View Full Version : Hovind and Eden
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5056470106006523967
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5240112600444883198
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 10:28 AM
Enjoy (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2458231144188398089&q=unlocking+mystery&total=124&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5)
Enjoy (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2458231144188398089&q=unlocking+mystery&total=124&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5)
I haven't watched it yet, except for the first five minutes. I don't have time whil i am at work, but will watch it later. I do, however, know the cats in it. Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Paul Nelson and Steve Myer. I will do my best to keep an open mind, but these guys have been discredited already. So has the Discovery Institute where these guys work. At best the Discovery Institute is Intellectually Dishonest. Look man, there is a reason that zero ID papers have been through peer reviewed scientific journals. Sorry, and I understand for some it is an issue of faith, but science disagrees with these guys. BTW, many of these guys also say HIV doesn't lead to AIDS. Like I said, I will watch it, but will take it with a whole shaker of salt, and not a spoonful of sugar.
Ed Who?
08-30-2007, 12:10 PM
I haven't watched it yet, except for the first five minutes. I don't have time whil i am at work, but will watch it later. I do, however, know the cats in it. Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Paul Nelson and Steve Myer. I will do my best to keep an open mind, but these guys have been discredited already. So has the Discovery Institute where these guys work. At best the Discovery Institute is Intellectually Dishonest. Look man, there is a reason that zero ID papers have been through peer reviewed scientific journals. Sorry, and I understand for some it is an issue of faith, but science disagrees with these guys. BTW, many of these guys also say HIV doesn't lead to AIDS. Like I said, I will watch it, but will take it with a whole shaker of salt, and not a spoonful of sugar.
Sure doesn't sound like an open mind at this point.
Sure doesn't sound like an open mind at this point.
I said I am trying. What I said though is true. These guys aren't publishing scientific papers. These guy aren't respected in any science-community. I knew this as soon as I saw the roster at the beginning. I have looked at this issue enough that I know who they are. I read about some of them just the other day in the whole AIDS discussion. It is hard to even look at what they are saying when you already know about them. I have written about these guys on this board. Like I said, i will try, but I can already tell you that no other scientists have looked at this and been allowed to vet its findings. That is suspect in and of itself. I can also say I have seen these guys dishonesty time and time again. I can only try.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 12:45 PM
I said I am trying. What I said though is true. These guys aren't publishing scientific papers. These guy aren't respected in any science-community. I knew this as soon as I saw the roster at the beginning. I have looked at this issue enough that I know who they are. I read about some of them just the other day in the whole AIDS discussion. It is hard to even look at what they are saying when you already know about them. I have written about these guys on this board. Like I said, i will try, but I can already tell you that no other scientists have looked at this and been allowed to vet its findings. That is suspect in and of itself. I can also say I have seen these guys dishonesty time and time again. I can only try.
The scientific journal thing is a serious catch-22. Creationists get that criticism that they haven't been published, but at the same time most scientific journals reject any creationist or ID papers out of hand.
The scientific journal thing is a serious catch-22. Creationists get that criticism that they haven't been published, but at the same time most scientific journals reject any creationist or ID papers out of hand.
Yes, that is for a reason. They are rejected because it isn't science, it is faith.
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 12:50 PM
Yes, that is for a reason. They are rejected because it isn't science, it is faith.
Yes it is rather self destructive to the scientific community to recognize Design. Of course the only faith allowed in Science is the Big Bang.
Yes it is rather self destructive to the scientific community to recognize Design.
No, that really isn't the issue man. It wouldn't be destructive to evolution even.
The scientific journal thing is a serious catch-22. Creationists get that criticism that they haven't been published, but at the same time most scientific journals reject any creationist or ID papers out of hand.
Perhaps because the have no scientific basis? Meaning they don't follow the scientific method
identify a problem
form a hypothesis
design experiment to test hypothesis
collect data
analyze data
report data
NOT
form a conclusion
design a methodology to point out information that doesn't necessarily support your conclusion, but finds holes in the opposing conclusion
collect data
analyze data
report data
Vegas
08-30-2007, 12:53 PM
Yes, that is for a reason. They are rejected because it isn't science, it is faith.
That's not true. It's a different interpretation of facts. Take the recent research done at ICR on radioisotopes. They have scientific evidence for accelerated decay and tests done on volcanic rocks of known age that date to great ages. There's no faith involved.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 12:54 PM
Perhaps because the have no scientific basis? Meaning they don't follow the scientific method
identify a problem
form a hypothesis
design experiment to test hypothesis
collect data
analyze data
report data
NOT
form a conclusion
design a methodology to point out information that doesn't necessarily support your conclusion, but finds holes in the opposing conclusion
collect data
analyze data
report data
You're making assumptions about their methods, aren't you?
Perhaps because the have no scientific basis? Meaning they don't follow the scientific method
identify a problem
form a hypothesis
design experiment to test hypothesis
collect data
analyze data
report data
NOT
form a conclusion
design a methodology to point out information that doesn't necessarily support your conclusion, but finds holes in the opposing conclusion
collect data
analyze data
report data
Well said. I think that I can respect "God did something to crate the earth" arguments. It is a matter of faith. However I can't even begin to understand "science is out to destroy the real truth and will protect their lies at all costs" talk.
That's not true. It's a different interpretation of facts. Take the recent research done at ICR on radioisotopes. They have scientific evidence for accelerated decay and tests done on volcanic rocks of known age that date to great ages. There's no faith involved.
The entire ICR is faith based. Anything the do is 'faith involved'.
You're making assumptions about their methods, aren't you?
Based on what I've read from them, no.
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 12:56 PM
Did anyone bother to actually watch the video to its conclusion?
Did anyone bother to actually watch the video to its conclusion?
I will, but won't have time for a bit.
That's not true. It's a different interpretation of facts. Take the recent research done at ICR on radioisotopes. They have scientific evidence for accelerated decay and tests done on volcanic rocks of known age that date to great ages. There's no faith involved.
Its all faith. Why? Because that is the premise you start with and not the conclusion you draw.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 12:57 PM
Its all faith. Why? Because that is the premise you start with and not the conclusion you draw.
The same can be said for evolutionists.
The same can be said for evolutionists.
Bullshit alert.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 12:58 PM
Bullshit alert.
Evolutionists don't have preconceived beliefs?
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 01:01 PM
Its all faith. Why? Because that is the premise you start with and not the conclusion you draw.
Is offering $10,000 to scientists to publish opinions opposing global warming science?
form a conclusion
design a methodology to point out information that doesn't necessarily support your conclusion, but finds holes in the opposing conclusion
collect data
analyze data
report data
That's not true. It's a different interpretation of facts. Take the recent research done at ICR on radioisotopes. They have scientific evidence for accelerated decay and tests done on volcanic rocks of known age that date to great ages. There's no faith involved.
Which I imagine will go the way of every other discovery of young-earth creationist. As I see with a quick google search they are being attacked.... by other creationists. They believe the deck is being stacked because they pick:
a. what types of rocks they work with (ie rocks known to be difficult to date)
b. Areas known to be difficult to date
http://www.answersincreation.org/ratedeception.htm
I can get some more info later. To do that, however, would be acknowledgment that there is any question in the scientific community, which there is not.
The same can be said for evolutionists.
That is not true.
Evolutionists don't have preconceived beliefs?
They are nor evolutionists, they are not darwinists. They are scientists. To put it like you do makes it seem as if there is doubt in teh scientific community when there isn't.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 01:05 PM
They are nor evolutionists, they are not darwinists. They are scientists. To put it like you do makes it seem as if there is doubt in teh scientific community when there isn't.
You are completely discounting the thousands of qualified scientists that believe in Creation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
To pick and choose a few one method that is used to date the age of the earth is intellectually dishonest.
Evolutionists don't have preconceived beliefs?
Actually yes. But, they're preconceived beliefs based on about 150 years of scientific data piling up that supports evolution.
And by support, I mean it doesn't solely base itself on what hasn't been proven about other origin of life theories.
I don't know how you feel about 150 years of scientific data supporting a belief, but to scientists, that's a fairly strong pillar to rest on...
But that doesn't mean that scientists will look the other way if they're data does not support evolution.
First off, anyone will have a difficult time completely disproving evolution. After the 150 years of scientific "tests" it has passed, you'll need quite a body of evidence proving those tests are wrong.
However, as recently discovered, some of the smaller intracacies of evolution are up for grabs...remember the story a short time ago about how the tree of life is more like a bush, because two Hominid species thought to have lived at different times were actually found the potentially have lived at the same time?
So, evolution will change. At least, the details. However, the underlying most basic principles of it...well, good luck with that.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 01:07 PM
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
To pick and choose a few one method that is used to date the age of the earth is intellectually dishonest.
I agree. Just like only looking at models and methods that conclude long ages and completely discounting anything that leads to a young earth is dishonest.
Is offering $10,000 to scientists to publish opinions opposing global warming science?
Great example. I don't remember the guy's name, but he offered 10k to scientists (or anyone really) to write articles opposing global warming. This was right after the committee met, so I don't know if it was just a reflex thing or if he meant it.
Talk about paying for your science conclusions.
You are completely discounting the thousands of qualified scientists that believe in Creation.
Ever heard of the Steve project? Creationists got 200 (give or take) scientists (only half were actual degree holding scientists) to sign a paper talking about young earth creationism. The revolutionists got 850 actual scientists named Steve to sign a paper discounting it. There is no real disagreement in the scientific community. There is nothing published in journals, and I don't mean to sound like a broken record man.
I agree. Just like only looking at models and methods that conclude long ages and completely discounting anything that leads to a young earth is dishonest.
150 years...that's a lot of data to just shove under the rug.
It's not dishonest. It's practical.
I'll be back later for more. Got to feed the kid.
I agree. Just like only looking at models and methods that conclude long ages and completely discounting anything that leads to a young earth is dishonest.
There are no proven methods that lead to a young earth and that was dishonest right there. The only thing they do is plant question.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Vegas
08-30-2007, 01:12 PM
150 years...that's a lot of data to just shove under the rug.
It's not dishonest. It's practical.
But out of all of that research over 150 years, what is absolutely known about evolution? It hasn't been proven at all.
And there is still a lot of data shoved under the rug regarding Creation.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 01:13 PM
There are no proven methods that lead to a young earth and that was dishonest right there. The only thing they do is plant question.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
There are no proven methods for the old earth either. Nobody can prove the assumptions of initial conditions.
There are no proven methods for the old earth either. Nobody can prove the assumptions of initial conditions.
I am not sure as to the validity of that statement, but I know the purpose. Vegas, it is at best a huge leap of faith to suggest the Earth is 6000 years old. Essentially no scientists agree with it. Especially compared to the vast number that agree with the contrary. To put them on par and say that there is no proof for either is downright dishonest. I am going to lunch, but look forward to watching this and arguing about it later. :D
Vegas
08-30-2007, 01:23 PM
I am not sure as to the validity of that statement, but I know the purpose. Vegas, it is at best a huge leap of faith to suggest the Earth is 6000 years old. Essentially no scientists agree with it. Especially compared to the vast number that agree with the contrary. To put them on par and say that there is no proof for either is downright dishonest. I am going to lunch, but look forward to watching this and arguing about it later. :D
There is no less faith involved in believing in the young earth model than there is for the old earth model. It's all about how things are interpreted.
As far as the validity of the statement about initial conditions, there is nothing to question. No scientist will dispute the fact of radioisotope decay. It's a known fact. One isotope decays into another isotope over time when exposed to radiation. You have a rock with both isotope. You have no idea how much of one isotope was present at time zero. You have no idea if the radiation was constant over time. It requires assumptions that absolutely cannot be proven.
But out of all of that research over 150 years, what is absolutely known about evolution? It hasn't been proven at all.
And there is still a lot of data shoved under the rug regarding Creation.
Absolutely known? To a disbeliever, nothing is absolutely known. What hasn't been proven? The overall theory as a whole, or all the data garnered supporting the theory?
As for the second statement...incorrect data belongs under the rug.
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 02:09 PM
...incorrect data belongs under the rug.
Does DNA contain instructions for the synthesis of proteins?
Does DNA contain instructions for the synthesis of proteins?
Directly, no.
Indirectly, yes.
I will, but won't have time for a bit.
Check that. I don't have 4+ hour to watch pixelated internet video. Going to have to pass on watching these, I'm afraid.
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 02:17 PM
Directly, no.
Indirectly, yes.
Could you make it more palatable in case Miss Teen South Carolina is reading?
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 02:21 PM
Check that. I don't have 4+ hour to watch pixelated internet video. Going to have to pass on watching these, I'm afraid.
I'll save ya time on the first two... its a veiled attack on fundamentalist Christians who take the bible literally at every word. The 3rd video is 67 minutes and not pixelated.
Could you make it more palatable in case Miss Teen South Carolina is reading?
The central dogma of biology is
DNA -> mRNA -> protein
You can't make protein from DNA, it has to be made into RNA first.
I'll save ya time on the first two... its a veiled attack on fundamentalist Christians who take the bible literally at every word. The 3rd video is 67 minutes and not pixelated.
I'm not a fan of the "fundamentalist" adjective no matter what religion. Islam, Christianity, Jewish, Buddhist, Davidian...whatever.
At least the negative connotations of it. I'm unaware of positive connotations.
The central dogma of biology is
DNA -> mRNA -> protein
You can't make protein from DNA, it has to be made into RNA first.
wiki page for it. I didn't go through to check for accuracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 02:40 PM
wiki page for it. I didn't go through to check for accuracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology
Good enough... So the instructions are for the mRNA which in turn act as a stencil, mold, or guide for constructing the protein?
edit : perhaps positive and negative, like in photography, are better words for the "stencil, mold, or guide"
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 02:41 PM
I'm not a fan of the "fundamentalist" adjective no matter what religion. Islam, Christianity, Jewish, Buddhist, Davidian...whatever.
At least the negative connotations of it. I'm unaware of positive connotations.
Positive and negative in the sense are merely perspectives.
Good enough... So the instructions are for the mRNA which in turn act as a stencil, mold, or guide for constructing the protein?
edit : perhaps positive and negative, like in photography, are better words for the "stencil, mold, or guide"
template was the first word that came to mind for me.
DNA is a template for mRNA, mRNA is a template for proteins.
Throughout biology there are examples of DNA -> mRNA and mRNA -> DNA, but no system has been described for protein -> mRNA or protein -> DNA.
Positive and negative in the sense are merely perspectives.
Correct.
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 03:18 PM
template was the first word that came to mind for me.
DNA is a template for mRNA, mRNA is a template for proteins.
Throughout biology there are examples of DNA -> mRNA and mRNA -> DNA, but no system has been described for protein -> mRNA or protein -> DNA.
So these instructions for mRNA are stored inside the DNA. How long before all the information in the DNA is known?
Jiddy78
08-30-2007, 03:25 PM
I'll be back later for more. Got to feed the kid.
Hmph...I figured you of all people would be all about the breastfeeding...as it is better for the kid and all....Unless...You've found a way to do that yourself?!?
So these instructions for mRNA are stored inside the DNA. How long before all the information in the DNA is known?
I wouldn't call it "instructions". It's vague relative to what's going on.
It's hard to me explain without a really long post, but I'll try in short.
DNA is made of A, T, G, and C. Just a string of those chemicals. RNA is made of A, U, G, and C. The only difference between U and T is a amino group (I think, been awhile since I've looked at the chemical structure). Well, that's not the only difference, I guess. DNA is deoxy-, meaning it lost the oxygen in a hydroxyl group, making the structure much less reactive and more stable than RNA (hydroxyl is -OH, quite reactive...deoxy is -H, relatively benign).
Those two relative small differences translate hugely, though.
So, DNA is double stranded, RNA is single. Transcription (DNA > RNA) is a little like DNA replication. An enzyme finds a point to sit down on the sequence (a promoter in transcription, origin of replication in replication) and opens up the strands. Then it's all base pairing from there. Where there's an A, the RNA polymerase puts a U (complementary base pairing). Where there's a G, RNApol puts a C, a T gets an A, C gets a G, and so on.
So, it's not really "instructions" I guess, just a chemical interaction between the bases.
As for knowing what info the DNA contains, that's a pretty broad question. If you mean in terms of all organisms, it will be a long time as relatively few genomes are sequenced. If you mean humans, the genome is sequenced, but for many things, the protein encoded doesn't have a known function, so that needs to be figured out.
Hmph...I figured you of all people would be all about the breastfeeding...as it is better for the kid and all....Unless...You've found a way to do that yourself?!?
My lactation is not up to snuff. Wife is at work, and while her rack is large, not 6 miles large. And the kid couldn't breastfeed because of the cleft palate...the opening to the nasal passages didn't allow for an adequate suction. So, the wife pumped for about 6 months, then dried up.
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 03:35 PM
As for knowing what info the DNA contains, that's a pretty broad question. If you mean in terms of all organisms, it will be a long time as relatively few genomes are sequenced. If you mean humans, the genome is sequenced, but for many things, the protein encoded doesn't have a known function, so that needs to be figured out.
Are there any other examples of information & templates compiled in one place in nature that you can think of that are not DNA?
Are there any other examples of information & templates compiled in one place in nature that you can think of that are not DNA?
yes
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 03:43 PM
yes
Keeping them secret?
Keeping them secret?
You didn't ask for examples, just whether or not I could think of any.
I read a lot of books, but I don't read minds.
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 03:47 PM
You didn't ask for examples, just whether or not I could think of any.
I read a lot of books, but I don't read minds.
I was hoping you would volunteer them. I would like to know what they are.
I was hoping you would volunteer them. I would like to know what they are.
RNA viruses.
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 03:49 PM
RNA viruses.
any others that are not nucleic acids?
Jiddy78
08-30-2007, 03:52 PM
My lactation is not up to snuff. Wife is at work, and while her rack is large, not 6 miles large. And the kid couldn't breastfeed because of the cleft palate...the opening to the nasal passages didn't allow for an adequate suction. So, the wife pumped for about 6 months, then dried up.
Really? Well at least you got 6 months...We just had our breastfeeding section of the baby course last night...According to it, if you don't feed regularly, the body shuts down. Wifey is going for a year.
Someone in the class mentioned that Michael Jordan breastfed until 3 years old....Hmmm....I might have to google that to verify and have a State of the Union with wifey tonight if so...
any others that are not nucleic acids?
Not that I can think of, that have been discovered. There was an interesting article in SciAm awhile back regarding the possibility of a molecule much simpler than RNA and DNA that may hold answers to that question.
http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=904
Jiddy78
08-30-2007, 03:53 PM
http://www.breastfeeding.org/bfacts/famous.html
Well hot damn...
Michael Jordan's Mom bf him for 3 years and said "I feel this is why he is the athlete he is."
Really? Well at least you got 6 months...We just had our breastfeeding section of the baby course last night...According to it, if you don't feed regularly, the body shuts down. Wifey is going for a year.
Someone in the class mentioned that Michael Jordan breastfed until 3 years old....Hmmm....I might have to google that to verify and have a State of the Union with wifey tonight if so...
Yeah, wife planned on a year, too. She was getting good production, then after 3-4 months, it started going down, and we had to supplement with formula. After awhile, it was next to nothing (she was pumping every 3-4 hours, including through the night), so we went to strictly formula. But now she's getting onto solid foods, so...
Jiddy78
08-30-2007, 03:56 PM
Yeah, wife planned on a year, too. She was getting good production, then after 3-4 months, it started going down, and we had to supplement with formula. After awhile, it was next to nothing (she was pumping every 3-4 hours, including through the night), so we went to strictly formula. But now she's getting onto solid foods, so...
You should have massaged her nipples....Seriously...Our video said the best stimulation is baby to nipple...but if conflicts arise, it is best to massage them and milk constantly to keep the body tricked....It was some video from Norway, where I guess 4 out of 5 women breastfeed...My favorite part was some broad was skiing with her baby in her jacket...Balls of steel on those norwegian broads.
You should have massaged her nipples....Seriously...Our video said the best stimulation is baby to nipple...but if conflicts arise, it is best to massage them and milk constantly to keep the body tricked....It was some video from Norway, where I guess 4 out of 5 women breastfeed...My favorite part was some broad was skiing with her baby in her jacket...Balls of steel on those norwegian broads.
Many things were tried. I think a lot of it had to do with a pump extracting it versus the baby. A baby is a natural at it...a pump...is not.
Jiddy78
08-30-2007, 04:00 PM
Many things were tried. I think a lot of it had to do with a pump extracting it versus the baby. A baby is a natural at it...a pump...is not.
Everyone in class wants us to get a double-pumper. It was pretty uncomfortable when I was the only one that lost it into tears when they busted it out on the video.
To them:
Jiddy: Immature
Everyone else: Mature
To me:
Jiddy: Hip
Everyone else: Square
Everyone in class wants us to get a double-pumper. It was pretty uncomfortable when I was the only one that lost it into tears when they busted it out on the video.
To them:
Jiddy: Immature
Everyone else: Mature
To me:
Jiddy: Hip
Everyone else: Square
We rented a hospital-grade pump for about $40 a month from a maternity store in town, and bought our own portable pump (Medela). Pretty much used the hosp. grade one at home, and the portable at work and on trips.
Jiddy78
08-30-2007, 04:07 PM
We rented a hospital-grade pump for about $40 a month from a maternity store in town, and bought our own portable pump (Medela). Pretty much used the hosp. grade one at home, and the portable at work and on trips.
It's $400 to buy the double pumper...Wifey doesn't work...She can serve on demand and do that sh*t manually when baby isn't wanting...
And that's what SHE determined last night.
Good to be me. I would've caved.
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 04:09 PM
Not that I can think of, that have been discovered. There was an interesting article in SciAm awhile back regarding the possibility of a molecule much simpler than RNA and DNA that may hold answers to that question.
http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=904
I understand that its existence is not proved but don't ya have to actually have the molecule to assert it contains information & templates.
It's $400 to buy the double pumper...Wifey doesn't work...She can serve on demand and do that sh*t manually when baby isn't wanting...
And that's what SHE determined last night.
Good to be me. I would've caved.
Is it a portable one?
I understand that its existence is not proved but don't ya have to actually have the molecule to assert it contains information & templates.
It's been a bit since I've read the article. I'd have to go back and re-read.
Jiddy78
08-30-2007, 04:14 PM
Is it a portable one?
Wifey's hand? Sure.
The video even showed us how...Looked pretty simple...I want to milk her.
I understand that its existence is not proved but don't ya have to actually have the molecule to assert it contains information & templates.
From what I read, they weren't really asserting a hereditary function of the molecule.
Systems of the type I have described usually have been classified under the heading "metabolism first," which implies that they do not contain a mechanism for heredity. In other words, they contain no obvious molecule or structure that allows the information stored in them (their heredity) to be duplicated and passed on to their descendants. However a collection of small items holds the same information as a list that describes the items. For example, my wife gives me a shopping list for the supermarket; the collection of grocery items that I return with contains the same information as the list. Doron Lancet has given the name "compositional genome" to heredity stored in small molecules, rather than a list such as DNA or RNA.
The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction). These requirements are general in nature, however, and are immensely more probable than the elaborate multi-step pathways needed to form a molecule that can function as a replicator.
Wifey's hand? Sure.
The video even showed us how...Looked pretty simple...I want to milk her.
It's a hand pump? For $400?
Ours were both electric. Although, she'd probably build up some good upper arm definition doing the manual way.
KinjaKahn
08-30-2007, 04:34 PM
I did find this interesting...
Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for "a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry." DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life. Inanimate nature provides us with a variety of mixtures of small molecules, whose behavior is governed by scientific laws, rather than by human intervention.
Breastfeeding boys? Can't we get back to the world is 6000 years old?
I did find this interesting...
Yep. Of course, this phrase:
DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life.
is the author's words, not de Duve's words. Which is probably why the author is interested in researching more simplified molecules than RNA, DNA, and protein.
Of course, that comment about miracles could also be applied to Creation, particularly the phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry. part.
In the magazine article, there were rebuttals by scientists researching origins other than this. I remember a guy defending RNA in particular, but I don't think those arguments are on the website, just in the hard copy.
Breastfeeding boys? Can't we get back to the world is 6000 years old?
You mean that the assumptions that can't be proven actually mean that 60 billion years is off by 7 decimal points?
That's quite a discrepancy.
And I thought it was a range to say between 40 and 50 million years.
I guess a 10 million year range is too precise to believe.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 05:39 PM
You mean that the assumptions that can't be proven actually mean that 60 billion years is off by 7 decimal points?
That's quite a discrepancy.
And I thought it was a range to say between 40 and 50 million years.
I guess a 10 million year range is too precise to believe.
Do you disagree that assumptions about initial conditions could easily account for the differences or are you just trying to be sarcastic?
You mean that the assumptions that can't be proven actually mean that 60 billion years is off by 7 decimal points?
That's quite a discrepancy.
And I thought it was a range to say between 40 and 50 million years.
I guess a 10 million year range is too precise to believe.
Yes, those. That is a good way to put it. We were off by 7 decimal points.
Do you disagree that assumptions about initial conditions could easily account for the differences or are you just trying to be sarcastic?
Little bit of both, actually.
I don't know enough about the dating or the particular assumptions, and how they affect the dating, and how researchers go about adjusting for possibilities of discrepancies to make an exact argument for or against the use of dating.
Therefore, I put my marbles with science, with the hope that if these things were so blatantly obvious to be such a limiting factor that the use should be heavily questioned to begin with, that the scientists would realize that, and pursue another avenue if it were such a bust.
But for the sarcasm, yeah.
The assumptions could not stand, but that could be accounted for in the estimations. Usually when I see a dating, it's a range of x to x number of years. It's not something like 45,000,010 to 45,000,015 years. It's 40,000,000 to 50,000,000. That's quite a range, which, I think would account for the chances that the assumptions could be off here or there.
Now, saying the assumptions are so skewed and so far from accurate that they're saying 60,000,000,000 and it's really 6,000...well, that'll take some convincing. And we know how easy it is to convince anyone around here of anything.
PS. I never remember what the estimated age of the Earth is, I used 60,000,000,000, but I don't know if it's that old or if it's older...just using the number as an example. Either way, the estimations are much larger than 6,000.
Of course, now that I think about it, isotope dating isn't used to estimate the age of the Earth, so that argument is really irrelevant. My horrendous bad.
Little bit of both, actually.
I don't know enough about the dating or the particular assumptions, and how they affect the dating, and how researchers go about adjusting for possibilities of discrepancies to make an exact argument for or against the use of dating.
Therefore, I put my marbles with science, with the hope that if these things were so blatantly obvious to be such a limiting factor that the use should be heavily questioned to begin with, that the scientists would realize that, and pursue another avenue if it were such a bust.
But for the sarcasm, yeah.
The assumptions could not stand, but that could be accounted for in the estimations. Usually when I see a dating, it's a range of x to x number of years. It's not something like 45,000,010 to 45,000,015 years. It's 40,000,000 to 50,000,000. That's quite a range, which, I think would account for the chances that the assumptions could be off here or there.
Now, saying the assumptions are so skewed and so far from accurate that they're saying 60,000,000,000 and it's really 6,000...well, that'll take some convincing. And we know how easy it is to convince anyone around here of anything.
That dating is not the only way they date things.
That dating is not the only way they date things.
What dating, isotope? What are the other ways?
Jiddy78
08-30-2007, 06:26 PM
Breastfeeding boys? Can't we get back to the world is 6000 years old?
Sounds like someone couldn't latch...
Breastfeeding boys? Can't we get back to the world is 6000 years old?
Not a fan of breasts, eh?
Ryr will have a field day with that.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 06:26 PM
Little bit of both, actually.
I don't know enough about the dating or the particular assumptions, and how they affect the dating, and how researchers go about adjusting for possibilities of discrepancies to make an exact argument for or against the use of dating.
Therefore, I put my marbles with science, with the hope that if these things were so blatantly obvious to be such a limiting factor that the use should be heavily questioned to begin with, that the scientists would realize that, and pursue another avenue if it were such a bust.
But for the sarcasm, yeah.
The assumptions could not stand, but that could be accounted for in the estimations. Usually when I see a dating, it's a range of x to x number of years. It's not something like 45,000,010 to 45,000,015 years. It's 40,000,000 to 50,000,000. That's quite a range, which, I think would account for the chances that the assumptions could be off here or there.
Now, saying the assumptions are so skewed and so far from accurate that they're saying 60,000,000,000 and it's really 6,000...well, that'll take some convincing. And we know how easy it is to convince anyone around here of anything.
PS. I never remember what the estimated age of the Earth is, I used 60,000,000,000, but I don't know if it's that old or if it's older...just using the number as an example. Either way, the estimations are much larger than 6,000.
Of course, now that I think about it, isotope dating isn't used to estimate the age of the Earth, so that argument is really irrelevant. My horrendous bad.
There are good scientific reasons to question the assumptions. As I mentioned earlier, volcanic rocks of known age are dated to great ages because the ratio of the isotopes is not infinite at time zero. In addition, there is scientific evidence for accelerated decay, which is completely ignored. We know that catastrophes are commonplace yet when dating is concerned, it is assumed that radiation rates are constant over the billions of assumed years. Any events that would have caused accelerated decay are completely ignored.
There are good scientific reasons to question the assumptions. As I mentioned earlier, volcanic rocks of known age are dated to great ages because the ratio of the isotopes is not infinite at time zero. In addition, there is scientific evidence for accelerated decay, which is completely ignored. We know that catastrophes are commonplace yet when dating is concerned, it is assumed that radiation rates are constant over the billions of assumed years. Any events that would have caused accelerated decay are completely ignored.
Acceleration that may lead to, say...a 10,000,000 year difference?
Or a 49,994,000 difference?
Vegas
08-30-2007, 06:29 PM
Acceleration that may lead to, say...a 10,000,000 year difference?
Most definitely.
Most definitely.
So then when it's reported to have occurred between 40 and 50 million years ago, they're adjusting for the inaccuracies you describe, no?
Vegas
08-30-2007, 06:35 PM
So then when it's reported to have occurred between 40 and 50 million years ago, they're adjusting for the inaccuracies you describe, no?
Not necessarily. Lots of rocks can be dated by more than one method. Say you date a rock with both Rb-Sr and K-Ar methods and come up with two largely different ages (which definitely happens). The different dating methods should agree and the fact that they don't agree points to faulty assumptions of initial conditions.
Not necessarily. Lots of rocks can be dated by more than one method. Say you date a rock with both Rb-Sr and K-Ar methods and come up with two largely different ages (which definitely happens). The different dating methods should agree and the fact that they don't agree points to faulty assumptions of initial conditions.
What if you use a third method that agrees with one of the others?
Vegas
08-30-2007, 06:37 PM
What if you use a third method that agrees with one of the others?
As I understand it, that generally results in a third age that disagrees with the other two.
As I understand it, that generally results in a third age that disagrees with the other two.
Where do you get your understanding from? Not to sound like a dick, but there's some science that, IMO, you've misunderstood, based mostly on where you're getting the information from.
That is, if it's from strictly pro-Creation, pro-Young Earth, etc, sources, of course you're going to come away with an understanding that the whole thing is a cluster.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 06:43 PM
Where do you get your understanding from? Not to sound like a dick, but there's some science that, IMO, you've misunderstood, based mostly on where you're getting the information from.
That is, if it's from strictly pro-Creation, pro-Young Earth, etc, sources, of course you're going to come away with an understanding that the whole thing is a cluster.
I've done a lot of study on this stuff not exclusively from the perspective of pro-Creation sources. Discordant ages from various dating methods are quite common or at least not uncommon.
I've done a lot of study on this stuff not exclusively from the perspective of pro-Creation sources. Discordant ages from various dating methods are quite common or at least not uncommon.
Fair enough.
I would be interested in seeing publications (peer reviewed) that are thought to be relative to the evolution debate that used various dating methods that resulted in times all over the table (and we're talking huge discrepancies...at least greater than 10 or 20 million years difference.
How that explains that 6,000 is an accurate number though, I'm not sure.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 06:52 PM
Fair enough.
I would be interested in seeing publications (peer reviewed) that are thought to be relative to the evolution debate that used various dating methods that resulted in times all over the table (and we're talking huge discrepancies...at least greater than 10 or 20 million years difference.
How that explains that 6,000 is an accurate number though, I'm not sure.
I could post links to several papers, but you wouldn't accept the source.
I could post links to several papers, but you wouldn't accept the source.
You're probably right. When their review process extends beyond the walls (and beliefs) of their institution, I may give it a whirl.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 06:56 PM
You're probably right. When their review process extends beyond the walls (and beliefs) of their institution, I may give it a whirl.
The catch-22 again. They encourage review by people outside of their walls. That doesn't make the science any less valid.
The catch-22 again. They encourage review by people outside of their walls. That doesn't make the science any less valid.
It's a catch 22 for them. They want to get their work out there, but can't get it through peer review. So, to make their science look legit, they have to make it look like they're getting hosed because of their beliefs.
I don't buy it.
The reason I ask for peer review is because I'm not a geologist. Never had a class even. So, the only way I can know for sure that the science is or isn't valid is to look at peer review. If scientists are out there that put their stamp on it as valid, well thought out, and deemed fit for publication, then so be it.
That's what the peer review process does. Puts the science in the hands of people familiar with the science, the techniques, the history. If the science is complete, and supports the conclusions, even the most controversial conclusions can get through...
Not a fan of breasts, eh?
Ryr will have a field day with that.
I meant: Breastfeeding, eh boys?
The catch-22 again. They encourage review by people outside of their walls. That doesn't make the science any less valid.
No they don't.
Vegas
08-30-2007, 08:38 PM
No they don't.
Where did you come up with that??
Where did you come up with that??
Are you claiming that creationist articles are not peer reviewed because of a bias rather than scientific merit?
KinjaKahn
08-31-2007, 09:51 AM
Yep. Of course, this phrase:
is the author's words, not de Duve's words. Which is probably why the author is interested in researching more simplified molecules than RNA, DNA, and protein.
I know what quotes signify. However, the writers words are in line with the Nobel Laureates statement.
Of course, that comment about miracles could also be applied to Creation, particularly the part.
In the magazine article, there were rebuttals by scientists researching origins other than this. I remember a guy defending RNA in particular, but I don't think those arguments are on the website, just in the hard copy.
Either way you have information stored in organic material, on earth and you have no scientific explanation for its existence other than a flimsy one in a trillion chance. Compound that chance with all the other chance circumstance in the universe and you have what are..."improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry."
Information is indicative of Intelligence.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.