is not evolution but whats so special about 1983 topicality?

Oh yeah, wasn’t that the year that atheistic concern trolls could finally cuss out Christians with keyboards and constitute trumped up tardicus topicality in order to suit me for some copy& paste lingo; like hipocriticos trying to save face while playing their mutationist bingo?

Well so sorry to spoil your willful illusions of supremacist grandeur preached to you by the two slave trade schools of anthropology and The Scopes Eugenics trial whom have been making man-made apemen since the Beagle took off to exploit foreign lands.

…and now with your Phylogenies showing chimps as more human than apes and African humans as closets to the apes, and ape-men with black skin and afros. Ha ha..its all politics. In fact the ape genome projects are all backed by liberal politicians with American tax dollars through sinister institutions with a long history of racists and homosexual and transhumanist’s agendas. A transhumanist agenda catapulted by the likes of Darwin and his cousin Galton, Margaret Sanger, The Rockefellers, and ecofeminists like Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh and her Time Warner sponsored Great Ape Trust.

Oh and the above is just one more reason that you bitterly feel that U.S. kids suck at everything

So, why was the idea of epigenetics even brought up again?  Oh yeah, because you somehow think it supports your idea of a designer.  

Can you keep a constant thought in your brain.  You made a specific claim.  I challenged you to research that claim and even gave you a hint (1983).  The fact that you don't even remember what my comment was about just indicates how little you care about knowledge.

I think I speak for everyone when I say WHAT! THE! FUCK!?????

You are absolutely right, if you are a product of the American education system... we are freaking screwed as a country.

You mean your scopes trial evolutionism education system our the Christian education systems?

Date: 2011/11/06 22:31:31, Link
Author: forastero
Oh yeah it was bright supernatural explosion

Date: 2011/11/07 09:39:55, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,07:58)
OK, he's lost it.

No content that even makes sense.

The ENTIRE point of YOUR discussion of changes in solar energy and vegetative loss of minerals and changes in bone density was that fundamental laws of physics were changing and that is why radiometric dating isn't valid.

At least I think that's what it was.  You've been really hard to follow.  You constantly conflate things that we have said with topics we're not discussing.  Your writing has gotten steadily worse over time.  

If you still want to talk, why don't you pick ONE topic, and we'll skip all the rest for later.

Why don't you remind us, what actually exploded to cause the Big bang?

You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have. And as I said before, it wasnt just to challenge radiometric dating but your insistence on uniformitarianism. Oh and that bones show devolution.

Again has your body had the same force throughout its lifetime? Have the forces working on the grand canyon always been of the same strength? No, of course not. For instance, your own priests admit that the tectonic  and water forces were much stronger during the "Grand Canyon event". Moreover, the earth's internal heat has decreased over time as has hydrologic cycles.

Actually it was you who has gone off on so many tangents with your  bureaucratic lists of requests and definitions.

People who think science has really explained the earth's origins have often made science their religion and usually one that is pseudoempirically more silly than even Pan's pantheism

Maybe you no like how teacher write but when grasshopper fight with spite, teacher treat him like fly

Date: 2011/11/07 09:56:33, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 07 2011,06:54)
I do some cobbling of my own.

Forastero:
 
Quote
The Antediluvian world was described somewhat in the Bible. The Nephilim were destroying the environment and the megafauna, and each other but the lord preserved much of his magnificent creation for us in the fossil record.  It was fairly tropical in my opinion.  The ice age was after the flood. The earth has been  warming and many inland seas have been drying up since the ice age and humans have a lot of influence.

The explosions of life and ice ages are from your scriptures but explained that I'm a lumper and not a splitter

So this...
     
Quote
there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

...is utter bullshit. These terms have no referents for you, given that you don't believe these eras to have existed. It follows that when you cite events in those eras as evidence of design (e.g. "explosions" that beg explanation)  you are uttering statements you believe to be false.
   
Quote
The [blah blah blah] was described somewhat in the Bible [blah blah blah]

So much for your initial sciencey lip service:
 
Quote
The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Also deliberately misleading, as you don't give a shit about science. As one might expect, it was cobbled together by combining Wikipedia and Go.com definitions, without attribution.

Wikipedia on the null hypothesis:
 
Quote
The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data.

About.com on theory in science:
 
Quote
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

So, more bullshit from forastero, who endeavored to project a sciencey aura by means of cut and paste.

First of all, I am correcting your cobbled creationism.

Secondly, what exactly is it about my definition that find misleading? It seems that you find offense with the "via observed data" part?

Thirdly, Wiki and About.com do quite a bit of internet cobbling so are you sure you know the better definition?

Date: 2011/11/07 10:05:31, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.

And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....

Aha....did you snip that section of the post in order to avoid the two pertinent questions that followed?

Date: 2011/11/07 10:26:50, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:14)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,07:58)
OK, he's lost it.

No content that even makes sense.

The ENTIRE point of YOUR discussion of changes in solar energy and vegetative loss of minerals and changes in bone density was that fundamental laws of physics were changing and that is why radiometric dating isn't valid.

At least I think that's what it was.  You've been really hard to follow.  You constantly conflate things that we have said with topics we're not discussing.  Your writing has gotten steadily worse over time.  

If you still want to talk, why don't you pick ONE topic, and we'll skip all the rest for later.

Why don't you remind us, what actually exploded to cause the Big bang?

You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have. And as I said before, it wasnt just to challenge radiometric dating but your insistence on uniformitarianism. Oh and that bones show devolution.

Again has your body had the same force throughout its lifetime? Have the forces working on the grand canyon always been of the same strength? No, of course not. For instance, your own priests admit that the tectonic  and water forces were much stronger during the "Grand Canyon event". Moreover, the earth's internal heat has decreased over time as has hydrologic cycles.

Actually it was you who has gone off on so many tangents with your  bureaucratic lists of requests and definitions.

People who think science has really explained the earth's origins have often made science their religion and usually one that is pseudoempirically more silly than even Pan's pantheism

Maybe you no like how teacher write but when grasshopper fight with spite, teacher treat him like fly

I have insisted on uniformantarianism only for those things with have been shown, over the observed history of the universe to NOT CHANGE.

For example, the decay rate of radioactive materials and the speed of light.  The energy released in H-H fusion.  None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so).

The things you mentioned (as I've said at least four times now) are all things that do change within the known laws of the universe and they do not imply or indicate that the known laws and constants of the universe are changing... which is what you must have in order to argue against the radiometric dating... which was your entire purpose.

All of the diversions and distractions are due to responses to your comments.

Sorry, dude, play concern troll all you want, but when you don't know the difference between a shark and a dinosaur, then it becomes necessary to ask for clarification.

I'm sorry if it offends you that we ask for clarification... not that you ever provide it anyway.

Tell us, forastero, what is your explanation for the origin of the Earth.

And remind me, what exactly, exploded to cause the Big Bang.

Yes, you are being very spiteful and as your teacher, we are annoyed by it.  You are being treated like a fly... actually a chew toy.  This is fun for most of us. I really hope you didn't think any of us were taking you seriously.

You see, you can argue, complain, whine, cry, argue, yell, conflate, obfuscate, confuse, etc. all you want.  It doesn't change the simple fact that science works.  They work for companies that are using the principles you claim are false to make money.  They work for physicians who use the principles you claim are false to save lives.  They work for millions (maybe even billions) of people every single day.

You can complain about it all you want.  But these principles simply work.  You will never be able to convince someone who has made billions of dollars and saved thousands of lives that the science they are using is wrong.  Because, it's not.

I'm sorry that you are confused.  I'm sorry that you will not learn what real science is.  And I'm sorry that you live in a fantasy world.  We can't help unless you want to be helped and it's pretty obvious you don't want to.

But, please continue to fling your poo.  Who knows something might stick... besides, I learn things from it... perhaps not what you think I should learn, but I still learn.

Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

Date: 2011/11/07 10:30:23, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 07 2011,10:15)
Am I supposed to believe that the fundamental constants and properties of the universe are changing just because you day so?

Without having dug into the matter, I presume that eV, Joule, Newton Volt, Ampere and all the rest are constant and do not change with time or distance.

Are you working on the two questions in context yet?

Date: 2011/11/07 10:39:39, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,10:22)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:05)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.

And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....

Aha....did you snip that section of the post in order to avoid the two pertinent questions that followed?

Oh, that's what they were? Questions? Because? they had? question marks after them?

Has my body had the same force during all of my lifetime? WTF? I may have changed my weight but I don't think that that "changes" the force of gravity, for example.

Being that gravity is a geometric property of space and time, your weight is relative to exactly when and where you happen to be sitting

Date: 2011/11/07 10:48:45, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (khan @ Nov. 07 2011,10:45)
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,11:17)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.

And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....

I pity the English 101 professor out there who somewhere had to wade through this glossolalia. I cannot make head or tails out of Pentheus here or his Caesar's word salad.

["Pan's pantheism," etc. What's next - Caligula's calligraphy?]

Once it threw Margaret Sanger into the thesaurus/idea/conspiracy blender, we know that it is a creationist/fetus fetishist/tin foil hat... type critter.

Are you saying that Sanger wasnt powerfully influenced by the Darwin family? Are you saying that she was racists eugenicists hell bent on creating a "new race"?

Date: 2011/11/07 10:50:36, Link
Author: forastero
I mean are you saying that Sanger was not a racists eugenicists hell bent on creating a "new race"?

Date: 2011/11/07 11:08:27, Link
Author: forastero
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.

Date: 2011/11/07 11:30:18, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you

Date: 2011/11/07 11:48:22, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 07 2011,11:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.

What an interesting dictionary you have in your head.  Einstein did not "expand" Newton's Law of Gravity.  He radically altered the way we think about gravity by introducing a completely novel concept.

You'd get along better if you used words the way everyone else does.  Just saying.

Are you saying that Newton's laws or interpretations are not valid and why not?

"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein

“To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground.” by Albert Einstein

Newton discovered all kinds of things much from scratch, including various laws. Einstein merely extended upon Newton's gravity.

Date: 2011/11/07 11:58:10, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,11:38)
I need to put in what forestero is responding to, it seems he felt it unimportant:

OgreMKV said
 
Quote
Has my body had the same force during all of my lifetime? WTF? I may have changed my weight but I don't think that that "changes" the force of gravity, for example.


forastero replied
 
Quote
Being that gravity is a geometric property of space and time, your weight is relative to exactly when and where you happen to be sitting


Moi said
 
Quote
Oh dear, this is not what is meant by a change in a fundamental force, which any self aware IDiot should know.


So forastero doubles down on the IDiocy...

 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.


Apparently you do not understand what constant means.

The solar constant is an integration of the electromagnetic spectrum (which produces a single number) that can be used in place of using the distribution of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, the mathematical meaning of constant in integration, not a constant of nature.

The universal law of gravitation has equations and constants, so a change in the "force" could be a change in the fundamental constant without a change in the mathematical expression, so all that is required is quoting you saying that fundamental forces have changed:

   
Quote
Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......


Which of course are not fundamental forces, but we already you knew were an IDiot before that.

QED

First off, you are confusing Kristine with Ogre

Second of all, I didnt define solar "constant" but rather compared the term with gravitational "constant" in order to reveal that the term didnt mean that there were were no changes in force.

Thus, more semantic straws

Date: 2011/11/07 12:59:03, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (ppb @ Nov. 07 2011,11:46)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,12:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you

He's talking about the universe as a whole.  With modern astronomical instruments we can see what was happening almost as far back as the Big Bang.  With my own two eyes I can go out at night and see stuff that happened millions of years ago.

First off, research "relativity" but while keeping in mind what Einstein chimed about finite minds with a geosolarcentric ax to grind.

Secondly and like sun worshipers of the past, your priests are notorious for insisting on interpretations about things and with things that the so called commoners/layman dont have access to. For instance, so called solar forces coming down to them from the havens to make mutant spaghetti monsters from the primordial fountains of soup whom they are in commune through  radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, new age ape animism, phylogenic rites, and through sacred lenses.

Transsexual pharaoh to seek the sun god visions that only he can receive.
http://wysinger.homestead.com/akh18_o....800.jpg

Priests passing visions of old, dark and oblique with the help of a demonic sphinx to control the sheople who sleep.
http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptra....ray.gif

Date: 2011/11/07 13:35:15, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,12:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you

Yes, that's right.  Over the observed history of the universe, none of the fundamental forces have altered.  The weak nuclear force is exactly the same as it was 13 billion years ago.  How do we know?  Because suns still exist.

The output of the suns change over time.  The size of suns change over time (BTW: Most get larger and increase energy output, not smaller with weaker output).  But none of that is relevant to the weak nuclear force... which is both responsible for H-H fusion in stars AND radioactive decay.

To say that radioactive decay can change, then you must also say that the weak nuclear force can change and the consequence is that suns, at some point in the past, couldn't have existed.  (Let's wait and see if he figures this out :)

Please note, that the change in the value of A force does not mean that the force itself changes.  I can type gently or put so much force on the keyboard that it shatters.  This does not in any way change the simple fact that F = ma.

Yes, my concern troll is incoherent because I was using a faulty definition.  However, you (as shown by Bill) are still a concern troll in the classic definition of the word.

You are also trolling for emotional content because your ideas are somehow being oppressed because of a global conspiracy amongst low paid scientists to destroy religion.

This is, of course, an idiotic statement.  Even if it was true, it would have failed miserably.

Anywhoodle... you've lost it.  Did you run out of medication over the last few days?

Actually not all suns still exist and decay rates can be altered and do change

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry

“It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a onstant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. That's why researchers had to stumble upon this discovery in the most unlikely of ways……That's when they [Purdue University] discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry.”

Your Wiki might help

Changing decay rates                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates

The radioactive decay modes of electron capture and internal conversion are known to be slightly sensitive to chemical and environmental effects which change the electronic structure of the atom, which in turn affects the presence of 1s and 2s electrons that participate in the decay process. Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[8][9][10] However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.

The strong nuclear force, not observed at the familiar macroscopic scale, is the most powerful force over subatomic distances. The electrostatic force is almost always significant, and, in the case of beta decay, the weak nuclear force is also involved.

Such a collapse (a decay event) requires a specific activation energy.. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can, thus, spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and results in the emission of either a photon or a high-velocity particle that has mass (such as an electron, alpha particle, or other type).  Random quantum vacuum fluctuations are theorized to promote relaxation to a lower energy state (the "decay") in a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling. The Quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space

Date: 2011/11/07 13:41:48, Link
Author: forastero
Oh and Ogre, I dont think that I said: "to destroy religion" "by low paid scientists" but then you yourself have actually convinced me that that too is often true. Its more about ecofeminist under primordial influences

Date: 2011/11/07 13:46:21, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (DaveH @ Nov. 07 2011,13:26)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,18:13)
...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006.......aur-dna

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

Oh and btw not even mineralized impression fossils couldnt last in such a fine state over so called millions of years of uplift

again you scoffing without reading

Simply off the top of my head, two of 4-Arse's examples are ludicrous:
"Now see if you can find some evidence that that's not what they are" is not "dismissing her work", it's the scientific method ffs! Take a look at Louis' sig-line quote from Feynman, read and inwardly digest.

Also, medullary bone in birds is just that...bone. An excess bone deposit in the medullary cavity of the long-bones of female birds which acts as a store for calcium that is therefore available as a reservoir during certain parts of the breeding cycle as a source for the extra mineral needed to lay down eggshell.


again you bloviating without reading, and certainly without beginning to understand what you are cutting and pasting.

Ha...Those were the scientists quotes that you cut up. Not my own

Date: 2011/11/07 18:42:35, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,14:58)
Cut and paste IDiot strikes again!

 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35)
 

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry

{quote deleted}

Your Wiki might help

{snipped to get to the part that contradicts the argument right above}

However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.



You have contradicted yourself.  I think it is because you are clueless.  You are not ready for such subtleties as the distinction of spontaneous vs stimulated radioactivity.

Whoa  why you mixing and matching to make a 2009 study appear as subsequent to the 2010 Stanford/Purdue study that my quote I first mentioned?
Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rates Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234

Not only that, but that 2009 article mentioned in wiki didnt all together dismiss the variation found in the other three wiki articles but rather the mechanism hypothesized to cause the variation in different kinds of isotopes.
Norman, E. B.; et al. (2009). "Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance"

Date: 2011/11/07 18:55:57, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (DaveH @ Nov. 07 2011,18:12)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:46)
Ha...Those were the scientists quotes that you cut up. Not my own

Precisely.
I simply pointed out that you have no idea what those scientists meant, and how they negated your "point" or were utterly irrelevant to it.

My point was the Big News about soft tissues that you think are older than that devil Zeus

Date: 2011/11/07 19:19:14, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 07 2011,18:01)
Quote
Can you explain isochron dating and tell me why it is wrong?

You didn't respond to this.
   
Quote
Just google things like Cambrian ice age or Jurassic ice age etc

I can find no information on a Jurassic ice age. Can you tell me something about it?
   
Quote
Again,They are not stacked on top of each other

Yes they are. Wow, unsupported assertion is soo easy. The Grand Canyon is an example of differnt geological time periods stacked vertically. You should read up on it.
 
Quote
You didnt read my position carefully, dinosaurs and mammals may have often lived in much different niches but when they are found in the same vicinity its their strata are automatically separated or referred to as contamination

Either they are in the same layer or they aren't. If they aren't in the same rock layer how know they lived at the same time?

Yeah I did

Why you calling Cambrian critters on mountain tops "stacked"  Sounds more like a stacked deck. Oh and mount st Hellenes has stacks that look just like your stacked deck but they appeared in minutes

See, no stacking
http://large.stanford.edu/publica....ogy.jpg

We know the Grand Canyon was covered by a mega flood and experienced a time of vastly greater than normal erosion but it also has many similarities to rift valleys such as a much more earthquakes than other areas, rift like cracks, horst graben patterns, faults, hundreds upon thousands of fault lines ( old and new ), volcanoes, uplift,  lava flows, etc etc

In various parts of the world, fairly large rifts are quickly opening and closing and even new mountains are forming so the Grand Canyon is consistent with these but on a larger scale when tectonic activities were known to have much more energy..

Dragon lore and dragon depictions are to much like dinosaurs to be fiction

Date: 2011/11/07 19:23:45, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,17:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven

The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.

So you are saying while everybody else around them thought the world was flat, the early Jews knew it was spherical and instead of saying that our God told us that the earth is a sphere, they used the same flat earth language but only meant it metaphorically. Well explain then why we can't assert that they knew that the universe is 13 billion years old and the whole 7 day thing and the flood is metaphorical as well?

No they didnt all use a flat earth anology

Date: 2011/11/07 19:37:38, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,22:56)
Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings

Not that there'd be anything wrong with isochrons validating isochrons--the physics is well-established--but that ignorant claim is just not true:

Cyclostratigraphy confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years

And there's really no question that the sun can't be enormously older or younger than around four and a half billion years.

As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson

Contamination is a big problem but I'll also pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy

A popular argument for old earth is the  Milankovitch cycle theory.  The theory has necessitated the belief in multiple ice ages and of late has been incorporated toward everything from climate change to Isochon dating. Famous astronomer Fred Hoyle once said:  “If I were to assert that a glacial condition could be induced in a room liberally supplied during winter with charged night-storage heaters simply by taking an ice cube into the room, the proposition would be no more unlikely than the Milankovitch theory.”

First of all, the changes in summer sunshine postulated by the theory are too small to generate an ice age. Several other problems also render these cycles unlikely.

Ice-core samples reveal multiple, rapid oscillation (usually 100 year cycles) throughout the last Milankovitch period (100,000 years) those so called 100,000 year Milankavich cycles that they claim they see in the cores could just as easily represent 100 year oscillation cycles.

In order to revamp support for the theory, evolutionists garnered supporting evidence from deep-sea and ice cores.  Sediment cores older 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods. Isochon dating is in turn calibrated by these core sediments. Obviously this can be very circular in reasoning

Date: 2011/11/07 23:00:20, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,12:26)
Quote (ppb @ Nov. 07 2011,11:46)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,12:30)
     
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you

He's talking about the universe as a whole.  With modern astronomical instruments we can see what was happening almost as far back as the Big Bang.  With my own two eyes I can go out at night and see stuff that happened millions of years ago.

Oh, you did not see the green shag rug covering the pit in the jungle floor, did you Tarzan? Said light was created in transit to earth, and so is much younger than said billions or even millions of years!

Just like Adam and Eve were created as adults, not infants, or zygotes. ;)

Bringing it all back to uniformitarianism, we seem to have here a modern-day (?) Richard Kirwan denouncing we James Huttons. Can Velikovsky be far behind?

So how did this new mutated apegirl have a enough genetic diversity to be considered the mitochondrial eve? Oh and did she like give birth to this H. Tarzan  that somehow dominated a whole troupe of bonobos?  To get away with all that, he musta  been either slicker than Caesar or stronger than a mutated gorilla on PCP. Oh wait, here’s his picture and he looks more like the smooth talker.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?....tuR7NJJ

http://www.radionicapolic.hr/filozof....ter.jpg  
Hmm..his mommy looks a lot darker. Oh that’s right evolutionists say man’s skin got whiter and hair straighter with descent. Hmm but dont apes have white skin and straight hair?

Date: 2011/11/07 23:26:02, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,14:33)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:41)
Oh and Ogre, I dont think that I said: "to destroy religion" "by low paid scientists" but then you yourself have actually convinced me that that too is often true. Its more about ecofeminist under primordial influences

No.  Of course you didn't 'say' it.  You never actually 'say' anything where someone could come back on you for it.

What is it that exploded to cause the Big Bang and what is your estimate of the Age of the Earth?

You heavily implied it though... straight from the talking points of the crazed fundie conspiracy creationist pamphlet.

I really appreciate that you feel no one can really counter me.

This is more what I'm talking about

http://www.nih.gov/news....-26.htm
http://www.davidlgray.info/ademocr....ls.html
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene....e01.asp
http://www.moonbattery.com/archive....24.html
http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2011....control http://www.humanevents.com/article....d=26220
http://www.christianexaminer.com/Article....08.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article....d=26220
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger0....03.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus....ts
http://www.aei.org/issue....47
http://thetruthwins.com/archive....control
http://www.winonadailynews.com/news....86.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/nasa-gl....de.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ufnMNDg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....KqHWJU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....-1emRic

Date: 2011/11/07 23:43:15, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:16)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,14:58)
Cut and paste IDiot strikes again!

         
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35)
 

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry

{quote deleted}

Your Wiki might help

{snipped to get to the part that contradicts the argument right above}

However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.



You have contradicted yourself.  I think it is because you are clueless.  You are not ready for such subtleties as the distinction of spontaneous vs stimulated radioactivity.


Whoa  why you mixing and matching to make a 2009 study appear as subsequent to the 2010 Stanford/Purdue study that my quote I first mentioned?
Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rates Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234
Norman, E. B.; et al. (2009). "Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance"


The 2009 article references that very same Stanford-Purdue group making claims before 2009:  J.H. Jenkins, E. Fischbach, J.B. Buncher, J.T. Gruenwald, D.E. Krause, J.J. Mattes, <> arXiv:0808.3283v1[astro-ph] 25 August, 2008.

 
Quote
Not only that, but that 2009 article mentioned in wiki didnt all together dismiss the variation found in the other three wiki articles but rather the mechanism hypothesized to cause the variation in different kinds of isotopes.


Actually, it did dismiss the variation. "We have reexamined our previously published data to search for evidence of correlations between the rates for the alpha, beta-minus, beta-plus, and electron capture decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133 Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We ?nd no evidence for such correlations and set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations substantially smaller than those observed in previous experiments."

So you are wrong (again) on both counts.

Langmuir had a famous lecture about pathological science based exactly upon this type of research (very low signal to noise).  Given that there is only one group who is seeing this over and over, and particle physics would require a major overhaul, the probability is high that the effect is an artifact.

Subsequent means after and my original article clearly says 2010 while the one that you like says 2009 (actually recieved in 2008). Plus it studied totally different isotopes and was only one counter study versus my four.

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.

Date: 2011/11/08 00:00:25, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,14:33)
I have another question for you to avoid... do you actually think any of this is new?

Do you actually think that over the last 60 years of radiometric dating, no one has noticed that there MIGHT be some seasonal variation in decay rates?

My research shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun.

So, first of all, it's cyclical... meaning that over time, it will average out.

Second, I don't see radium, manganese, or silicon on the list of radioactive dating methods.  So, you'll need to provide evidence that all methods are affected this way.

Third, let's say that it does alter the decay rate by .37%.  Let's say that is a permanent change.  That means the error for the age of the Earth is off by 14.4 millions years (using potassium-argon) and less than 18,000 years using uranium-thorium.

Doesn't actually help that much... does it.

Oh and don't forget that it actually has to affect all the radiometric dating methods differently since they all point to the same age.

St. Severin (ordinary chondrite)

   Pb-Pb isochron - 4.543 +/- 0.019 GY
   Sm-Nd isochron - 4.55 +/- 0.33 GY
   Rb-Sr isochron - 4.51 +/- 0.15 GY
   Re-Os isochron - 4.68 +/- 0.15 GY


Oh, BTW: This still doesn't imply or indicate that there is a fundamental change in the weak nuclear force.  What is does imply is that there is something going on that we don't really understand.  Is it solar neutrinos?  Maybe.  heck, maybe it's cold, dark matter... or dark energy.  

On the other hand, I do have confidence that science will figure it out in short order and be able to calculate the effects of this phenomenon (which may or may not actually exist).  On the other hand, I also have complete confidence that no creationists will figure this out.

I am glad that you finally agree that decay rates can be altered but then you are changing the goal posts again by pretending that these rates will always decay at the slight rate you are sticking with. The very fact that isotopes can be altered at all from year to year indicates that they could be altered drastically during perturbations of the pasts

Date: 2011/11/08 00:29:36, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:35)
[quote=Tracy P. Hamilton,Nov. 07 2011,23:16]  


Oops, another negative result, for a beta decaying nucleus!  Bayesian prior for "artifact" just got a lot bigger...

 
Quote
DO RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIVES VARY WITH THE EARTH-TO-SUN
DISTANCE?
J.C. Hardy*, J.R. Goodwin and V.E. Iacob#
Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3366, USA
Abstract
Recently, Jenkins, Fischbach and collaborators have claimed evidence that radioactive half-lives vary systematically over a ?0.1% range as a function of the oscillating distance between the Earth and the Sun, based on multi-year activity measurements. We have avoided the time-dependent instabilities to which such measurements are susceptible by directly measuring the half-life of 198Au (t1/2 = 2.695 d) on seven occasions spread out in time to cover the complete range of Earth-Sun distances. We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%.

Interesting but this gold isotope doesnt seem to have much  decay experimentation to go on? Maybe that's why they skipped the multi-year activity measure?

Like I said the council of elders wont give up their radiomagic wands with out a bitter fight

Date: 2011/11/08 10:58:09, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2011,06:50)
Hey forastero -

In challenging radiometric dating, you cite the phenomenon of decay rates changing in response to environmental conditions. Your own reference (a Wikipedia article) states the following:
 
Quote
Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[8][9][10]

Let us grant the 0.5% number, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

So, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the timeline by 0.5 percent?

Oh, and when was the flood? You didn't say.

“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).”
http://physicsworld.com/cws....08

Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley

Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers....Sun.pdf

Then on top of this, you have all the contamination and calibration problems of radiometric dating

Date: 2011/11/08 11:02:37, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:28)
Orangutan genome is more stable than humans... OMG... evolutionary theory is completely wrong...

Oh wait.  No it's not, nevermind.

Let me ask you... SO WHAT?

forestaro,

As usual, you IGNORED the main question in my little post. I don't know how else to get through that mass of Kruger-Dunning you call an edjumecation.

1) Look at the three radioactive elements that are affected by this phenomenon.  Note how NONE of them are used to radiometrically date long time spans.  Carbon-14 is not on the list, neither is Uranium-Thorium, neither is Rubidium-Strontium, neither is Lead-Lead, none of them...

YOU actually have to show that THOSE methods are also affected by this (or any other) phenomenon.  

This is the fallacy of the Hasty Generalization.  Some radioactive isotopes are affected by the sun... therefore ALL radioactive isotopes are affected by the sun.  This is an incorrect conclusion.  You may not claim that a radioactive isotope is affected in this way until you prove it.

2) Now look very carefully at the estimated times of the 4 different methods I provided.

Note how they all converge to the same range.  Given the listed error range, FOUR DIFFERENT radioactive methods give the same date from 4.53 - 4.55 bya.  If they are radically changing, then why are these dates all converging.

Remember, that since you are talking about a change in the rate of radioactivity (which STILL doesn't imply a change in the weak nuclear force), then the half lives will change.  Isotopes with a shorter half life will end up with larger changes than isotopes with longer half lives.

So, your explanation has to cover that (not just for these four, but all of them).

3) You still haven't explained how this helps you.  I'm using YOUR numbers to estimate the changes.  The estimate of change using YOUR numbers is less than 0.1% of the age of the Earth.

If you want to claim  
Quote
that they could be altered drastically during perturbations of the pasts


Then you have to provide evidence for it.  Where is the evidence that you need to so radically alter the decay rates to get the age of the Earth to less than a million years?

4)  Have you even thought about this... just for a second consider what would happen if you did say that all this occurred in just a million years.  You do realize that the Earth would be totally uninhabitable from the sleet of hard radiation and the massive amount of heat melting the entire planet, right?

5) Oh yeah, the big thing about the article that you also keep forgetting about... this is a SEASONAL effect.  The rate is slower in when the Earth is farther away and the rate is faster when the Earth is closer.

In other words, when you consider the average... over, say, 4.5 billion years, then the seasonal variation is totally insignificant.  (It's insignificant in other ways too.)  YOU have to show that this variation is not averaged out over time.  I would suggest a multi-decade study to examine this... preferably in the Sahara desert.  Maybe we can cobble together a plane ticket for you.

In conclusion: You have 5 major issues to answer for.  Get started.  

BTW: what actually exploded in the Big Bang and when, exactly, was Noah's flood?

edit: correct age range

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news....ed.html
..but the whole point of that article was the fact that  the U.S.  dept. of Health and Family Services sponsored the study and is also heavily involved in using our tax dollars toward abortion and homosexual propaganda when they are supposed to be using that money to help the poor.

Ogre, how many times you gonna change your stance of shifting decay rates? First you totally scoffed at the idea. Then you said that your own research “shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun.” Today your scoffing at it again,

My post above clearly demonstrates that it don’t even take huge radiation spikes to add up exponentially. Plus your own Stephen Jay Gould promoted radioactive spiked punctuated equilibrium as a big creation device,

Oh and actually, Jenkins et al. did find fluctuations in radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium  
http://arxiv.org/abs....08.3283

Date: 2011/11/08 11:11:04, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,09:21)
[quote=forastero,Nov. 08 2011,00:29]
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:35)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:16)
 


Oops, another negative result, for a beta decaying nucleus!  Bayesian prior for "artifact" just got a lot bigger...

   
Quote
DO RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIVES VARY WITH THE EARTH-TO-SUN
DISTANCE?
J.C. Hardy*, J.R. Goodwin and V.E. Iacob#
Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3366, USA
Abstract
Recently, Jenkins, Fischbach and collaborators have claimed evidence that radioactive half-lives vary systematically over a ?0.1% range as a function of the oscillating distance between the Earth and the Sun, based on multi-year activity measurements. We have avoided the time-dependent instabilities to which such measurements are susceptible by directly measuring the half-life of 198Au (t1/2 = 2.695 d) on seven occasions spread out in time to cover the complete range of Earth-Sun distances. We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%.

Interesting but this gold isotope doesnt seem to have much  decay experimentation to go on? Maybe that's why they skipped the multi-year activity measure?

Like I said the council of elders wont give up their radiomagic wands with out a bitter fight

Multi-year means continuous observations over multiple years, not observations spread over multi-years.  The gold isotope data is more than enough, and was using data already collected many years ago, same as the other paper which detected no variation.

You hanging on to this shows no ability to judge good from bad, you just think like a child: no contstant radiodecay rates -> no reliable dating.

Ah so you conclude that all isotopes are equally stable when it comes to fluctuations? Lets see if Ogre disagrees.

Oh and your first sentence seems contradictory.

Date: 2011/11/08 11:15:23, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2011,11:08)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:58)
“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).”
http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08

Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley

Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers.....Sun.pdf

Then on top of this, you have all the contamination and calibration problems of radiometric dating

A dip in the decay rate would result in radiometric dates that underestimate the actual age of the dated object.

But yours is unresponsive. The questions were:

1) Let us grant the 0.5% number, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

So, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the timeline by 0.5 percent?

2) When was the flood?

Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time

Date: 2011/11/08 11:25:36, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2011,09:59)
Quote
So how did this new mutated apegirl have a enough genetic diversity to be considered the mitochondrial eve?

Somebody who understood what "mitochondrial eve" means wouldn't ask that. She was part of a population, not necessarily even at a time of a bottleneck. Her mitochondria is what got inherited by everybody later; for all other piece of DNA the source might be anybody in the population in which she lived.

So are you saying some radiation spiked punctuated equilibrium came down from the heavens and turned a hole bunch of bonobos into homos all at once?

Or as I asked before. Did this apegirl breed with with alpha ape to make hybrid apeboys more vigorous than mutated gorillas on PCP and thus able to dominate their ancestral troop?

Date: 2011/11/08 11:27:28, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:21)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time

So, when was the flood then?

We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event

Date: 2011/11/08 11:32:44, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 08 2011,11:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,08:58)
Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley

Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers.....Sun.pdf

Where in the paper is it indicated that the variations add up exponentially over time, muppet?  

I read it.  Did you?

Its common sense. Muppets dont have common sense so they just conform

Date: 2011/11/08 11:39:27, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event

If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!

The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.

Date: 2011/11/08 11:45:33, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,11:33)
Quote
In conclusion, we find no evidence for correlations between the rates for the decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations (2.5–37) times smaller than those observed in previous experiments [1–3]. Our results strongly disfavor the suggestions by Jenkins et al. [4] of an annual  variation based on a previously unobserved field produced by the Sun or the annual variation in the flux of solar neutrinos reaching the Earth. Recently, Cooper [8] performed a very clever analysis of decay power data obtained from the 238Pu thermoelectric generator aboard the Cassini spacecraft. The results of this analysis also strongly disagree with the hypothesis of a correlation  between nuclear decay rates and the distance of the source to the Sun.
http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf

Wow... but thanks for providing the paper.

We can say, without further SIGNIFICANT evidence, that this entire line of discussion is moot (note correct spelling).

So, you have again, wasted some 5-6 pages on something that was totally useless.

Are there any other of your claims you'd like to disprove for us?

Again, I have included this article from the very beginning and mentioned several times  that paper disagreed with the fluctuations.

What they do agree with though is that y'all are wrong in dismissing the gravity of the possible fluctuations

Date: 2011/11/08 12:08:11, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:49)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event

If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!

The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.

So the descendants of Noah wrote down that there was a global flood? And that's how you know there was a global flood?

Where did they write it down?

So you *know* there was a global flood but can't bring yourself to put even an approximate date on the event?

Tell me then, were the Egyptians around during the flood?

Before the flood?

After the flood?

What's your best guess at a date for this "global flood" you just know happened?

Like most of the ancients, via oral traditions. They also wrote on their staffs

Afterwords so many made pyramids in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc.. with similar zodiacs, sacrifices to pagan gods, god-kings all vying to be worshiped as false Messiahs and Flood heroes

Is it possible these structures were being built almost simultaneously by different civilizations separated by continents who would have known nothing about each other?

Date: 2011/11/08 12:10:33, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:49)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event

If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!

The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.

So the descendants of Noah wrote down that there was a global flood? And that's how you know there was a global flood?

Where did they write it down?

So you *know* there was a global flood but can't bring yourself to put even an approximate date on the event?

Tell me then, were the Egyptians around during the flood?

Before the flood?

After the flood?

What's your best guess at a date for this "global flood" you just know happened?

Like most of the ancients, via oral traditions. They also wrote on their staffs

Afterwords so many made pyramids in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc.. with similar zodiacs, sacrifices to pagan gods, god-kings all vying to be worshiped as false Messiahs and Flood heroes

Is it possible these structures were being built almost simultaneously by different civilizations separated by continents who would have known nothing about each other?

Date: 2011/11/08 12:40:29, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,12:10)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:45)
Again, I have included this article from the very beginning and mentioned several times  that paper disagreed with the fluctuations.

What they do agree with though is that y'all are wrong in dismissing the gravity of the possible fluctuations

We aren't dismissing the gravity (ahem) of the fluctuations.

We're dismissing your claim that they exist.

Again, you wasted 6 pages to tell us (now) that IF such fluctuations existed, then they would... what... alter the dates by a few percent?

You flip flopping again

You wrote

"My research shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun. So, first of all, it's cyclical... meaning that over time, it will average out. Second, I don't see radium, manganese, or silicon on the list of radioactive dating methods.  So, you'll need to provide evidence that all methods are affected this way."

Oh and Radium is used as a dating method a lot  and magnesium used as a dating method on occasion

Date: 2011/11/08 12:44:06, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2011,12:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:21)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time

So, when was the flood then?

We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event

Even the Egyptians and Chinese who lived through it without noticing it?

For the ancients, Noah's Flood not only symbolized wrath, but also cleansing, renewal, and fertility. Babylon and Egypt for example would come to worship the flooding Fertile Crescent and Nile. Manetho, an Egyptian historian who lived about 250 B.C.,states that there was a worldwide watery catastrophe in which one called Toth was saved along with the Seven Sages.The Egyptians connected the Deluge tradition with their commemoration of the dead, which was done by symbolic ceremony, in which the priest placed the image of Osiris in a sacred ark and carried by the Nileinto the. Mediterranean. The ark floating upon the waters of the deep is a symbol to be found in the traditional wisdom of peoples all over the world. The name given to the city of Thebes or Th-aba is another word for the ark as a vessel of mankind. Kartha or Tyre, Astu or Athens, Urbs or Rome, are all names of cities reflecting this same idea. This ship is the same as the Barque (Boat of Ra) of the Egyptian temples. It is also the Celestial Ship, the Argonavis constellation, as well as the Ark of Salvation, the Argos ship.

Lots of Chinese Flood myths too
http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4220-....na.aspx
http://www.mythome.org/fludmyt....t7.html

Date: 2011/11/08 12:56:33, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.

"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.

Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.

Here is the new one

Oh and actually, Jenkins et al. did find fluctuations in radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium  
http://arxiv.org/abs....08.3283

“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).”
http://physicsworld.com/cws....08

Date: 2011/11/08 13:00:01, Link
Author: forastero
Well gotta take my siesta before work but I'll be back

Date: 2011/11/09 22:24:14, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,14:11)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:56)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.

"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.

Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.

Here is the new one

Oh and actually, Jenkins et al. did find fluctuations in radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium  
http://arxiv.org/abs........08.3283

“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).”
http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08


Now why should these be unaffected, but other isotopes affected?  There is no physical basis whatsoever for thinking that.  Observation of no variation in beta and alpha decays is directly relevant to rebutting claims of varing decay rates, even if they are different isotopes, even if the claim is made in a later paper, because they all have the same decay mechanisms (alpha and beta) and so all isotopes using the same mechanism should be affected.

But no, an IDiot is incapable of thinking for himself.

Requiring a physical basis = "fighting tooth and nail" to somebody who does not understand how science works.

By the way, if alpha decay is included, a third paper also see no variation in decay of Pu-238. P.S. Cooper, arXiv:0809.4248v1 [astro-ph] 24 September, 2008.  And

So we have:
Long established well known particle physics
knowledge of how alpha decay works (strong nuclear force)
Knowledge of how beta decay works (electroweak force)
Knowledge of how gamma decay works (nuclear excitation) 3 groups seeing no variation in decay rates
Previous reports of yearly variation disappearing when ratios are used, which cancels error in intrumentation

vs
only one group seeing variation
a requirement that particle physics be all wrong but nobody has noticed any other discrepancies
plus one Bozo

Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying.

...Btw, its not just decay of alpha and beta, but also positron, gamma emission, etc..

More importantly, how do you know that surrounding rocks are not contaminated with isotopes from surrounding materials and runoff?

What the fluctuating effects on radioisotopes produced via cosmic rays like C14 and Argon?

Date: 2011/11/09 23:14:07, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,15:00)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:11)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,09:21)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,00:29)
         
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:35)
     


Oops, another negative result, for a beta decaying nucleus!  Bayesian prior for "artifact" just got a lot bigger...

             
Quote

J.C. Hardy*, J.R. Goodwin and V.E. Iacob#
Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3366, USA
Abstract
Recently, Jenkins, Fischbach and collaborators have claimed evidence that radioactive half-lives vary systematically over a ?0.1% range as a function of the oscillating distance between the Earth and the Sun, based on multi-year activity measurements. We have avoided the time-dependent instabilities to which such measurements are susceptible by directly measuring the half-life of 198Au (t1/2 = 2.695 d) on seven occasions spread out in time to cover the complete range of Earth-Sun distances. We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%.

Interesting but this gold isotope doesnt seem to have much  decay experimentation to go on? Maybe that's why they skipped the multi-year activity measure?

Like I said the council of elders wont give up their radiomagic wands with out a bitter fight

Multi-year means continuous observations over multiple years, not observations spread over multi-years.  The gold isotope data is more than enough, and was using data already collected many years ago, same as the other paper which detected no variation.

You hanging on to this shows no ability to judge good from bad, you just think like a child: no contstant radiodecay rates -> no reliable dating.

Ah so you conclude that all isotopes are equally stable when it comes to fluctuations?


You can't even get the terminology straight.  There are known environmental effects on decay rates, but they are not randomly up and down (fluctuation) or periodic (oscillation up and down).  I am only discussing the latter, which seems to be pathological science.  On the other hand, you are just ineffectually grasping at straws.

 
Quote
Lets see if Ogre disagrees.

Oh and your first sentence seems contradictory.


Not if you read the paper and understand it.

       
Quote
As already mentioned, such measurements extending over months or years are susceptible to systematic effects and instabilities arising from changes in temperature, humidity, background radiation and instrumental drifts. To avoid these problems, we have followed a quite different approach, making seven individual half-life measurements of a shorter-lived radionuclide, 198Au (t1/2 = 2.7 d), spread out in time so that all seven measurements together span the full range of Earth-Sun distances. By depending on direct, relatively short half-life measurements, rather than separate activity measurements spaced over a long time, we substantially reduce the effects of environmental and instrumental variations.


What else does Iacob say here?

   
Quote
More recently, Schrader (2010) has pointed out that the variations in the PTB results disappear or completely change their structure when a different current-measurement technique is used. Nevertheless, Jenkins et al. (2010) have taken both data sets at face value and proposed much more fundamental causes, such as possible changes in the magnitudes of fundamental constants – the fine structure constant or the electron-to-proton mass ratio – or changes in the flux of solar neutrinos (see Fischbach et al., 2009). More recently, Fischbach et al. (2011) even speculate that new objects they call “neutrellos” could be responsible.


Results that disappear when measured differently, most people would understand that the effect is probably not real.  But not a Bozo!

What papers? I do appreciate your confession on the effects of environmental stimuli on radioisotopes but you only provided one link and to a little abstract about a gold isotope.

Btw, according to "geologists" nuclear decay is most always defined as random as is often the case with fluctuations in solar flares, the magnetic field, cosmic rays, isotope contamination by flash floods, quantum tunneling, radioisotopic substitutions, etc.. etc.. etc...

Date: 2011/11/10 00:25:11, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2011,23:09)
Forastero, I have some questions pending regarding your cite vis the impact of environmental factors on decay rates.

1) Let us grant the 0.5% number cited in the Wikipedia article you use as a reference, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

"At first, the researchers tried to rationalize the seasonal fluctuations as the result of instrument error, perhaps caused by changing heat and humidity. But that idea fell apart when nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins noticed the decay rate of the short-lived isotope manganese-54 dropped slightly during a solar flare. In fact, the decrease began a good 36 hours before the flare occurred."

“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).”
http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08

Now with all those decay fluctuations happening just days apart please tell me why you believe that they wont have an accumulative affect?

Please tell me why y'all continually avoid the following questions

More importantly, how do you know that surrounding rocks are not contaminated with isotopes from surrounding materials and runoff?

How do you know that the fluctuating strength of the magnet field has no effects on radioisotopes produced via cosmic rays like C14 and Argon?

Why do y'all insist that the following article headings are not dealing with dinosaur soft tissues and are not young?

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted

Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules

Proteins have been successfully extracted from the fossil vertebra of a 150-million-year-old sauropod dinosaur ("Seismosaurus")

Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope (not a heading but a statement)

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs

DNA and protein isolation from the 290 million year-old amphibian Discosauriscus austriacus and applications of biotechnology in palaeontology

In the March 25, 2005, issue of Science, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer and her co-authors reported the discovery of intact blood vessels and other soft tissues in demineralized bone from a 65- million-year–old specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex housed at the Museum of the Rockies (MOR). This is an extremely controversial result, because most scientists think that nucleic acids (the organic material that DNA and RNA are made of) will not survive intact for over 100,000 years

How do you know that these unmineralized fossils are to old to be dated directly. That’s circularly SSIK

Date: 2011/11/10 00:48:49, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2011,23:09)
Given that, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the entire timeline by 0.5 percent?

2) When was the flood? An order of magnitude will do. Hundreds of years in the past? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? etc.  

You've made some assertions about geological eras relative to that flood, e.g. horseshit vis ante and post-diluvian "eco-zones."

But you seem only able to muster the cowardice of your convictions, in that you just can't bring yourself to state your belief regarding just when that flood occurred even in the most approximate terms.

Absent the stones to venture some estimate regarding that date, your assertions are completely empty - joining other of your claims for events in eras you don't believe to have occurred.

In your silence, you've betrayed your convictions thrice before the cock crowed. So sack up, Oh Mighty Caged Kong: when did the flood occur?

Wikipedia has a radical liberal bias

I answered honestly the question about the date of the Flood when I said no human really knows until he gets to heaven. Its and inhouse debate but I feel most of the evidence that I have provided reveals a fairly young earth and probably under 20,000 years old

You are forgetting that much of the megafauna and life in general life was devastated by demonically influenced men or Nephilim but God would however miraculously preserve them for us as fossils

Date: 2011/11/10 00:55:21, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,22:32)
Wow... so much wrong in so few statements.  I count 8... anyone do better than that?  Of course, that's without looking anything up too.

Positrons?  Really?

Perhaps you should read up on ISO-FUCKING-CHRONS!!!

Positron emission or beta plus decay is a type of beta decay in which a proton is converted, via the weak force, to a neutron, releasing a positron

Isochron is a dating method based on radioisotpic decay and why have you continually avoided answering how on earth it is calibrated and avoids contamination?

Date: 2011/11/10 01:26:25, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,14:51)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 09 2011,14:26)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 09 2011,12:44)
With a little Googling, it turns out there is such a thing as using radium in dating, with some application to geochronology.

One group of methods are disequilibrium methods. Crudely, that means that they measure how far a system is from the secular equilibrium that is achieved in U decay to Pb after about 5-10 times the longest half-life of a daughter product in the chain. The most commonly used such method is U-Th disequilibrium. Uranium is somewhat soluble in water, but Thorium most definitely is not. So when U decay reaches Th in seawater, the Th precipitates out and the rest of the decay chain happens somewhere else. When U gets bound in a solid, such as being incorporated into coral or migrating into a buried bone from groundwater or being incorporated into a fish or many other things, the system starts to approach secular equilibrium with the entire decay chain taking place in the same place. As long as secular equilibrium is not reached, the "freezing" of uranium can be dated by how far the system is from secular equilibrium.

U-Th dating is good to about 350,000 years. Pb-Ra disequilibrium dating is good to a few thousand years.

There's also Ra-Th isochrons with Ba (chemically similar to Ra) as the normalizing isotope, good for several hundred years, but there are issues with the requirement of cogenetic samples having the same Ra/Ba ratios at solidification.

Plenty of technical explanation at Radium Isotope Systematics in Nature Applications in Geochronology and Hydrogeochemistry

None of these methods are useful for samples approaching the age of the Earth or a few orders of magnitude less.

Speaking of equilibrium, finding a decay series in secular equilibrium is an argument against a young earth. I don't recall that point being explicitly made before.

oh yeah!  Well, what if the DESIGNER made it that WAY!!!

Who looks dumb now???!

In case you hadnt noticed, the decay that we have  been discussing all along is about radioisotopes striving for equilibrium and if evolutionists didnt "assume" that c14 was broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced; we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, C14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating and the C14 in the earth's atmosphere is 20% out of secular equilibrium with the C14 breaking down by radioactive decay.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old. In fact, tree rings prove that C14 begins to falter after just 1000 years.

Date: 2011/11/10 01:34:37, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 09 2011,14:23)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2011,12:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:27)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:21)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time

So, when was the flood then?

We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event

Even the Egyptians and Chinese who lived through it without noticing it?

Why would you expect people who didn't notice that they were dead to notice that they were buried in a Fludde?

The original Hamites, Japhites, and Semites survived it and   their descendants around the world reported it

Date: 2011/11/10 01:39:58, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,11:34)
[quote=JonF,Nov. 09 2011,11:00]
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,13:56)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
... radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium.[/wuote]

Um... no.

You display even more ignorance of radiometric dating methods than the average fundy loon.

Radium-226 (which is in the U-238 decay chain) has a half life of 1602 years.

So it would have a dating range about 1/4 that of Carbon-14.  Which would end up being about 15,000 years.

Of course Lead-214, which is four products away from Radium in this decay chain, has a half life of 26.8 minutes.

This took me less than 25 seconds to find.

forestaro is obviously not interested in learning what is REALLY going on in the world.

How is that when it was you who originally said that radium wasnt used for dating?

Date: 2011/11/10 01:56:33, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 08 2011,22:18)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:48)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 07 2011,11:23)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.

What an interesting dictionary you have in your head.  Einstein did not "expand" Newton's Law of Gravity.  He radically altered the way we think about gravity by introducing a completely novel concept.

You'd get along better if you used words the way everyone else does.  Just saying.

Are you saying that Newton's laws or interpretations are not valid and why not?

"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein

“To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground.” by Albert Einstein

Newton discovered all kinds of things much from scratch, including various laws. Einstein merely extended upon Newton's gravity.

I understand that you misread everything on purpose.  You think that it makes you look the martyr and that everyone is picking on you.  Well, you're right but not for the reasons you would like.  We're picking on you because you're dishonest.  The fact that you are obviously dishonest is lame and a blessing all at once.

So, for the lurkers it may help and the personal amusement it gives, you get response.  Your ego will far outlive your interest unless you come up with some substance.  But for now:

Quote
Are you saying that Newton's laws or interpretations are not valid and why not?


Um.  No.  They aren't ultimately the best answer, but that doesn't matter nor is it the point.

The point which you so obviously ignored was that you don't know the definition of "expand".  Secondarily, you also don't know the relationship between Newton's Law of Gravitation and Relativity.

It's really that simple.  Try to to get bogged down in obfuscation.  This is really about dictionaries.

Quote
"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein


Obfuscation.

Quote
Newton discovered all kinds of things much from scratch, including various laws. Einstein merely extended upon Newton's gravity.


You finish with the same mistake as you began.  Meaningless rambling between doesn't change the fact that you haven't grasped the argument.  Einstein didn't extend Newton's Law of Gravitation, he fundamentally changed our concept of gravity.

Try to address what was said.  Again, using words as others do will help you mightily.  Others have told you this as well.

In his theory of universal gravitation first published in his Principia Mathematica (1687) Newton demonstrated that gravitation is described by rational laws. More than two hundred years later Einstein built upon Newton’s theory of gravitation in his general theory of relativity. With this work Einstein succeeded Newton in formulating basic laws of the universe. Bringing these two autograph manuscripts together links the achievements of Newton and Einstein in a poetic way.

http://www.historyofscience.com/article....ary.php

http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein

“To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground.” by Albert Einstein

Date: 2011/11/10 02:16:08, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 08 2011,17:05)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:23)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,17:47)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,01:35)
   
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven

The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.

So you are saying while everybody else around them thought the world was flat, the early Jews knew it was spherical and instead of saying that our God told us that the earth is a sphere, they used the same flat earth language but only meant it metaphorically. Well explain then why we can't assert that they knew that the universe is 13 billion years old and the whole 7 day thing and the flood is metaphorical as well?

No they didnt all use a flat earth anology

What, your answer does not even make sense? I give a doesn't examples of Bible references to a flat fixed earth. The flat earthers say that there are in total 170 references in the Bible to a flat earth and your first response was to quote people from the middle ages, who as far as I know didn't write the Bible and your second response is simply

"No they didn't".

Cue the black night scene from Monty Python

As with many societies, the flat earth society has many crazy ideas.

Its also obvious that most early Christian scientists and philosophers believed the earth to be a sphere and the ancient rabbis interpreted the days of creation as literal 24 hour days based on the the rotation of the sphere

Date: 2011/11/10 02:20:27, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 08 2011,15:45)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:08)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:49)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event

If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!

The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.

So the descendants of Noah wrote down that there was a global flood? And that's how you know there was a global flood?

Where did they write it down?

So you *know* there was a global flood but can't bring yourself to put even an approximate date on the event?

Tell me then, were the Egyptians around during the flood?

Before the flood?

After the flood?

What's your best guess at a date for this "global flood" you just know happened?

Like most of the ancients, via oral traditions. They also wrote on their staffs

Afterwords so many made pyramids in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc.. with similar zodiacs, sacrifices to pagan gods, god-kings all vying to be worshiped as false Messiahs and Flood heroes

Is it possible these structures were being built almost simultaneously by different civilizations separated by continents who would have known nothing about each other?

Yes. Pyramids are structurally very stable.

If they knew about each other, and all are writing about the same Flood (and not a localized one) why didn't they all practice the Abrahamic religion then?

My second sentence explains that corruption

Date: 2011/11/10 02:26:34, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,14:11)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:56)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.

"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.

Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.

Here is the new one

Oh and actually, Jenkins et al. did find fluctuations in radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium  
http://arxiv.org/abs........08.3283

“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).”
http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08


Now why should these be unaffected, but other isotopes affected?  There is no physical basis whatsoever for thinking that.  Observation of no variation in beta and alpha decays is directly relevant to rebutting claims of varing decay rates, even if they are different isotopes, even if the claim is made in a later paper, because they all have the same decay mechanisms (alpha and beta) and so all isotopes using the same mechanism should be affected.

But no, an IDiot is incapable of thinking for himself.

Requiring a physical basis = "fighting tooth and nail" to somebody who does not understand how science works.

By the way, if alpha decay is included, a third paper also see no variation in decay of Pu-238. P.S. Cooper, arXiv:0809.4248v1 [astro-ph] 24 September, 2008.  And

So we have:
Long established well known particle physics
knowledge of how alpha decay works (strong nuclear force)
Knowledge of how beta decay works (electroweak force)
Knowledge of how gamma decay works (nuclear excitation) 3 groups seeing no variation in decay rates
Previous reports of yearly variation disappearing when ratios are used, which cancels error in intrumentation

vs
only one group seeing variation
a requirement that particle physics be all wrong but nobody has noticed any other discrepancies
plus one Bozo

You mean "one" Ivy league group doubting some of it's church doctrines and stirring up the congregation?

Date: 2011/11/10 02:30:17, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 10 2011,01:31)
Who dates which fossils by the C14 method?

pseudoscientists

organics

Date: 2011/11/10 11:06:08, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 10 2011,03:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,23:26)
In case you hadnt noticed, the decay that we have  been discussing all along is about radioisotopes striving for equilibrium and if evolutionists didnt "assume" that c14 was broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced; we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, C14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating and the C14 in the earth's atmosphere is 20% out of secular equilibrium with the C14 breaking down by radioactive decay.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old. In fact, tree rings prove that C14 begins to falter after just 1000 years.

C-14 dating and it's reliability

eta:non-carbon-dated boldness for strawman's sake.

Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues  below, particularly JonF. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.

Date: 2011/11/10 11:09:20, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 10 2011,03:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,23:26)
In case you hadnt noticed, the decay that we have  been discussing all along is about radioisotopes striving for equilibrium and if evolutionists didnt "assume" that c14 was broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced; we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, C14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating and the C14 in the earth's atmosphere is 20% out of secular equilibrium with the C14 breaking down by radioactive decay.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old. In fact, tree rings prove that C14 begins to falter after just 1000 years.

C-14 dating and it's reliability

eta:non-carbon-dated boldness for strawman's sake.

Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.

Date: 2011/11/10 11:57:20, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2011,04:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,00:48)
I answered honestly the question about the date of the Flood when I said no human really knows until he gets to heaven. Its and inhouse debate but I feel most of the evidence that I have provided reveals a fairly young earth and probably under 20,000 years old

For such an event the evidence would be massive and seen worldwide.

What layer in the geological column is pre-flood and which is post-flood? What layer is the "flood"? What layer represents flood sediments?

And how do you explain this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......olithic

 
Quote
The art of the Upper Paleolithic is the oldest undisputed prehistoric art, originating in the Aurignacian archaeological culture of Europe and the Levant some 40,000 years ago, and continues to the Mesolithic (the beginning Holocene) about 12,000 years ago.


So if 20,000 years ago there were two people at what rate does the population have to grow to get to the several billions we now have?

The same question, but let's say the flood killed everybody 10,000 years ago. At what rate does the population have to grow to get to current figures by today?

Good Question and again, that layer is found in all so called periods and I am actually interested in working more deeply on this question.

Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n.

For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.

http://creation.com/where-a....-people

Date: 2011/11/10 12:02:37, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2011,08:38)
[quote=JonF,Nov. 10 2011,07:51]
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,02:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,11:34)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 09 2011,11:00)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,13:56)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
... radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium.[/wuote]

Um... no.

You display even more ignorance of radiometric dating methods than the average fundy loon.

Radium-226 (which is in the U-238 decay chain) has a half life of 1602 years.

So it would have a dating range about 1/4 that of Carbon-14.  Which would end up being about 15,000 years.

Of course Lead-214, which is four products away from Radium in this decay chain, has a half life of 26.8 minutes.

This took me less than 25 seconds to find.

forestaro is obviously not interested in learning what is REALLY going on in the world.

How is that when it was you who originally said that radium wasnt used for dating?

I was wrong. See how easy that is?

However, methods involving radium are "niche" methods with extremely restricted applicability. I bet lots of experts in radiometric dating have never heard of them. Especially they are not relevant to the age of the Earth.  or the vast majority of fossils.

This exactly.

And forastero, I still haven't found anything that indicate Radium is used in radiometric dating... even if it IS used, then it can easily be corroborated by other means (like tree rings).

It is USELESS for things like fossils and the age of the Earth.

And you STILL haven't even shown that there is any problems with radiometric dating anyway.

You do realize that your 0.37% error rate given in ONE article that may have had some significant issues is LESS than the error range associated with the dating methods anyway?

You can twist words all you want forastero, you still haven't factually supported anything you have claimed.

No Flood.
No change in fundamental forces.
No challenge to evolution.

Nothing.

Oh so thats why you you feel the need to focus "only" on this problem while ignoring the contamination and calibration problems that I keep asking  you about

Date: 2011/11/10 12:38:13, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.

Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, Isochron Dating, and The age of the Earth (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays.

Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination. It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas. Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations.

Date: 2011/11/10 12:52:42, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:27)

Dont buy that supremacism

Each technology and each so called age (neolithic, mesolithic. paleolithis) when looked at individually shows a digression through time (lower, middle, upper). in some cases, you can find intact layers with from deeper to higher but usually these tools are actually spread throughout most sites so its hard to know who was using what and maybe why Neanderthal is thought to have used so many different technolgies. Hiedelburg man also is found among many different technologies throughout Europe and since he may have been smarter than his descendant, it makes since that he could have made better tools

Date: 2011/11/10 13:04:11, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 10 2011,12:24)
Quote (muppet @ Nov. 10 2011,12:57)
On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.


god you are stupid

yeah if evilution was true then nobody would ever die and there would be people eleventy meters thick over the whole planet

Oops I meant to 2 million years ago

Oh but thats right, you still think erectus heidelbergensis, antecessor, Neanderthal, etc.. were all apes

Date: 2011/11/10 13:05:13, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
Oh so thats why you you feel the need to focus "only" on this problem while ignoring the contamination and calibration problems that I keep asking  you about

I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.

And still waiting.

Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions

Date: 2011/11/10 13:06:18, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 10 2011,13:04)
and, people die after they're born.

you stupid little twit

Yeah and leave behind bones and tools

Date: 2011/11/10 13:12:19, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 10 2011,13:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,14:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 10 2011,12:24)
 
Quote (muppet @ Nov. 10 2011,12:57)
On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.


god you are stupid

yeah if evilution was true then nobody would ever die and there would be people eleventy meters thick over the whole planet

Oops I meant to 2 million years ago

Oh but thats right, you still think erectus heidelbergensis, antecessor, Neanderthal, etc.. were all apes

no, i don't, but i do think you are quite possibly one of the stupidest posters on the entire internet.  why the fuck are you here again?  to wave around your personality disorder?  aint' PT enough for you, you have this urge to ensure that every literate person within reach of a computer knows just how much of a dishonest and intellectually bankrupt dimwit you can be?

Dimwit with the logos

According to the epics of ancient Greek epics,   first signs of the agony of defeat in debate were the use of ad hominems  against those under the influence with the logos

Date: 2011/11/10 13:19:23, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2011,12:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,11:57)
For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

At what mortality rate?

What average number of children per couple?

If you don't know these basics then it seems to me your claim is not supported!

I gave you the rate with the most extreme mortality rate

Your goalpost only proves that you cant disprove the equation?

Date: 2011/11/11 20:15:53, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,13:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.

Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, Isochron Dating, and The age of the Earth (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Yup. Like I said, the rate of production of 14C varies and is compensated for, and the rate of decay does not vary. Sometimes more 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time, and sometimes less 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time. No problemo.

I have Strahler at home, I'll check those ellipses.
   
Quote
Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays.

Caught by my typo! 40Ar (your capital R is incorrect) is stable, the result of the decay of 40K. 38Ar and 36Ar are indeed cosmogenic, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and fossils.
   
Quote
Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination.

You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).

It's worth noting that the vast majority of the many dates produced in the last two decades or so, including the oldest minerals and the oldest rocks found to date, came from U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Even the creationist RATE group acknowledges that the lead found in zircons and similar samples is all a result of the decay of uranium in-situ and the only explanation that might possibly work is vastly accelerated radioactive decay:
 
Quote
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old” radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.

(D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, & A. A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay). Emphasis in original.

Too bad for creationists that this AND would have subtle side effects, such as killing all life twice over from heat and radiation, and leaving the Earth's surface molten for millenia. See RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.
 
Quote
It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas.

I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.
 
Quote
Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations.

Ain't no brouhaha. Just scientists calmly doing science, turning up possible decay variations that are six orders of magnitude too small to support your scenario.

Still waiting for some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, Isochron Dating, and The age of the Earth (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

But it appears you're so afraid of reality you can't even acknowledge the existence of those links.

Actually you insisted that my quote:"fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays." was bull____.

Second of all, cosmic rays can effect any radioistope and your own priests cry atmospheric contamination of all the coal and dinosaurs found with C14.  

Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere. To say that science knows how to counter this is just more radiomagic hand waving because there is no way to calibrate carbon fluctuations that far back. Plus, atmospheric carbon ratios are not even the same everywhere .

Fourthly, the whole point of Isochron dating is the use of more thane one daughter isotopes. Geologists today observe the present proportions of parent and daughter isotopes in a sample and use those proportions to date the sample but isochron dating takes it a step further by measuring more than one type of daughter isotope

Finally, not only does your Isochron dating (like with your Argon) dating suffer contamination from various sources before and during crystallization, but igneous rocks have unknown magma ratios of radioisotopes that can produce wide discrepancies in post crystallization ratios. Sedimentary rocks, which contain most fossils are even more prone to unknown mixing, contamination, and ratios.

Date: 2011/11/11 20:56:47, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 10 2011,13:48)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,22:24)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,14:11)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:56)
             
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47)
               
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.

"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.


Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.

{snip more of the same}

Now why should these be unaffected, but other isotopes affected?  There is no physical basis whatsoever for thinking that.  Observation of no variation in beta and alpha decays is directly relevant to rebutting claims of varing decay rates, even if they are different isotopes, even if the claim is made in a later paper, because they all have the same decay mechanisms (alpha and beta) and so all isotopes using the same mechanism should be affected.

But no, an IDiot is incapable of thinking for himself.

Requiring a physical basis = "fighting tooth and nail" to somebody who does not understand how science works.

By the way, if alpha decay is included, a third paper also see no variation in decay of Pu-238. P.S. Cooper, arXiv:0809.4248v1 [astro-ph] 24 September, 2008.  And

So we have:
Long established well known particle physics
knowledge of how alpha decay works (strong nuclear force)
Knowledge of how beta decay works (electroweak force)
Knowledge of how gamma decay works (nuclear excitation) 3 groups seeing no variation in decay rates
Previous reports of yearly variation disappearing when ratios are used, which cancels error in intrumentation

vs
only one group seeing variation
a requirement that particle physics be all wrong but nobody has noticed any other discrepancies
plus one Bozo



Let the handwaving commence!

     
Quote
Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying.


Allow me to quote what wikipedia says about alpha decay:
   
Quote


Alpha decay, like other cluster decays, is fundamentally a quantum tunneling process. Unlike beta decay, alpha decay is governed by the interplay between the nuclear force and the electromagnetic force.


How is the distance from the sun (10^8 of km) going to affect the strong nuclear force (range of only 10^-15 m)?  
How does it affect the coulomb repulsion between the protons of the nucleus?  
Answer: it can't.
Observation from Cassini space craft: It didn't.

{irrelevancies and other hand-waving deleted}

I have only been talking about a claimed solar effect on radioactive decay, not any other environmental effects.  The fact that you do not understand this is not my problem, but yours.

First of all, if you had really read about strong nuclear force you wouldnt be defending his disagreement to the fact that different radioisotopes have different sensitivities and binding energies.

Secondly, strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces dont necessarily make an isotope the most stable. In fact, its the alpha decaying isotopes that are are usually the most unstable.

Thirdly, Quantum tunneling is actually what allows the reaction to proceed through the energy barrier and cosmic rays can induce it.

Fourthly, why are you so uptight about alpha decaying radioisotopes when it seems logical that most fossils are dated with beta decaying isotopes?

Date: 2011/11/11 21:00:30, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,20:44)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)
Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact...

"Mute do to the fact" forastero? Really?
 
Quote
...that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere...[blah blah blah]

So, then, it is your assertion that:

1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%

2) these and similar errors can "accumulate" to the point that dated objects (such as the earth) have been estimated to be 227,000 times older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000).

Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.

Because small errors may accumulate.

You are confusing our c14 ratio problem with the decay fluctuation discussion

Date: 2011/11/11 21:03:00, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22)
For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built.

Ooh, this is fun.

Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes.

I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think).

I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives.

What number do we come up with?

10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few.

Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with:

births per childbearing woman = 8

Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times).

We get 23ish million people.

Are these parameters correct, forastero?

Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered

Date: 2011/11/11 21:27:34, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 11 2011,21:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:00)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,20:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)
Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact...

"Mute do to the fact" forastero? Really?
   
Quote
...that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere...[blah blah blah]

So, then, it is your assertion that:

1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%

2) these and similar errors can "accumulate" to the point that dated objects (such as the earth) have been estimated to be 227,000 times older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000).

Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.

Because small errors may accumulate.

You are confusing our c14 ratio problem with the decay fluctuation discussion

No muppet you are just talking empty bullshit and you know it.  If you don't like the error estimates RB provided why don't you show us yours, instead of just wanking yourself off with a buncha whiny fingersniffing conspiracy sobstory attention whoring.  

Or, why don't you try to go suck off a nuclear reactor?

If Ogre is the knight reduced to a pinky scratching at my boots, you are that pauper pitching poo from the protection of the roof

Date: 2011/11/11 22:07:18, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,15:54)
Wotta maroon!!

   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.

Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, Isochron Dating, and The age of the Earth (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)

That quote does not appear in the linked page at T.O., nor does it appear in Strahler. What does appear at T.O. is:

Quote
Quote
The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate,while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.


(Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument.


IOW, you can't even copy and paste. You mixed up Strahler's and Mason's words into one quote attributed to Strahler.

Here's a more complete selection from Strahler:

 
Quote
One authority from mainstream science, cited by Morris in support of the greater production than decay of C-14, is Richard E. Lingenfelter (Morris, 1975, p. 164). Lingenfelter states:

 
Quote
On comparing the calculated value of the carbon 14 production rate, averaged over the last ten solar cycles, of 2.50 ± 0.50 C14 atoms per square centimeter per second with the most recent estimates of the decay rate of 1.8 ± 0.2 . . . and 1.9 ± 0.2 . . ., there is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25 per cent. (1963, p. 51)


(Note: Citations of sources given by Lingenfelter have been deleted from the above paragraph).

What Morris does not tell the reader is that Lingenfelter continues his discussion by attributing the discrepancy between production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a subject we have explored in earlier pages. Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. As curves A and C in Figure 19.5 show, before about -3000 y., C-14 was decaying faster than it was being formed, with the result that the C-14 ages are too young. The creation scientists ignore this newer information, which is readily available to the public in published journals; it was available in 1974 when the creationist textbook was published. They have made their calculations from the unsupportable assumption that the C-14 production rate has always been greater than the decay rate by the percentage observed today. That is an untenable assumption in the light of evidence to the contrary. Creationists have used the same form of unsupported extrapolation that we found in creation scientist Barnes's calculation of a limiting age of the earth by assumed constant decay rate of the earth's magnetic field.




And, of course, you ignored the many rrefutaions of your claims made in the T.O. article.

Wotta maroon!

And of coarse you did not reveal the link that you are accusing me of misquoting. Here it is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....14.html

..and proving yall's chronic fear mongering propaganda

Moreover your article also seems dishonest about Tree Ring chronology when considering the following quotes.

Rod A. Savidge Ph.D. says: "As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology "research". . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method." New York Times, November of 2002

"In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation. The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood.
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part”and this is crucial” because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one." "The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?" Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a....04a.pdf ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( http://www.informath.org/14C02a.....02a.pdf )


From the "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority", H. E. Suess, UCLA, "...presented the latest determinations... as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine....The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time… These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..."  (Science, Vol.157, p.726)

Date: 2011/11/11 22:33:22, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,21:36)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:00)
You are confusing our c14 ratio problem with the decay fluctuation discussion

You evaded answering the question when it was first posed in the context of decay rates. It is asked explicitly in those terms. Here is the question again:

Is it your assertion that:

1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%?

2) these and similar errors, of similar magnitude, can "accumulate" to the point that you are justified in asserting objects (such as the earth) are estimated to be 227,000x older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000)?

Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.

Right?

Actually, I believe its probably often much more than .05% and the perhaps weekly decay fluctuations accumulate to totally alter any reasonable measurement beyond 5000 years  
Its proven though that Radiometric dating has much greater problems than fluctuating decay rates. For instance the dinosaur soft tissues. The calibrating errors and circular reasoning involved in calibration. Fluctuating production of radioisotopes. Contamination from various sources. Igneous rocks having unknown magma ratios of radioisotopes that can produce wide discrepancies in post crystallization ratios. Sedimentary rocks, which contain most fossils are even more prone to unknown mixing, contamination, and ratios.

Date: 2011/11/12 00:56:43, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,22:36)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:07)
And of coarse you did not reveal the link that you are accusing me of misquoting. Here it is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......14.html

..and proving yall's chronic fear mongering propaganda

Moreover your article also seems dishonest about Tree Ring chronology when considering the following quotes.

Rod A. Savidge Ph.D. says: "As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology "research". . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method." New York Times, November of 2002

"In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation. The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood.
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part”and this is crucial” because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one." "The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?" Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a....04a.pdf ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( http://www.informath.org/14C02a.....02a.pdf )


From the "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority", H. E. Suess, UCLA, "...presented the latest determinations... as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine....The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time… These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..."  (Science, Vol.157, p.726)

Sorry dude, Keenan is a hack.  He's a former FINANCIAL TRADER.

I'm sure that gives him complete insight into such things as Global warming, Ancient Chinese Astronomy, radiocarbon dating, and US copyright law.

I've found several rebuttals to his other work, however, the tree-ring report you link to has not been peer-reviewed since the manuscript was created (dated 2006).  I'm guessing that, considering his other faulty work was peer-reviewed and published that this one won't be because it is simply wrong.

PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH... not the opinions of a financial adviser.

Thanks

If he is good enough University of Arizona’s Radiocarbon and the following peer reviewed publications then he’s definitely good enough for here

"The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang", Energy & Environment, 18: 985–995 (2007).

"Defence of planetary conjunctions for early Chinese chronology is unmerited", Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage, 10: 142–147 (2007).
 
"Radiocarbon dates from Iron Age Gordion are confounded", Ancient West & East, 3: 100–103 (2004).

"Volcanic ash retrieved from the GRIP ice core is not from Thera", Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 4 (2003).

"Why early-historical radiocarbon dates downwind from the Mediterranean are too early", Radiocarbon, 44: 225–237 (2002).  

"Astro-historiographic chronologies of early China are unfounded", East Asian History, 23: 61–68 (2002).

Btw, Radiocarbon is the main international journal of record for research articles and date lists relevant to 14C and other radioisotopes and techniques used in archaeological, geophysical, oceanographic, and related dating. The journal is published quarterly. We also publish conference proceedings and monographs on topics related to our fields of interest. http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/holding....?r=http

Date: 2011/11/12 14:34:02, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)
   
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,13:28)
?  
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
           
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
        ?  
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.

Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, Isochron Dating, and The age of the Earth (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Yup. Like I said, the rate of production of 14C varies and is compensated for, and the rate of decay does not vary. Sometimes more 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time, and sometimes less 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time. No problemo.

I have Strahler at home, I'll check those ellipses.
    ?  
Quote
Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays.

Caught by my typo! 40Ar (your capital R is incorrect) is stable, the result of the decay of 40K. 38Ar and 36Ar are indeed cosmogenic, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and fossils.
    ?  
Quote
Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination.

You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).

It's worth noting that the vast majority of the many dates produced in the last two decades or so, including the oldest minerals and the oldest rocks found to date, came from U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Even the creationist RATE group acknowledges that the lead found in zircons and similar samples is all a result of the decay of uranium in-situ and the only explanation that might possibly work is vastly accelerated radioactive decay:
       
Quote
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old??&#65533; radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.

(D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, & A. A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay). Emphasis in original.

Too bad for creationists that this AND would have subtle side effects, such as killing all life twice over from heat and radiation, and leaving the Earth's surface molten for millenia. See RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.
       
Quote
It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas.

I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.
       
Quote
Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations.

Ain't no brouhaha. Just scientists calmly doing science, turning up possible decay variations that are six orders of magnitude too small to support your scenario.

Still waiting for some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, Isochron Dating, and The age of the Earth (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

But it appears you're so afraid of reality you can't even acknowledge the existence of those links.

Actually you insisted that my quote:"fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays." was bull____.

And it was and is. You obviously meant the decay rate, not the production rate.

Again, look up cosmogenic radioisotopes and you will see that Ar40 and C14 are produced by cosmic radiation.

Quote

Cosmic rays do not affect the decay rate of any radioisotope, and only affect the production rate of a few. The fact that any 14C found in dinosaur bones or coal is contamination is well established by evidence, not by assumption.


Look up quantum tunneling, which can be induced by cosmic rays. Plus, its common sense that if cosmic rays can produce radioisotopes, then surely they can also effect their fission decay


Quote
You mean mot, not mute.

Actually, there are well-known established ways to counter the effect of ?varying atmospheric 14C content. Your attempt to hand-wave that away is based on ignorance. See the figure above. And, yes, 14C content varies slightly with position, another effect that is well-understood and can be compensated for (although it's usually so small as to be unimportant).


Funny that you wont mention them

 
Quote

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.


Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html


Quote
I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.


"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." (Robert E. Lee,  Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9)

Quote
You haven't even attempted to show any problems with isochron dating. Or the more-widely-used U-Pb concordia-discordia dating.

Which is detected and indicated by the method. Oh, and "contamination before crystallization", whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant.

WTF is this supposed to mean and why do you think it's relevant?


"The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages."  Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32;  Geological Society of America


 
Quote

What percentage of radiometric dating methods are practiced on sedimentary rocks? Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron.


Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate.

Date: 2011/11/12 14:51:04, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:03)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22)
For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built.

Ooh, this is fun.

Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes.

I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think).

I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives.

What number do we come up with?

10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few.

Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with:

births per childbearing woman = 8

Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times).

We get 23ish million people.

Are these parameters correct, forastero?

Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered

I'm sorry.  What were those?  I assumed a starting population of 2.  What were you thinking?  I gave the results of 2 runs: one with current day death rates and one with a second set of death rates.  The first run used 4 children per female and the second used 8 children per female.

I asked you what the correct parameters were.  If you ere actually interested in carrying on a conversation you would have, at this point, given a set of parameters that you found to be more correct (or agreed that mine were correct).

So, how about it?  What parameters should we use?  Starting population = X
Death Rates = A, B, C, D
Birth Rate = Y

Lets do this.

I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again

Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n.

For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.

Date: 2011/11/12 16:37:55, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 12 2011,14:43)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,20:56)
 

             
Quote
Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying.


Allow me to quote what wikipedia says about alpha decay:
           
Quote


Alpha decay, like other cluster decays, is fundamentally a quantum tunneling process. Unlike beta decay, alpha decay is governed by the interplay between the nuclear force and the electromagnetic force.


How is the distance from the sun (10^8 of km) going to affect the strong nuclear force (range of only 10^-15 m)?  
How does it affect the coulomb repulsion between the protons of the nucleus?  
Answer: it can't.
Observation from Cassini space craft: It didn't.

{irrelevancies and other hand-waving deleted}

I have only been talking about a claimed solar effect on radioactive decay, not any other environmental effects.  The fact that you do not understand this is not my problem, but yours.


 
Quote

First of all, if you had really read about strong nuclear force you wouldnt be defending his disagreement to the fact that different radioisotopes have different sensitivities and binding energies.

Who the hell is "he"?  Was I not replying to you?
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y196896

The link to wikipedia is for you to learn from, and base an argument on.  I already know about how radioactive decay works, you do not.


   
Quote
Secondly, strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces dont necessarily make an isotope the most stable. In fact, its the alpha decaying isotopes that are are usually the most unstable.


The extent to which a radioactive decay rate is influenced by environment has NOTHING to to with how stable it is, dimwit.  Nor does the mechanism of alpha or beta correlate with stability.  

   
Quote
Thirdly, Quantum tunneling is actually what allows the reaction to proceed through the energy barrier and cosmic rays can induce it.


Handwaving.  

 
Quote
Fourthly, why are you so uptight about alpha decaying radioisotopes when it seems logical that most fossils are dated with beta decaying isotopes?


No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh?
This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results.

That is why.

Quote
Who the hell is "he"?  Was I not replying to you?
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y196896


Tracy, who was claiming that studies on a gold isotope proves the stability and or sensitivities of other isotopes. You claimed that my disagreement to that rationalization was handwaving

Quote
The link to wikipedia is for you to learn from, and base an argument on.  I already know about how radioactive decay works, you do not.


The extent to which a radioactive decay rate is influenced by environment has NOTHING to to with how stable it is, dimwit.  Nor does the mechanism of alpha or beta correlate with stability.  [/quote]

You now seem to be confusing reaction and decay.  You first asked how the sun could effect the strong nuclear binding force of a alpha decaying isotope and I told you that the force doesnt necessarily make them less vulnerable to reaction. In fact, alpha radioisotopes are often the most vulnerable to reaction. On the other hand if  protons and neutrons can be rearranged inside the nucleus by deuterium tunneling and if cosmic rays and/or quantum tunneling can greatly effect reaction rates of radioisotopes and fission, its logical that it can also effect decay rates.

Quote
Handwaving.


Actually its called quantum physics. You and your sun god priests love fantasizing about mutationism but when someone talks logically about a mutation that can effect your scriptures, the whole congregation starts foaming at the mouth

Quote
No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh?
This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results.


Radium decays alpha, beta, and gamma and Princeton and Purdue show that the decay rates do change

Date: 2011/11/12 16:50:22, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,15:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:51)
 
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:03)
   
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22)
For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built.

Ooh, this is fun.

Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes.

I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think).

I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives.

What number do we come up with?

10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few.

Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with:

births per childbearing woman = 8

Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times).

We get 23ish million people.

Are these parameters correct, forastero?

Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered

I'm sorry.  What were those?  I assumed a starting population of 2.  What were you thinking?  I gave the results of 2 runs: one with current day death rates and one with a second set of death rates.  The first run used 4 children per female and the second used 8 children per female.

I asked you what the correct parameters were.  If you ere actually interested in carrying on a conversation you would have, at this point, given a set of parameters that you found to be more correct (or agreed that mine were correct).

So, how about it?  What parameters should we use?  Starting population = X
Death Rates = A, B, C, D
Birth Rate = Y

Lets do this.

I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again

Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n.

For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.

Ummm... you do realize that compound interest is not the same as populations of living things.  The same formulas do not work.

Here's a hint: My dollars do not die after 40-85 years.  My dollars are not eaten by leopards.  My dollars do not suffer from disentary, malaria, infant mortality and tribal warfare.

Every dollar 'reproduces' in compound interest.  Every dollar survives indefinitely.

But other than those things, they are exactly the same.

BTW: What exactly exploded in the Big Bang? And, where, in the geologic column should we expect to find Flood Sediment?

I'm really curious as to why you aren't answering major questions like these... especially since you brought up the topics in the first place.  Or are you willing to admit mistake, like I have in this very thread?

But other than that, they are exactly the same thing.

Not only did you willfully misinterpret the analogy but you fail to realize that the average dollar bill has a life span of only about 18-22 months

Likewise, no one knows what formula you are talking about and the age old formula that I provided wont get you to that answer unless you messed up big time

Date: 2011/11/12 17:07:17, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,15:24)
Oh forastero,

So completely clueless.  So completely dishonest.  Why is it that creationists can never show their work?  My example was an actual example--you know where the work was shown and the formula was shown and the parameters were shown.

Your um...example(?) did none of that.  Let's try it again.

Quote
I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again


Examples are worked out by those who give them, not the other way around.  Examples are teaching tools were the method is shown and explained.  What's the matter?  Can't you explain your own arguments?

Quote
Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates.


Not interested in decay rates.  Nice of you to try to change the topic.  Now, population on the other hand?  Let's talk.
 
Quote
If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n.


Where do you derive your growth rate?  I told you where I got my numbers; is there some reason you can't tell me yours?  And, given that Noah and his sons are of different generations, shouldn't your calculation start with either 2 or 6?  Anyway, very interested in how you calculate your growth rate.

Quote
For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.


Drivel.  We can move on to examining this if you ever answer the above questions and concerns and actually work an example from scratch.

My gosh. Im giving you the formula and  very conservative growth rates. The first example adds up to the present  population of the earth

The second evolutionism one adds up to way to many especially if you consider erectus (logically fully human) is supposed to actually be here two years, I said one million years ago to represent H. antecessor

What more do you need?

Date: 2011/11/12 17:19:09, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:18)
Quote
Oh but thats right, you still think erectus heidelbergensis, antecessor, Neanderthal, etc.. were all apes

Of course they were apes. So are we.

Ah so thats how they finally solved the missing link. How convenient and please tell me why we and the apes are so different from head to toe?

Date: 2011/11/12 18:04:24, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
Or possibly "moot".

   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

         
Quote

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.


Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html
The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.

Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

Date: 2011/11/12 18:07:56, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 12 2011,17:46)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:50)
Not only did you willfully misinterpret the analogy but you fail to realize that the average dollar bill has a life span of only about 18-22 months

Likewise, no one knows what formula you are talking about and the age old formula that I provided wont get you to that answer unless you messed up big time

forastero must be Robert Byers'  "smarter" brother.

forastero,
You provided a formula in this format: 8(1+r/100)n
where, in your words, "r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n".
maybe there's a formatting problem here but the formula could be interpreted like this: 8 x (1+R/100) x n.
Did you mean this: 8 x [(1+r/100) exponent n]?

Yeah sorry my exponents aren't coming out where they should

Date: 2011/11/12 18:13:29, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2011,17:10)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,17:07)
My gosh. Im giving you the formula and  very conservative growth rates.

What, you mean this?  
Quote
lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.


If that's a "formula" please tell me what the population figures were, say, 2500 years ago.

1000 years ago?

500?

Here I will make it easy  but mind you that this calculator only shows  exponential growth.
http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias....ion.php

....and whata ya know, it even provides our compound interest analogy

Date: 2011/11/12 18:25:33, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 12 2011,18:09)
I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.  

Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE!

TARD.

Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too

Date: 2011/11/12 18:49:14, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2011,18:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:07)
Yeah sorry my exponents aren't coming out where they should

Hey, what does it matter. You believe the earth is younger then the age of some of the living things on it.

List_of_long-living_organisms

 
Quote
Pando is a Populus tremuloides (Quaking Aspen) tree or clonal colony that has been estimated at 80,000 years old,although some claims place it as being as old as one million years. Unlike many other clonal "colonies" the above ground trunks remain connected to each other via a single massive underground root system. Whether it is to be considered a single tree is disputed, as it depends on one's definition of an individual tree.
The Jurupa Oak colony is estimated to be at least 13,000 years of age, with other estimates ranging from 5,000 to 30,000 years.
A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea could be up to 100,000 years old.
King's Lomatia in Tasmania: The sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old.
A box huckleberry bush in Pennsylvania is thought to be as old as 13,000 years of age.
Eucalyptus recurva: clones in Australia are claimed to be 13,000 years old.
Quercus palmeri: a clonal oak shrub near Riverside in California, isolated for centuries from the rest of its species, is dated at around 13,000 years old.
King Clone is a creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) in the Mojave desert estimated at 11,700 years old. Another creosote bush has been said to be 12,150 years old, but this is as yet unconfirmed.
A Huon Pine colony on Mount Read, Tasmania is estimated at 10,000 years old, with individual specimens living to over 3,000 years.
A colony of Norway Spruce in Sweden, nicknamed Old Tjikko, includes remnants of roots that have been carbon dated to 9,550 years old.
An individual of the fungus species Armillaria solidipes in the Malheur National Forest is thought to be between 2,000 and 8,500 years old. It is thought to be the world's largest organism by area, at 2,384 acres (965 hectares).


So what's some, or even all exponents in such crazyness?

Hey you like timeshares? Well how about one with millions of years old spores and thousands of years old grass and bacteria on some real Florida swampland???

Date: 2011/11/12 19:01:44, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,18:45)
forastero:

Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors) are of sufficient magnitude to result in estimated ages, such as the age of the earth, that are 227,000x the actual values?

For reference, a 0.5% error in my speedometer would result in a reading of 70 mph when I was actually traveling at 70.35 mph, while you are alleging errors of magnitude such that when my indicated speed is 70 mph I may in fact be traveling over 2% of the speed of light.

Is that your belief?

It is a necessary entailment of other beliefs you have already stated, such as your belief that the earth is probably less than 20,000 years old.

Why, then, are you afraid to simply state it, Oh Caged Kong?

227,000X older? Now thats some quantum physics I aint been seeing to often. Seems to me that any disruption of the decay process is only going to amount to higher radioactive ratios that might make things appear older than they really are

Date: 2011/11/12 19:17:46, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 12 2011,18:09)
I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.  

Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE!

TARD.

Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes.....XcRY5Rg

Naa those dudes that laughed Columbus and Orval were to old and cold to laugh at ol bozo

Date: 2011/11/12 19:21:06, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,19:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:01)
227,000X older? Now thats some quantum physics I aint been seeing to often. Seems to me that any disruption of the decay process is only going to amount to higher radioactive ratios that might make things appear older than they really are

227,000x follows directly from your own statements.

Specifically, while the current consensus, largely from radiometric dating, is that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, your stated belief is that the earth is probably less than 20,000 years old.

4.54 billion/20,000 = 227,000. Radiometric dating techniques establish an age for the earth that is 227,000x your wishful guess of 20,000 years.

Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors), however they are "accumulative," are of sufficient magnitude to result in estimated ages, such as the age of the earth, that are 227,000x the actual values?

For reference, a 0.5% error in my speedometer would result in a reading of 70 mph when I was actually traveling at 70.35 mph, while you are alleging errors of magnitude such that when my indicated speed is 70 mph I may in fact be traveling over 2% of the speed of light.

Is that your belief?

It is a necessary entailment of other beliefs you have already stated, such as your belief that the earth is probably less than 20,000 years old.

Why, then, are you afraid to simply state it, Oh Caged Kong?

Right, it should make it appear older imo

Date: 2011/11/12 19:47:09, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.

There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf c14

Date: 2011/11/12 20:19:53, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,19:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:21)
Right, it should make it appear older imo

Pay attention forastero.

I'm not asking whether it is your belief that errors in dating techniques result in ages older than you believe to be the case. We already know that.  

I am asking if it is your belief that "accumulative" errors alleged in your cites are sufficient to result in ages that are not merely older, but 227,000 times older.

Is that your belief?

ETA: replace 'documented' with 'alleged'

Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke

 
Btw 2, its ironic that this new age radioactive religion  is used to make up chronologies that attempt dismiss certain biblical chronologies, is believed to be the source of a mutationism to in an attempt to replace Creationism, is based on particles named after the demons (ancient god-kings) who killed off God's Creation, is used to make weapons that can destroy whats left of Creation?

Date: 2011/11/12 20:24:38, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,20:00)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.

There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf c14

I'm sorry, I must have missed it.  Where was this peer-reviewed again?

I mean seriously, citing a draft manuscript.  

While you seem to be talking to me again, why don't you tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang and where in the geologic column I can expect to find strata representing the world wide flood.  

I assure you, it will be extraordinarily easy to check if the formation you say really is world-wide and really is a flood deposit.

See positive evidence.  That's all you need is positive evidence to support your position.

..and your priestly peer reviews is the perfect case in point concerning your supremacist scientific inquisition.

Date: 2011/11/12 20:27:34, Link
Author: forastero
Btw 2&3 No one can explain the Big bang explosion and you havnt mentioned even one geologic column

Date: 2011/11/12 20:44:56, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,20:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:19)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,19:32)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:21)
Right, it should make it appear older imo

Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke.

I'm not asking whether it is your belief that radiometric dating is a joke, or whether you otherwise disdain that and other techniques that indicate an earth that as vastly older than your wishful fiction.

I am asking if it is your belief that the errors alleged in your cites are sufficient to result in ages that are not merely older, but 227,000 times older.

Is that your belief??

While you are at it, give us a clue regarding why you are reluctant to respond, Forastero the Kong (FTK?)

Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off.

Btw, being obtuse is just another hand waving excuse to not put up your intellectual dukes

Date: 2011/11/12 20:47:26, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,20:00)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.

There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf c14

 

While you seem to be talking to me again, why don't you tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang and where in the geologic column I can expect to find strata representing the world wide flood.  

I assure you, it will be extraordinarily easy to check if the formation you say really is world-wide and really is a flood deposit.

See positive evidence.  That's all you need is positive evidence to support your position.

No one can explain the Big bang explosion and you havnt mentioned even one geologic column

Date: 2011/11/12 21:07:56, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 12 2011,21:03)
Wow the word salad really comes out when they lose the argument doesn't it.

"Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke."

He has stated this and except for a 0.5% possible issue with fluctuations he has failed to show any other issues with dating.


"Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off"

So why the feck lead with the issue that only results in a 0.5% error. This is like the Mt St Helens thing - He has these magical super-secret proofs, but he trots out the tired old creationist carnards.

Actually I already went over that stuff but y'all only want to discuss this new finding on fluctuating decay rates

Date: 2011/11/13 00:17:55, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 12 2011,19:21)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too

forastero, there's an Abbott & Costello routine that's very appropriate here...
Quote
Costello: They said Newton was crazy! They said Einstein was crazy! They said Luigi was crazy!
Abbott: Hold on a second. Who's Luigi?
Costello: Oh, Luigi's my uncle. He is crazy.

You YECs are crazy like Luigi, not crazy like Einstein.

Hmm..sounds like some of those German documentaries of the 1930s-40s

Date: 2011/11/13 00:49:49, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,21:41)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:44)
Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off.

("Again?" LOL!)

So, it is NOT your belief that "accumulative" errors in radiometric dating techniques are sufficient to account for a finding for the age of the earth that is 227,000x that of your wishful fiction.

Stated another way, you concede that, even given worst case inaccuracy, the radiometric evidence continues to indicate that the earth is significantly older than your wishful fiction of 20,000 years.

You don't credit that evidence "because its only a 'part' of the reason that your dating is way off." But stay with the radiometric data another moment.

Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?

If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?  

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%.
Quote
Btw, being obtuse is just another hand waving excuse to not put up your intellectual dukes

I posed this question nine times over two solid days before you muttered your response. Enough said.

ETA: a more accurate quote.

I think think the scientist plum lie a lot, including to themselves just like many of you


The decay rate topic didnt even come up until November 7th and I answered you the very next morning so you are believing your own faulty hype.

Btw, it came up after Ogre insisted that there was no evidence for fluctuating decay rates. Then when I proved the evidence, he suddenly claimed to have known about it all along, which is just lack of integrity

Date: 2011/11/13 00:56:52, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 12 2011,23:54)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,10:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.

There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf c14

Yes a scientist is taken to task by other scientists when he can't backup his conclusions. This shows that if there was anything wrong systematically with dating methods some scientists will be onto it straight away.

This is extremely bad for your case as it shows for science to be open to examination

Another case in point of you seeing a "scandal" as integrity which indicates either the dishonest propaganda and/or delusional denial

Date: 2011/11/13 01:42:34, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 12 2011,23:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,16:37)
 

You now seem to be confusing reaction and decay.



Er, what reaction exactly?  There is none proposed for what those papers claim except stuff they made up to explain something which probably does not exist.

You also mentioned stability which has bupkis to do with decay modes.

U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, alpha decay.
Rn-212, 24 min, alpha
Se-82, 10^20 years, beta
Po-219  <300 nanosecond, beta decay.

You are confused, I have focused only on mechanisms of decay (alpha, beta, gamma), the fundamental forces involved (and particles), lack of foundations for claims of observation of variation with solar orbit, lack of an mechanism based on solar orbit that would affect the alpha, beta or gamma via the fundamental forces.

     
Quote

 You first asked how the sun could effect the strong nuclear binding force of a alpha decaying isotope and I told you that the force doesnt necessarily make them less vulnerable to reaction. In fact, alpha radioisotopes are often the most vulnerable to reaction.


You're babbling - what reactions, and how would they depend on distance from the sun?

     
Quote
On the other hand if  protons and neutrons can be rearranged inside the nucleus by deuterium tunneling and if cosmic rays and/or quantum tunneling can greatly effect reaction rates of radioisotopes and fission, its logical that it can also effect decay rates.


More babble, and IFs with no evidence.  What would be logical is something that would change what is going in in the nuclear decay that is related to solar orbit.  So, what goes on in the sun - OUT.  What goes on elsewhere in space - OUT.  What changes with orbit is the distance and variation of neutrino flux is quite clearly evident there. Alas for you, neutrinos don't affect decay rates.  

   
Quote
Actually its called quantum physics. You and your sun god priests love fantasizing about mutationism but when someone talks logically about a mutation that can effect your scriptures, the whole congregation starts foaming at the mouth


Now you're babbling about something that is wholly unrelated to orbital influences on radioactive decay rates.
     
Quote

   
Quote
No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh? This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results.


Radium decays alpha, beta, and gamma and Princeton and Purdue show that the decay rates do change


The continued absence of answer is glaringly obvious.

Radium-???  There are these things called "isotopes".  Look it up.

Actually, these are currently unverified claims.  You keep credulously repeating them, because you are an IDiot.  There is a long history of a seasonal variation in measurement of decay rates, that does not mean it is real instead of instrument sensitivity to winter vs summer climate.  That is why other experiments using different measurement techniques are important.   Others have done this, with the result being - NO VARIATION.

Google radioisotope and "reaction" rate and nuclear force and activation energy and you will how they tie together  

“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).”  
http://physicsworld.com/cws....08

John Barrow of Cambridge University. “It’s a gigantic effect…It sounds as though it’s related [to solar activity], but it really can’t be.”
http://physicsworld.com/cws....08  

Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics “ knew from long experience that the intensity of the barrage of neutrinos the sun continuously sends racing toward Earth varies on a regular basis as the sun itself revolves and shows a different face, like a slower version of the revolving light on a police car. His advice to Purdue: Look for evidence that the changes in radioactive decay on Earth vary with the rotation of the sun. “That’s what I suggested. And that’s what we have done.”
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breakin....lements

Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rate Astroparticle Physics
Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010 Stanford University
Ra decay reported by an experiment performed at the Physikalisch–Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Germany. All three data sets exhibit the same primary frequency mode consisting of an annual period. Additional spectral comparisons of the data to local ambient temperature, atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, Earth–Sun distance, and their reciprocals were performed. No common phases were found between the factors investigated and those exhibited by the nuclear decay data. This suggests that either a combination of factors was responsible, or that, if it was a single factor,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234

Purdue paediatrician Ephraim Fischbach. “What our data are showing is that the half lives, or the decay constants, are apparently not fundamental constants of nature, but appear to be affected by solar activity,” “To summarize, what we are showing is that the decay constant is not really a constant.”
http://physicsworld.com/cws....08

Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance Jere H. Jenkins, Ephraim Fischbach Purdue University
http://arxiv.org/abs....08.3283

“It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a onstant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. That's why researchers had to stumble upon this discovery in the most unlikely of ways……That's when they [Purdue University] discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry.”
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry

Date: 2011/11/13 11:06:07, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 13 2011,07:27)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,01:49)
I think think the scientist plum lie a lot, including to themselves just like many of you


The decay rate topic didnt even come up until November 7th and I answered you the very next morning so you are believing your own faulty hype.

Btw, it came up after Ogre insisted that there was no evidence for fluctuating decay rates. Then when I proved the evidence, he suddenly claimed to have known about it all along, which is just lack of integrity

This will be a more efficient conversation if you forgo the part where you flatly ignore a difficult question four or five times, as well the part where you mutter something irrelevant into your sleeve another three. This response counts as three sleeve-mutterings, so I'm optimistic that we can now get down to the actual question:

Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?

If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?  

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

(I do accept your reply as a tacit admission that the literature does not remotely support your devoutly-to-be-wished-for 20,000 year earth. OOoooo, lying scientists! That's why nothing fits!)

I realize that you mutationists like to try to make clocks out of random events but you cant really put a number on these random tunneling mutations of decay. Plus, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, binding forces and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying. However, quantum mechanics is still in its infancy so we will be finding out more in the future about these decay mutations.

In the mean time though:

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope

Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules

Proteins have been successfully extracted from the fossil vertebra of a 150-million-year-old sauropod dinosaur ("Seismosaurus")

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
DNA and protein isolation from the 290 million year-old amphibian Discosauriscus austriacus and applications of biotechnology in palaeontology

In the March 25, 2005, issue of Science, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer and her co-authors reported the discovery of intact blood vessels and other soft tissues in demineralized bone from a 65- million-year–old specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex housed at the Museum of the Rockies (MOR). This is an extremely controversial result, because most scientists think that nucleic acids (the organic material that DNA and RNA are made of) will not survive intact for over 100,000 years.

Date: 2011/11/13 11:17:20, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.

And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count

Date: 2011/11/13 11:32:14, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,08:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:04)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
   
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
Or possibly "moot".

       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

             
Quote

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.


Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html
The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.

Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

Nope. One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter element. Some radioisotopes (including 40K) decay to more than one daughter, but that's irrelevant.

“The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.”  
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....th.html

http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

Date: 2011/11/13 11:40:16, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 13 2011,11:18)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:06)
I realize that you mutationists like to try to make clocks out of random events but you cant really put a number on these random tunneling mutations of decay.

<snipped piles and piles of cowardly horseshit>

not even, say, a number between 1 and 227,000?

you are the biggest pussy that ever came in here and vomited this same old bullshit all over a thread.  i usually don't use superlatives but you've earned it champ

So why you so mad? Is it cause you've adapted to the darkness and hate the light?

Date: 2011/11/13 12:03:45, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,22:56)
Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings

Not that there'd be anything wrong with isochrons validating isochrons--the physics is well-established--but that ignorant claim is just not true:

Cyclostratigraphy confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years

And there's really no question that the sun can't be enormously older or younger than around four and a half billion years.

As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson

I'll pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy

A popular argument for old earth is the  Milankovitch cycle theory.  The theory has necessitated the belief in multiple ice ages and of late has been incorporated toward everything from climate change to Isochon dating.

Famous astronomer Fred Hoyle once said:  “If I were to assert that a glacial condition could be induced in a room liberally supplied during winter with charged night-storage heaters simply by taking an ice cube into the room, the proposition would be no more unlikely than the Milankovitch theory.”

First of all, the changes in summer sunshine postulated by the theory are too small to generate an ice age. Several other problems also render these cycles unlikely. In order to revamp support for the theory, evolutionists garnered supporting evidence from deep-sea and ice cores.

Sediment cores assumed older than 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods. Isochon dating is in turn calibrated by these core sediments. Obviously this can be very circular in reasoning

Ice-core samples reveal multiple, rapid oscillation (usually 100 year cycles) so those 100,000 year Milankavich cycles that they claim they see in the cores could just as easily represent 100 year oscillation cycles.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi........bstract
http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Date: 2011/11/13 12:39:39, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 21 2011,05:55)
People who can't manage topicality elsewhere can always be topical in a thread devoted to them.

Hey you gonna let Krea Kong swing on the other threads some day and why you take his picture poster away? He just wants to play so why y'all so afraid? Is their some image at stake like a banner fake?

Date: 2011/11/13 12:51:57, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.

And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count

See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.

Good try but all the evolution guys edit doodoo like flies so your just sewing more lies

Date: 2011/11/13 12:56:22, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.

And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count

See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.

Here's a hint, just look at the billions of tons of coal and petroleo

Hey ogre so what is your big bang theory?
And when you gonna list all these so called geologic columns you keep harping on?

Date: 2011/11/13 13:00:36, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,12:54)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:03)
Sediment cores assumed older than 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods.

But you believe the earth is younger then that, so what gives?

And speaking of sediment cores, there must be quite the layer of sediment that the global flood put down. Where is it?

Well you are taking it out of context and notice I said "assumed"; and not by me but by your church mates

Yep and 99.9 percent of fossils are laid down in water

Date: 2011/11/13 15:55:12, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,13:49)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:32)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,08:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:04)
     
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
Or possibly "moot".

           
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

               
Quote

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.


Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html
The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.

Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

Nope. One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter element. Some radioisotopes (including 40K) decay to more than one daughter, but that's irrelevant.

“The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.”  
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......th.html

http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

Hee hee hee! You dug up one of the unusual isochron methods!

In the quote from the isochron page at T.O., which is what we are discussing, there is one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope element. You were wrong.

But Pb-Pb isochrons involve many radioisotopes and daughter isotopes and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope, I hear you whine!

I'm way ahead of you. As usual. Back on page 27 I responded to you:

 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,14:28)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination.

You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).

Note that you said "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes". Not "A few isochron methods involve taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes".

You were wrong. In general, isochron dating involves one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter element. The T.O. page on isochrons, which the subject of this side discussion, that's the kind of isochrons that are covered.

But I carefully wrote "In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used". Note "...almost all the isochron methods...". I know about Pb-Pb isochrons, which are not at all typical of isochron methods. I was correct. Again.

Wotta maroon!

The following popular isochron parent to daughter elements involve a parent radioisotope decaying to a daughter radioisotope that in turn almost always decays either beta, alpha, Isomeric,electron capture, or fission  radioactivity

K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

Date: 2011/11/13 15:57:34, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 13 2011,15:06)
forastero,

try to grasp the simple concepts first.  In your population equation (that's generous, but we'll call it population), how do you derive your growth rate?

A correct answer to this question will involve A) but not B)


A)  these assumptions are starting points and these factors affect the growth rate

B)  a stand alone number

Thanks for clearing things up.

I just picked a very conservative .5% for sake of argument

Date: 2011/11/13 16:26:51, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)
forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html
 
Quote
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.

Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!

Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...

Date: 2011/11/13 17:05:27, Link
Author: forastero
Btw,

I recall The Flood: In the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology and Henry Morris Genesis record being good

Christian Research Institute is good

..but I am sure there are better ones

Date: 2011/11/13 18:10:50, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,17:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:51)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.

And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count

See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.

Good try but all the evolution guys edit doodoo like flies so your just sewing more lies

Sorry to burst your bubble forastero

But you see this:
Quote
Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2011,09:31


This statement will appear on any post edited.  So, IF the post where I claimed to already know about something was edited, then you would be able to tell.

But whatever.

It still doesn't change the fact that you don't have a clue.

Nov. 07 2011,10:14 For example, the decay rate of radioactive materials and the speed of light.  The energy released in H-H fusion.  None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so).

Nov. 07 2011,14:33 My research shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun.

Nov. 08 2011,12:10 “We aren't dismissing the gravity (ahem) of the fluctuations. We're dismissing your claim that they exist.”


See, Scientific flipflopping

Date: 2011/11/13 18:16:21, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2011,17:53)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)
forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html
   
Quote
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.

Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!

Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...

Absolutley untrue.

Quote


Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:05)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
Oh so thats why you you feel the need to focus "only" on this problem while ignoring the contamination and calibration problems that I keep asking  you about

I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.

And still waiting.

Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions

Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.



Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.

Again, the ancient cultures of the Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic peoples claimed to have got it passed down from Noah or a Noah-like hero or imposter

Date: 2011/11/13 23:25:41, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,18:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2011,17:53)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)
forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html
   
Quote
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.

Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!

Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...

Absolutley untrue.

 
Quote


 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:05)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
Oh so thats why you you feel the need to focus "only" on this problem while ignoring the contamination and calibration problems that I keep asking  you about

I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.

And still waiting.

Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions

Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.



Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.

Again, the ancient cultures of the Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic peoples claimed to have got it passed down from Noah or a Noah-like hero or imposter

How is that when they didnt even appear in the Table of Nations until after the Flood?

Date: 2011/11/15 10:29:49, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05)
Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by:


Where lambda is the decay constant.

If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is:



(see Radiometric Dating to see how the second equation is derived from the first).

Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample:



we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%.

(How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.)

This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth:



which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda.

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

Date: 2011/11/15 11:07:11, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 14 2011,21:20)
JonF whips out some maths and some of us are left to stir our toes in the dirt. (Hope he doesn't call on me.)

But now forastero-Kong has some shiny new tools with which to approach these questions:

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?  

Does Elvis leave buildings?

This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

So called millions of years of sedimentary and magma mixing, flooding, erosion, and uplift, yet no contamination in the rocks? Nah, just more more radiomagic formula waving from crony academicism.

Date: 2011/11/15 12:10:32, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 15 2011,10:21)
I think we're at the point where the muppet disappears for a day or two, then comes back with the next stack of quotemines and unread links.  I don't think we've had the second law of thermodynamics, Walt Brown or the Paluxy footprints yet.

Or he might have reached his quota for his diploma in tard from DrDrD, and be off celebrating in the cafeteria.

You mean that you knew that even your fellow evolutionists find Pb-Pb dating inaccurate

238U/235U Variations in Meteorites: Extant 247Cm and Implications for Pb-Pb Dating
G. A. Brennecka,1* S. Weyer,2† M. Wadhwa,1 P. E. Janney,1 J. Zipfel,3 A. D. Anbar1,4       2010

The 238U/235U isotope ratio has long been considered invariant in meteoritic materials (equal to
137.88). This assumption is a cornerstone of the high-precision lead-lead dates that define the
absolute age of the solar system. Calcium-aluminum–rich inclusions (CAIs) of the Allende meteorite
display variable 238U/235U ratios, ranging between 137.409 T 0.039 and 137.885 T 0.009. This
range implies substantial uncertainties in the ages that were previously determined
by lead-lead dating of CAIs, which may be overestimated by several million years. The correlation
of uranium isotope ratios with proxies for curium/uranium (that is, thorium/uranium and
neodymium/uranium) provides strong evidence that the observed variations of 238U/235U in CAIs
were produced by the decay of extant curium-247 to uranium-235 in the early solar system,
with an initial 247Cm/235U ratio of approximately 1.1 × 10?4 to 2.4 × 10?4.

Date: 2011/11/15 12:15:19, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 15 2011,11:17)
I know you've been very busy eating cheezits and whatnot, but have you had time to figure out how you derive the growth rate in your population calculation?

Still waiting.

I got the very conservative growth rate from the link that I provided. Again, what growth rate would you prefer?

Date: 2011/11/15 12:22:54, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 15 2011,12:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)

This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

As I understand the words "random" and "infinite", this is a simple truth.  The monkey will in fact produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times, as well as an infinite number of copies of the CWS with one typo, the CWS with two typos, and so on.  This is the nature of infinity.

Do you dispute this, and if so on what grounds?

Common sense tells the rational world that its faith based pseudoempericsm

Date: 2011/11/15 14:50:27, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,17:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:56)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.

And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count

See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.

Here's a hint, just look at the billions of tons of coal and petroleo

Hey ogre so what is your big bang theory?
And when you gonna list all these so called geologic columns you keep harping on?

Really forastero?  There is a single coal formation that covers the entire world.  Really?  Which one?  What's the name of it and IS IT PRESENT IN ALL 26 LOCATIONS WITH A COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD?

You see, your claim is that a flood existed.  Your claim requires that there be ONE formation of sediment (which it barely is, because of the metamorphic properties that must happen to produce coal).  

So, which coal formation is it.  For example: this website http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMR3.......n.shtml

lists a minimum of 42 coal beds (just in one are of VA) (I stopped counting there) that are interspersed with limestone, shales, and sandstones.  

So is it your contention that all coal was formed in the flood?  That is obviously impossible to square with reality.

So which coal bed should we be looking at?

Why do you think it is a coal bed?  
Considering the amount of sediment of all kinds that would result, why not a sandstone?  Obviously siltstones are right out.

I know you'll get right on that, since your previous answer was so detailed.  BTW: How do you know or is that just a Wild-Assed Guess from someone with no knowledge of geology, coal formation, or correlation?

You know my Big Bang theory.  It's the same as what modern cosmologists have come up with.  What's yours... you made a claim that you say is supported by scientists that something actually exploded to cause the big bang, what was it?  C4?  A mini-nuke?  antimatter?  quark-gluon plasma?  what?  And how do you know?

The geologic columns I keep harping on the ones where you need to do your work to support your claims.  It should be very easy, I've given you several hints, or do you just need someone to do your work for you?  Because I'm not interested.

Comon, 26 geologic columns, spread all over the world, contain complete sequences from precambrian to tertiary.  First, I believe you claimed that was wrong... so it should be easy to prove my claim is wrong.  Just find out if they exist or not.
Second, your claim that a great flood that buried the entire Earth existed would result in a single layer of sediment that should be visible all over the world (we do have one example of a layer that appears all over the world).  Where is it?  What layer and how do you know?

Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort.

As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11

Date: 2011/11/15 14:56:00, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html.  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.

Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."

Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable. Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are known to be stable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation.

Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above

Date: 2011/11/15 15:19:47, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,12:53)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,09:13)
I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.

I think I'm hurt.  Forastero skipped right past my question.  sigh... how will I ever go on?

BTW: I still want to know how a global flood can carve a meandering channel in limestone and then deposit 17,000 feet of sediment on top of it.

Shall I add this and the varve question to your outstanding list?  I know you'll explain exactly what exploded to cause the Big Bang any time now.  Oh, and don't forget the cal bed that covers the Earth.  I really want to know about that one.  

Think about it a coal bed that's on the order of 17,000 feet thick and covers the entire Earth.  Talk about being a billionaire.  Just tell me where to look forastero.

The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf

Date: 2011/11/15 15:26:14, Link
Author: forastero
Oops I made a typo above--it should say Unstable as I capitalized below

Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable. Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are often known to be UNstable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation.

Date: 2011/11/15 21:39:38, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.


Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html.  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.


Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."



Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.

 
Quote

Your link dont work
because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you?


[snip]

Quote
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above


I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation.

I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).  
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin

Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….  and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too

Date: 2011/11/15 21:44:37, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,09:13)
I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.

Most, if not all Fossil fuels contain c14 so yeah

Date: 2011/11/15 22:02:10, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (khan @ Nov. 15 2011,17:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:50)
Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort.

As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11

Oh crap, a Troofer?

Actually, if you had took the time to read up on the word pyrolysis, you'd have understood that it can explain the molten metals and heat without the use of micronukes (popular with truthers).

Date: 2011/11/15 22:36:04, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 14 2011,02:21)
Unfortunately the Table of Nations was written in the seventh century BCE as a post-hoc explanation of the nations of the time. A good clue that this section was written at this time is that while some of the nations mentioned only recently appeared in the 8-7 centuries and certainly weren't started at around 2000BCE

This is the Table of Nations descended from Ham, Japheth, and Shem http://ldolphin.org/ntable.....le.html

Btw, read these quotes from the great Biblical archaeologists"

Sir Frederic Kenyon mentions, "The evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting."

William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.

"Millar Burrows of Yale states, "On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record.

"Joseph Free confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.Scientific explorer

Edward Robinson. identified the location or ruins of literally hundreds of biblical towns palaces and monuments of the very kings recorded in the Scriptures. Some even contained accounts of military campaigns that matched the Bible’s as well as carvings depicting the actual battles. (See "The Mighty Assyrian Empire Emerges From the Dust,")

Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

Date: 2011/11/16 10:35:40, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,08:27)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:50)
Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort.

As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11

1) It's not my job to do your work for you.  You want to create positive evidence, then do so.  It should be trivial for you to prove me wrong, if indeed these 26 locations with complete geologic columns from precambrian to present exist.  All you have to do is show that they don't (they do, but you don't know that, which is hilarious to me).

2) YOU claimed that the Big Bang was an explosion.  You say that many scientists agree with you.  It should be trivial then for you to tell me what exploded.  Please do so and quit trying to pin this on me.  It's YOUR claim, you support it (or admit that you can't).

3) They are not my scriptures.  

4)  
Quote
exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism
citation please

5)  
Quote
all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.


citation please

please DEFINE "Sudden"  1 year?  100,000 years?  42 million years?

And we're back to the Cambrian explosion again.  You've already admitted that these things occurred many, many times.  So, now, where, EXACTLY should I be looking for the flood strata?

Here's an interesting clue... in what era do the largest minable coal seams in the US belong?

So are you claiming that there is now coal at the bottom of the World Trade Center?

LOL the gift that keeps on giving.

Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....iferous

The map in the above link shows the the great Carboniferous coalfields of the U.S. quite well

...but for those actually interested in science, I'd suggest  Googling Carboniferous and any of the key words that I mentioned and you find I speak the truth but the following has quite a bit of it

As for the WTC, I was referring to the molten and carbonated balls of what-not

Date: 2011/11/16 10:44:08, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:00)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:39)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)
       
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.


Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html.  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.


Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."



Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.

     
Quote

Your link dont work
because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you?


[snip]

   
Quote
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above


I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation.

I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).  
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin

If you read the links I provided long ago, you would understand how the Ar-Ar method (which is another atypical isochron method, and seldom considered as an isochron method) compensates for this.
 
Quote
Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….  

Fascinating. Most people that frantically Google to try to find information about dating at least come up with facts, even if those facts belie creationism.

You, OTOH, come up with lies. Where are you getting this crap from?

Right off the top of my head I can tell you that 40K is not cosmogenic. The other isotopes you mention, cosmogenic or not, are not relevant.

 
Quote
and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too

Reality doesn't care what surprises you. 40Ar is not cosmogenic. The fact that so many K-Ar dates agree with other methods that are not sensitive to the initial amount of daughter isotope, and studies of modern-day lavas, proves that "excess argon" in quantities sufficient to be significant is a rare phenomenon.

We have a claim that isochron methods involve multiple radioisotopes... false except for Pb-Pb, which is a special case. We have a claim that the daughter products used in 99% of isochron methods are themselves unstable... false.  Now a claim that parent and daughter isotopes used in isochron dating are cosmogenic... false.

You just keep on going and going, don't you?

Oh so my isochrons are atypical. Again, the A-A isochron that I listed is now more popular than yours.

Oh and go to google and do this: " cosmogenic 40k "

Date: 2011/11/16 10:47:08, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,10:42)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35)
Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous

But why would you bother reading that when the very first line talks about millions of years, and you flatly deny that the earth is in fact millions of years old.

If the first line is wrong, according to you, what value can the rest possibly have?

Because when the Nazis controlled and manipulated  science and art and food, etc... etc..., people still wanted to live

Date: 2011/11/16 11:09:02, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:56)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html.  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.

Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."

Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable.

And what you said said was wrong.

 
Quote
Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are known to be stable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation.

Such as what, and what references say this?

 

Most Ar isotope decay either alpha or beta radioactivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......f_argon

Most  Sr isotopes decay beta, alpha, or electron capture radioactivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium  

Most Nd isotopes  decay beta radioactivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......odymium

Most Ba isotopes  decay beta or Isomeric radioactivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._barium

Most Hf isotopes that almost always decays beta, alpha, Isomeric, or electron capture  radioactivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......hafnium

Most Ne isotopes decay beta  radioactivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......of_neon

Most Os isotopes decay beta, alpha, Isomeric, or electron capture  radioactivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._osmium

Most U isotopes decay beta or fission  radioactivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......uranium

Oh and you can also see that some of the isotopes that correspond to the so called stable isotopes actually decay

Date: 2011/11/16 11:21:11, Link
Author: forastero
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)
 
Quote
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

And those independent age determinations almost always result in confirming the isochron age. E.g. Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton and Radiometeric Dating Does Work!.

 
Quote
Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above

You still haven't figured out how sedimentary layers are dated. Repeating myself from page 27:

Quote
Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate.

Sure. After you read my references and figure out what's going