It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

[15th Dalai Lama]

Feklahr wrote:

<quoted text>
http://contenderministries.org/
(you left the "d" out)
Oh, I will be back a little later, I am going to pour bleach in my eyes and self lobotomize with alcohol.

http://contenderministries.org/

Sorry, go easy on the bleach.

[Darwins Stepchild]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Typical liberal, thinks others can't think for themselves. If my views are as crazy and wacky as you claim, why in the world would anyone accept them? Why would you worry that someone else might accept these crazy views, and only you can set them straight? The truth is, you are not making any sence, and you are scared because I am.

Marky, you claim that people don't accept wacky views. If so, please explain Scientology.

A great many people accept utter BS all the time. Astrology, numerology, Pyramidology, fundamentalism...the list goes on and on.

[polymath257]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>You seem to think that every condition for the results you have are constants. It just might not be as clear cut as you think. For example, carbon dating. Carbon dating my be reliable as long as the conditions are steady, but what if there were a time in history where the oxygen levels were doubled, or the barometric pressure was tripled.....etc. Then the results would be skewed and flawed.

First, ANYONE who brings up carbon dating when dealing with geological time is either lying or ignorant. The laf-life of carbon-14 is about 5700 years. Each half-life leaves half the previous amount of C-14. That means that in 10 half-lives (i.e. 57000 years), there remaining C-14 is less than 1 in 1000 from what it was to start with. For 20 half-lives (114000 years), the amount is well below our detection levels. This is why carbon dating is limited to the last 50,000 years or so.

Second, the other types of radioactive dating have *much* longer half-lives, which is what is required to measure geological time. For example, Potassium-Argon has a half-life of 1.26 *billion* years.

Third, you can ask how we know that these rates are constant. The answer is that we have tried to make those rates change through pressure, temperature, chemical environment, etc. Unless you have temperatures in the *millions* of degrees or pressures in the *thousands of atmosphere* or have neutron fluxes enough to kill everything living, the changes in decays rates are *at most* one tenth of one percent: not nearly enough to affect the dates in a significant way.

Finally, carbon dates, because of the unique way in which C-14 is made in the atmosphere *are* variable, not because of changes in the decay rate, but because of changes in the production rate in the atmosphere. HOWEVER, we can calibrate against *other* dating methods, from tree-rings, to ice layers, etc to determine how to correlate C-14 levels with actual dates.

[Darwins Stepchild]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Science uses these processes, but Neptunes existence was not a valid scientific theory until it was observed. All your evidence is the same, but what if Neptune had not been where they predicted. According to you Neptunes existence would have still been valid. Of course, the observation is what all of a sudden confirmed the research. It's the same with human from non-human evolution, only unlike Neptune, you can't observe it to validate it.

But, according to your logic, the astronomers were wrong to even look to see if Neptune was really there. By your logic, Neptune hadn't been seen, therefore the astronomers were wrong to hypothesize it existed, and thus wrong to look where they hypothesized it should be. At least, according to you.

"Seeing" is not, however, the only way to make scientific observations. There are many, many things in science that have never been seen, yet have still been observed...

Electrons
Black holes
The solid iron core of the Earth
Volcanic formation
The cause of Earthquakes
Quarks
Neutrinos
The core of the Milky Way
Gamma rays
X rays
Gravity
Magnetism

Just to name a few. All of these have been inferred by observations, but have never been seen directly.

Are you going to claim that all of these are un-scientific?

[Kong_]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Marky, you claim that people don't accept wacky views. If so, please explain Scientology.
A great many people accept utter BS all the time. Astrology, numerology, Pyramidology, fundamentalism...the list goes on and on.

Not to mention

http://www.fixedearth.com/

[marksman11]

Dennis2 wrote:

<quoted text>
His points have been blown out of the water many times already. After a while, you just have to point and laugh at someone.

You pointing and laughing at Michael Behe is like Bozo laughing at The unknown Soldier.

[polymath257]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>You seem to think that every condition for the results you have are constants. It just might not be as clear cut as you think. For example, carbon dating. Carbon dating my be reliable as long as the conditions are steady, but what if there were a time in history where the oxygen levels were doubled, or the barometric pressure was tripled.....etc. Then the results would be skewed and flawed. There is no such thing, by definition, as historical certainty. You can look at reasons of why you think that mountain might exist, but the truth is, you can not be certain without observation, and as you said, some things can not be observed. If they can't, you can propose hypothesis of why they may exist, but you have to believe them in faith.

You might want to learn more about how radioactive dating is actually done:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

[tangled bank]

Dogen wrote:

What does your little diatribe about humanism have to do with the price of beans in south central Nebraska? Or is this your way of saying that all darwinsts (sic) are scientists which are also atheists, and therefor humanists and, hence, icky people that you are better than.

...you forgot to add "liberals" as one of the "icky" people who marksman is better than....

[marksman11]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
First, ANYONE who brings up carbon dating when dealing with geological time is either lying or ignorant. The laf-life of carbon-14 is about 5700 years. Each half-life leaves half the previous amount of C-14. That means that in 10 half-lives (i.e. 57000 years), there remaining C-14 is less than 1 in 1000 from what it was to start with. For 20 half-lives (114000 years), the amount is well below our detection levels. This is why carbon dating is limited to the last 50,000 years or so.

So if something is dated to be 12,000 years old, but ten thousand years ago, the oxygen level was twice what it is now, and barametric pressure was three times higher, which would effect the decay rate of carbon, this could not effect the accuracy of the subject dated to be 12,000 years old? Sorry, but I don't think mans knowledge is capable of including all the details that could possibly change the accuracy of results dating billions of years ago, or from knowing much of anything concerning a intersteller object millions of light years away. Sorry, you can believe that if you want, but I'm not. I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying I doubt they are right.

[Feklahr]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>So if something is dated to be 12,000 years old, but ten thousand years ago, the oxygen level was twice what it is now, and barametric pressure was three times higher, which would effect the decay rate of carbon, this could not effect the accuracy of the subject dated to be 12,000 years old? Sorry, but I don't think mans knowledge is capable of including all the details that could possibly change the accuracy of results dating billions of years ago, or from knowing much of anything concerning a intersteller object millions of light years away. Sorry, you can believe that if you want, but I'm not. I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying I doubt they are right.

*Wipes bleach tear from eye*

You know what, you are absolutely right. I guess it's a good thing scientists use more than one dating method to corroborate their findings, huh? HUH???

NEW TERM FOR MARKY FOR THE DAY: CORROBORATING EVIDENCE

[Kong_]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>So if something is dated to be 12,000 years old, but ten thousand years ago, the oxygen level was twice what it is now, and barametric pressure was three times higher, which would effect the decay rate of carbon, this could not effect the accuracy of the subject dated to be 12,000 years old? Sorry, but I don't think mans knowledge is capable of including all the details that could possibly change the accuracy of results dating billions of years ago, or from knowing much of anything concerning a intersteller object millions of light years away. Sorry, you can believe that if you want, but I'm not. I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying I doubt they are right.

I think I'll trust the opinions of learned professionials such as the writer at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html rather than your speculation, thankyouverymuch.

[Kong_]

Before you say it, the "opinions" of these learned professionals are derived from evidence and the experience in reading this evidence.

[marksman11]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
But, according to your logic, the astronomers were wrong to even look to see if Neptune was really there. By your logic, Neptune hadn't been seen, therefore the astronomers were wrong to hypothesize it existed, and thus wrong to look where they hypothesized it should be.

How do you conclude that? I've never said anyone was wrong just for looking. If you don't look, you can never observe. Continue to look at everything, but be honest and admit that if what you expect to be there, isn't there, then admit it and keep researching.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text> At least, according to you.
"Seeing" is not, however, the only way to make scientific observations. There are many, many things in science that have never been seen, yet have still been observed...
Electrons
Black holes
The solid iron core of the Earth
Volcanic formation
The cause of Earthquakes
Quarks
Neutrinos
The core of the Milky Way
Gamma rays
X rays
Gravity
Magnetism
Just to name a few. All of these have been inferred by observations, but have never been seen directly.
Are you going to claim that all of these are un-scientific?

Not at all, but they are just like human from non-human evolution, they are not valid theories. They may very well be very correct hypothesis, and very valid conclusions concerning them, and infact exist, but they, by definition, are not considered valid theories until they can, and have been, observed in adherence to the scientific method that defines what a valid theory is.. You can accept them in faith and principle, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. At least that is honest.

[marksman11]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Marky, you claim that people don't accept wacky views. If so, please explain Scientology.
A great many people accept utter BS all the time. Astrology, numerology, Pyramidology, fundamentalism...the list goes on and on.

When did I say that? But more, who is to determine who the wacky ones are? The wacky themselves?

[Dennis2]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>You pointing and laughing at Michael Behe is like Bozo laughing at The unknown Soldier.

Given that Behe is the marginalized, laughing stock of the biology and biochemistry world, your opinion is worthless. He embarrassed himself, and made a mockery of his position as a scientist, when he took the stand at the Dover trials...and pretty much every time he speaks of his ID fantasies.

[Feklahr]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>You pointing and laughing at Michael Behe is like Bozo laughing at The unknown Soldier.

You posting on Topix is like mindf*ck for John Graziano.

[MikeF]

You said this:

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Typical liberal, thinks others can't think for themselves. If my views are as crazy and wacky as you claim, why in the world would anyone accept them? Why would you worry that someone else might accept these crazy views, and only you can set them straight? The truth is, you are not making any sence, and you are scared because I am.

[MikeF]

Behe is Bozo.

[Feklahr]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>How do you conclude that? I've never said anyone was wrong just for looking. If you don't look, you can never observe. Continue to look at everything, but be honest and admit that if what you expect to be there, isn't there, then admit it and keep researching.<quoted text>Not at all, but they are just like human from non-human evolution, they are not valid theories. They may very well be very correct hypothesis, and very valid conclusions concerning them, and infact exist, but they, by definition, are not considered valid theories until they can, and have been, observed in adherence to the scientific method that defines what a valid theory is.. You can accept them in faith and principle, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. At least that is honest.

Do you consider *ME* evidence of two people having had sex? I doubt you watched my parents having sex, yet here I am.

I have f**king had it with you. You are an elite bulls**t artist.

[LowellGuy]

Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:

<quoted text>
I have found an interesting correlation between 15 year olds tested in science knowledge and a poll conducted in Europe, USA and Japan asking whether or not Human Beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.
In those countries that had a score where more than 80% responded with an affirmative answer, their 15 year olds scored higher than the USA students in science knowledge.
In this poll, USA ranked next to last with 40% affirmative answer, only Turkey scored last with 25% affirmative answer.Source: New Scientist Magazine, 19 April 2008, Vol 198 NO. 2652, page 31.
By the way, USA 15 year old students ranked 28th in world out of 55 countries on the science test.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
What does this tell us? It tells us that as long as we are arguing
whether or not to allow Intelligent Design in our science classes or to remove "Darwinism" from the science classes, 15 year olds in other countries are kicking our collective butts in science. We are destroying our children's science education in this inane folly.
Historians years from now will look back at this America's epoch and wonder in amazement how we as a nation destroy itself upon such antics.

Yeah, but, teh Jebus!