Evolution vs. Creation

[Kong_]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
No, they may have been found in an unconsolidated sandstone. Your article said that the origin of the whale bones was holocene. It rather politely said that they were planted in the sandstone.
I grew up on a farm with outcrops of what I later learned were St. Peter Sandstone. It is about 470 million years old. It wold form a tough surface that could be easily punctured. Once you were through that you did not use a hammer on it, you used a shovel. It is a very pure quartz sandstone. Quartz by itself does not make a very good cement at all. Where St Peter Sandstone is "quarried" it is dug up for the purity of its sand which has quite a few industrial uses. I am betting that this was the same kind of quarry. All it would take to place the bones in such an outcrop is a shovel and a willingness to dig.

I defer to your interpretation of the data.

But the items in question were whale BONES. Not "FOSSILS".

Which in and of itself would preclude them from being 291M years old.

[AustinHook]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Where did I say that... cells reproduce sexually? where?

There is a kind of sexuality in some single celled species where they stick together and exchange genetic material. More classic sexuality is seen pretty soon in some small multi-celled organisms, like hydra, which reproduce in sexual and non-sexual ways. BTW, hydra have a little advantage over the rest of us, since they are immortal (barring accidents). I guess if we were like them, religion would have less appeal

Even smaller is the diatom, a single celled organism which reproduces both ways. It reproduces by division and also can split out into 4 sperms or an egg.

The smallest organisms to reproduce ONLY sexually are probably some of the worms. It's not area of my expertise, but I did, as a child, keep some planaria (flatworms), and it was possible to cut then lengthwise and end up with two healthy worms after they regenerated.

[Cybele]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
What is a binary code?
How does a computer use binary codes?
Can you explain the actions a binary code had on a gate array?
How does a binary code effect a computer display?
Does an analogue computer use binary codes?

You can easily find the answer on google.

The core of computing is binary encoding. The premise is that each of the transistor switches is either on of off, represented by 1 or 0. Each bit is a BInary digiT.

Each of these switches is more-or-less useless on its own. However, you can arrange them in a sequence to get some logic.

Humans use hexadecimal representation as a form of shorthand for binary. That's a 16-base number system that goes from 0-9 then a-f, then rolls over from 0f to 10.

When you write a computer program, the compiler converts your code into opcode, a hex representation of the binary stream. The CPU interprets the opcodes and follows the program, manipulating bits in the accumulator section. In other words, it reads the binary code and uses that code to switch bits on and off in its "brain". The outgoing data is then sent to various locations in the computer, such as to the sound card, video card, hard disk, RAM, etc. You can do this by mapping each location to a virtual location in the computer. For example, you could set the address 0x2000 to be the sound card, and when you write the data 0x5e41 to 0x2000, the sound card will interpret that data and put out an analog signal to the speakers. You could also read the data at location 0x3000 to see what's on that location in the hard drive.

[Cybele]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Cybele does not do analogies.
He was saying that they have their ways of measuring rates of mutation. Of course actual rates may vary a bit from the laboratory results just like the measurement of speed that your speedometer gives you may not, in fact will not, be one hundred percent accurate.

What are their ways of measuring mutation rates? There are more than one method? that's hard to believe.

[KittenKoder]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
The computer uses binary codes, duh

That's about a succinct and answer as we can expect ... from someone who knows nothing about computer technology.

Did you know that every single pixel, that's what the little colored dots on your monitor are called, is actually a number? Well, three numbers, technically four but the fourth is not used unless you have it set to utilize the extra data, but then you have to have a faster processor as it has to bit align the data or all you get is garbage, then you need a graphics card capable of matching that setting as well, or it will realign the bits and all that effort is wasted. Most images stored in data formats are 32 bit, or 64 bit but I don't see why people are so excited about that extra data being used since our eyes cannot detect the difference at a reasonable distance of viewing. Each number, typically 32 bits of data lumped together sequentially into a byte, represent intensities of color, by varying the three primary colors of red, green, and blue, you can create almost any color, I say almost because being binary limits the values between 1 and 0, full on and full off. The fourth value is often used as the alpha channel for data format images, the alpha channel is "how much" to mix that color with the color it's being put over, but only the png format utilizes this to the fullest potential, others will just be one or off like the gif format.

.... and that's just a tiny, very tiny, bit of information on how a computer works now. So tiny it would take a million of these posts just to explain the very basics.

[Charles Idemi]

tony1003 wrote:

<quoted text>
I am English and I do not know you are right. If you look at old English, it is more similar to old German than it is to modern English. Like any living language, it has changed over the centuries. On arrival, the Angles and Saxons were speaking old German. This gradually mutated as elements of Scaninavian, and particularly French entered it with subsequent invasions. If you want to hear the descendant of the language spoken by the Britons before the Germanic invasion, you need to listen to Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish. That was the original language of these islands. England as a country does not comne into existence until the ninth century AD. History 101.

Again, you are misquoting my post. I understand what you are saying, my position is not on Great Britain or the UK, but on England and the English language.
English is native to England, because it was first spoken there.

[Subduction Zone]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Feathes are not an avian trait, you idiot. You should know that feathers have been found on dinosaurs. TRex had feathers.
Hence Arch having feathers is not in intermediate trait at all. It was when these bright sparks did not know that dinos had feathers but they do now, and you say that you kow of it.
Flying is not an avian trait either you goose. eg bats and insects, pterodactyl, fish can glide and so can other mammals.
So why do you site feathers as being an intermediate trait when they are not? Why do you site flying is an avian trait?
I suggest that the answer is because in actual fact you have no clue, you just want to prattle on because you have faith with nothing of substance to base it on.

You don't read or reason to well, do you. I mentioned the fact that other dinosaurs had feathers. And flying, yes other animals fly too, but it is also an avian trait. Or are you saying that birds don't fly?

I did not say that feathers are an intermediate trait. They are of course, since an intermediate species would have them. So thanks for pointing that out too.

Poor Maz, still has no clue. Still get's mad when she is shown to be an utter fool.

[KittenKoder]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
You can easily find the answer on google.
The core of computing is binary encoding. The premise is that each of the transistor switches is either on of off, represented by 1 or 0. Each bit is a BInary digiT.
Each of these switches is more-or-less useless on its own. However, you can arrange them in a sequence to get some logic.
Humans use hexadecimal representation as a form of shorthand for binary. That's a 16-base number system that goes from 0-9 then a-f, then rolls over from 0f to 10.
When you write a computer program, the compiler converts your code into opcode, a hex representation of the binary stream. The CPU interprets the opcodes and follows the program, manipulating bits in the accumulator section. In other words, it reads the binary code and uses that code to switch bits on and off in its "brain". The outgoing data is then sent to various locations in the computer, such as to the sound card, video card, hard disk, RAM, etc. You can do this by mapping each location to a virtual location in the computer. For example, you could set the address 0x2000 to be the sound card, and when you write the data 0x5e41 to 0x2000, the sound card will interpret that data and put out an analog signal to the speakers. You could also read the data at location 0x3000 to see what's on that location in the hard drive.

Okay, that's one of a billion bits of information, I don't Google computer technology, I understand how it works because I have been studying it my whole life. Can you answer anything without Google? How about this question:

How does the Google search engine work? What is the algorithm they use and why does it often pull up only links relevant to your previous searches?

[Subduction Zone]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
What are their ways of measuring mutation rates? There are more than one method? that's hard to believe.

Read the article, it should say there. If not you need to talk to a geneticist. That sort of topic would be well understood by a geneticist. When I see that it is a peer reviewed journal and does not appear to be fringy I trust that the peer reviewers knew their job when they let certain claims through. If you don't trust them then you have to learn the science for yourself.

[KittenKoder]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't read or reason to well, do you. I mentioned the fact that other dinosaurs had feathers. And flying, yes other animals fly too, but it is also an avian trait. Or are you saying that birds don't fly?
I did not say that feathers are an intermediate trait. They are of course, since an intermediate species would have them. So thanks for pointing that out too.
Poor Maz, still has no clue. Still get's mad when she is shown to be an utter fool.

Technically, isn't it only bats that actually fly? Others really just glide?

Not countering your points, just that I have heard of no other mammals actually flying.

[MazHere]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
No, they may have been found in an unconsolidated sandstone. Your article said that the origin of the whale bones was holocene. It rather politely said that they were planted in the sandstone.
I grew up on a farm with outcrops of what I later learned were St. Peter Sandstone. It is about 470 million years old. It wold form a tough surface that could be easily punctured. Once you were through that you did not use a hammer on it, you used a shovel. It is a very pure quartz sandstone. Quartz by itself does not make a very good cement at all. Where St Peter Sandstone is "quarried" it is dug up for the purity of its sand which has quite a few industrial uses. I am betting that this was the same kind of quarry. All it would take to place the bones in such an outcrop is a shovel and a willingness to dig.

The land form rose above the sea over 290 million years ago. The rest is speculative prattle.

They say not all was above simply because of the whale bones in one explanation. IOW they have speculated parts of the geology based on evolutionary assumptions and nothing more.

IOW the simplicity of these fossils simply being there because that is where they were when the land rose is just too simple for evos and it wrecks their TOE on whales totally. No dino fossils is also explained by your researchers who say they were dragged away by ice sheets. Meaning the land must have sunk or the sea rise above the land form since the last ice age. Der!!!

So whether you like it or not, accept the interpretattion or not, Michagan rose above the sea over 290mya and that is where the whale fossils were found. The rubbish about rising seas is another of many explanations, sounds more like a desperate bedtime story.

Evos hate pasimony and love comlications and will turn any evidence for creation into a mysrery with their hubris.

The other side of the coin is that evolutionists only have fraudulent misreprentation as their support for whale ancestry.

Hence again I say, that no support I provide for my view could possibly be worse than what evolutionists have to present.

The data, whale bones found in strata over 290myo, is hand waved away by numerous hand waving and complicated scenarios, as usual.

[Knightkore]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't read or reason to well, do you. I mentioned the fact that other dinosaurs had feathers. And flying, yes other animals fly too, but it is also an avian trait. Or are you saying that birds don't fly?
I did not say that feathers are an intermediate trait. They are of course, since an intermediate species would have them. So thanks for pointing that out too.
Poor Maz, still has no clue. Still get's mad when she is shown to be an utter fool.

Wouldn't they be considered dragons then? See...I told you...dragons...evolution...

[Knightkore]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Technically, isn't it only bats that actually fly? Others really just glide?
Not countering your points, just that I have heard of no other mammals actually flying.

Hmm...the airlines are really going to be disappointed...

[Subduction Zone]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
I defer to your interpretation of the data.
But the items in question were whale BONES. Not "FOSSILS".
Which in and of itself would preclude them from being 291M years old.

Yes, from the beautiful short but sweet article that you linked:

Preservation: original phosphate, anthropogenic

Four were words that say so much.

"Preservation" or how the bones were preserved.

"original phosphate" here it says that the bones were the original bones, and our bones are largely phosphate. So there it is, no fossilization.

And that leaves the last and most beautiful word: "anthropogenic". Or in other words, people done did put it thar!

In four short words it says that those aren't fossils, they are original bones, and somebody put them in the quarry.

[Knightkore]

http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Fossils.html

Biology and The Fossils

When the very first evolutionists began lining up fossils to show that these species had evolved from each other and to prove the concept of evolution, they did not have one piece of biological evidence that any one organism actually did evolve from any one other organism. What they did was to assume (with no scientific basis) that more simple organisms were more primitive and then line the fossils up according to similarities in relation to this assumption.

In other words, there was no evidence that evolution did actually occur. All they did was to line the fossils up in some logical order and CLAIM that they had evolved with absolutely no supporting biological evidence. To this day, evolutionists don't have any biological proof that any one fossil did evolve from any one other fossil. Therefore, they don't have any biological proof that evolution did even occur.

The proof of this is how the evolutionists have and still do constantly move these fossils around in their tree of evolution. If there were scientific evidence that any one fossil actually did evolve from any one other fossil, they would not be able to move these fossils at all. Oops!

Therefore, evolutionists "theory" of evolution is really nothing more than a scientifically unfounded and unsupported CLAIM that life did evolve. I call their very detailed fossil stories fossil fairy tales.

----------

Does Simple = Primitive?

If we go where man has never gone before (again) to our planet and use molecular construction of living organisms to farm life on our new planet, we have to create a completely balanced ecosystem or it will eventually collapse and kill our colonists. Therefore, we must create the simplest organisms at the same time we create the most complex organisms. Biology teaches us that life could continue much longer without the more complex organisms than without the simplest organisms. Therefore, the simplest organisms are required for life to exist on our new planet.

Therefore, I ask,"Are these simple organisms more primitive or are they just structured differently to serve a different function in our ecosystem?"

----------

[ChristineM]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
…
deleted on the grounds that the only thing worse than a liar is a paedophile, don’t ya just love the reputation you are earning for yourself
…
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by hubris that explains the data and hand waves it away

Are you still hawking those discredited sites and lying about the credible ones. Completely expected of course

We have been here before and you have been shown to be falsifying your information, lying, relying on lies, misinformation and BS, and selectively, using misdirection, promoting only the parts of the paper that suit your discredited view and ignoring the entirety of the paper, i.e. cherry picking and quote mining. Not only by myself but by several other posters and from several different angles.

I really, when you said again that you could provide evidence thought you had actually found some real evidence but nope, once again you disappoint me

So still waiting for you to keep you word and supply ACTUAL evidence

And still waiting for you to apologise for calling me a liar when I proved it was you who was lying by posting links to the posts that proved you to be a liar

[Subduction Zone]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
The land form rose above the sea over 290 million years ago. The rest is speculative prattle.
They say not all was above simply because of the whale bones in one explanation. IOW they have speculated parts of the geology based on evolutionary assumptions and nothing more.
IOW the simplicity of these fossils simply being there because that is where they were when the land rose is just too simple for evos and it wrecks their TOE on whales totally. No dino fossils is also explained by your researchers who say they were dragged away by ice sheets. Meaning the land must have sunk or the sea rise above the land form since the last ice age. Der!!!
So whether you like it or not, accept the interpretattion or not, Michagan rose above the sea over 290mya and that is where the whale fossils were found. The rubbish about rising seas is another of many explanations, sounds more like a desperate bedtime story.
Evos hate pasimony and love comlications and will turn any evidence for creation into a mysrery with their hubris.
The other side of the coin is that evolutionists only have fraudulent misreprentation as their support for whale ancestry.
Hence again I say, that no support I provide for my view could possibly be worse than what evolutionists have to present.
The data, whale bones found in strata over 290myo, is hand waved away by numerous hand waving and complicated scenarios, as usual.

Are you STILL trying to defend that unbelievable bit of trash. Boy, your sources must be awfully dear to you. If I find I have been quoting trash I apologize to people for using that source and never use it again.

One more time. Did you read Kong's article. I still have it handy:

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl...

In four short words they said: This is crap! Hey, I just did it in three. Of course their words were rather all scientfical weren't they. It sounded so much better when they said it:

"Preservation: original phosphate, anthropogenic"

Or in short: Maz is full of crap.

[KittenKoder]

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmm...the airlines are really going to be disappointed...

That was genuinely funny.

[MazHere]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't read or reason to well, do you. I mentioned the fact that other dinosaurs had feathers. And flying, yes other animals fly too, but it is also an avian trait. Or are you saying that birds don't fly?
I did not say that feathers are an intermediate trait. They are of course, since an intermediate species would have them. So thanks for pointing that out too.
Poor Maz, still has no clue. Still get's mad when she is shown to be an utter fool.

You have lost your evidence for intermediacy and you lot are still struggling.

If dinos had feathers and birds have feathers then feathers are not intermediate. That is one reason why Rhuben suggests that there was a common ancestor that was neither bird nor dino.

So feather were FIRST a dino trait, not a bird trait, so arch was not showing intermediate mic of dino and bird traits, it was showing more dino traits.

Look you struggler. Even the evolutionist himself states arch's traits are no longer intermediate because they have been found in dinos.

Feathers are no longer unique to birds and cannot be relied on. Flight never was as kitten said showing again what an unthinking looser you actually are.

Are you going to suck this up or will I repost the reseach and make a fool of you that way instead?

What about the fraud around the furcula?

[Subduction Zone]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Technically, isn't it only bats that actually fly? Others really just glide?
Not countering your points, just that I have heard of no other mammals actually flying.

Insects definitely fly. They generate lift, they can fly in no wind from a low spot to a higher spot. Pterodactyls flew. The rest glide, so far. In a few million years some of those may have moved on to flight too. There is more than one road to flight. Mav does not seem to realize that traits are not exclusive. Just because one group of animals has a trait does not mean that others can't have the same trait too.