Should evolution be taught in high school?

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you mean you don't see any reference in Schweitzers research? It's clear as a bell! Why are you denying it? I quoted her own words. Are you saying she's a liar and the peer review process failed?

We are saying you did not understand what she said, in context.

[TedHOhio]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree, but for the uneducated any transitional fossil could be called a missing link. There will always be some links never filled, it is the nature of the fossil record. Of course saying that is evidence of a miracle is the same as saying a miracle occurred if you did not have photographic evidence of your grandfather, but you had photographic evidence of your father and great grandfather.
And we could even claim that the missing link has been found, it is Homo Erectus. That is the imaginary line that Duane Gish and another creationist drew for us. I can't remember which creatard claimed what but they obviously forgot to talk to each other one claimed that H erectus was definitely a man and the other claimed he was definitely an ape. Of course the break off point from chimpanzees and bonobos was much earlier than that, I just love to use this as proof that even creationist "experts" cannot agree on who is a man and who is an ape.

And they never will agree, because if they actually settled on a specific definition, we would use it to demolish even more of their arguments. As it is, we keep demolishing moving targets, a little more challenging, but not significantly.

[Dogen]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to laugh at Urb who was so critical of radiometric dating (which is based on half-lives) but now hangs his hat on the very fuzzy DNA half-life.

The whole science he is now embracing has been long subject to his denial efforts. It is amusing for him to now go on as if all these dating methods are true AND still deny dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Sadly, he will never understand why this makes us laugh.

[One way or another]

The silly children are always having to make excuses and be deceitful, because they run their mouths before actually understanding.

They degrade every site they are on.

[Ooogah Boogah]

One way or another wrote:

What a piece of shit science is, claiming that light can carry images.

Explain a pinhole lens then..... I'll wait.

[Urban Cowboy]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would you go with birds and reptile DNA (remember, I am asking a creationist)?

As I recall, your est. was 3B bp.

[Urban Cowboy]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
We are saying you did not understand what she said, in context.

I thought she made herself quite clear. But just out of curiosity, what is your understanding of what she said?

[Chimney1]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You can blabber all you want but you still did it wrong. Stop making excuses and learn to use the big boy formulas. It's not that difficult. If you simply divide time into smaller portions all you wind up with is equal parts of the whole. Half life doesn't work like that. Grow a set.

Stop wallowing in your foolishness.

A repeated halving follows the pattern of 1 / 2 (to the power of number of halvings).

Get over it, idiot. Its what I said, its what is true by any logic, and its bloody basic. Now STFU and get on with it.

[Chimney1]

One way or another wrote:

<quoted text>
Must you always prove you are a moron.
Radio waves can travel through walls.
Go back to kindergarten .

You are so funny, you idiot.

[Chimney1]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You can blabber all you want but you still did it wrong. Stop making excuses and learn to use the big boy formulas. It's not that difficult. If you simply divide time into smaller portions all you wind up with is equal parts of the whole. Half life doesn't work like that. Grow a set.

No, I did it right. Pity you cannot see that. Just shows you are a rote learner.
How many halvings over 65m years? 124,700 if halving every 521 years.
So how much material left? 1/2^124,760. In other words nothing, even if the sample size was massive.
Don't even comprehend how you can maintain your silliness on this, but doubly amused that my conclusion agrees with you that if the half life is 521 years, there could not be any intact DNA after 65 million.
So why are you being an idiot?

[Chimney1]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
The starting point is the genome size of T-rex which I est. at 2B bp. Seems reasonable. Birds and reptiles range around 1B to 3B bps. Sorry, but nobody to my knowledge has ever sequenced a dino DNA last time I checked. Maybe you have another suggestion?

Listen, idiot. It would not matter if you started with 2B or 200B or 2000B, if the half life is 521 years there will be no intact DNA sequence after 65 million years. 1/2^124,7000 is less than 1 / every particle in the universe.

But never mind. Even when my (correctly calculated) conclusion agrees with your rote learning of formulas without comprehension, you still beg to differ.

Poor you.

[Janitor Of The LORD]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
What is simple for all minds, should be simple for the simple minded. That does not appear to be the case. Do you have evidence to support your claims of there being a god, specifically your god?

Can you prove me wrong? Of course not. And why should you care? I don't care about where you wish spend eternity. Should I?

[Chimney1]

Janitor Of The LORD wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you prove me wrong? Of course not. And why should you care? I don't care about where you wish spend eternity. Should I?

I expect she will spend eternity dead, as you will. You don't think your little fairy tales are going to preserve you from real death, do you?

Shit, another coward.

[Janitor Of The LORD]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I expect she will spend eternity dead, as you will. You don't think your little fairy tales are going to preserve you from real death, do you?
Shit, another coward.

Why do you care what I think? I don't tell you what to think. God only knows somebody should though. ROTFLOL

[Urban Cowboy]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Listen, idiot. It would not matter if you started with 2B or 200B or 2000B, if the half life is 521 years there will be no intact DNA sequence after 65 million years. 1/2^124,7000 is less than 1 / every particle in the universe.
But never mind. Even when my (correctly calculated) conclusion agrees with your rote learning of formulas without comprehension, you still beg to differ.
Poor you.

Wha..whaaa...cry like a baby. Your math is wrong and is total nonsense. You refuse to use the proper formula. You insist on denying reality due to your ideology. Wha..waaa. Idiot cry baby!

[Dogen]

One way or another wrote:

The silly children are always having to make excuses and be deceitful, because they run their mouths before actually understanding.
They degrade every site they are on.

Translation: you got refuted again.

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
As I recall, your est. was 3B bp.

I would call it more of a guesstimate than an estimate.

The number of base pairs is, again, not really the issue.

The real issue is that DNA does not seem to have a set decay rate but is dependent upon the environment it is in. The "half-life" of DNA is an average based on one set of circumstances

[Chimney1]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text

Your math is wrong and is total nonsense. You refuse to use the proper formula. You insist on denying reality due to your ideology. Wha..waaa. Idiot cry baby!

Sorry Urb, but anyone inspecting my maths would agree that in this very simple case, there is no dispute. I am right. Given a sample halving every x years, the remainder of the sample will be 1/2^(halvings), and number of halvings will be (total years / x)

Dingbat. Its simpleness. Embarassed for you if you cannot see it.

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought she made herself quite clear. But just out of curiosity, what is your understanding of what she said?

Essentially that fragments of what had once been DNA still existed after over 65 million years.

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Wha..whaaa...cry like a baby. Your math is wrong and is total nonsense. You refuse to use the proper formula. You insist on denying reality due to your ideology. Wha..waaa. Idiot cry baby!

LOL. You are a complete retard.

Science requires comprehension.