- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by frogstomphttp://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp
Heres the facts about radiometric testing, I dont have time to explain how wrong you are again.
btw Since I don't have time to go thru each nitpick you guys make.
make you statement I'll make mine and if you want to appeal to authority like dj does and you been trying in this post , I remind you the most of the authorities ...[text shortened]... ss, in front of the ascetabulum, is not the true pubis as some workers have maintained." (Bella
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by XanthosNZIt's obvious you don't understand very much. There is to deal with location, and their refers to possession. Maybe I made a mistake, but it happens. I have no problem with being humble. As usual your knowledge of the sciences are pathetically weak, and you don't want to learn, so you live in a day dream. Here's a quote you can use, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." You believe in evolution, not because of the facts, but inspite of the facts. Remember, random processes governed by vhance, which is the mechanism for evolution never produces order, only chaos. Which is the governing force of your thinking.
This post makes very little sense.
Firstly I don't really understand what evolution has to do with waves of any type. Or the law of conservation of energy.
As for the second law of thermodynamics you must remember that the entropy of a subset of a system can decrease if it is accompanied by an increase in another subset of the system.
The lack of a ...[text shortened]... tween there and their, basic sentence structure and some sense of coherant overall construction?
Originally posted by Langtreecome on now : explain Quantum Field Theory to me.
It's obvious you don't understand very much. There is to deal with location, and their refers to possession. Maybe I made a mistake, but it happens. I have no problem with being humble. As usual your knowledge of the sciences are pathetically weak, and you don't want to learn, so you live in a day dream. Here's a quote you can use, "My mind is mad ...[text shortened]... for evolution never produces order, only chaos. Which is the governing force of your thinking.
use any math you want , I can handle it .prove to me you aint the bigmouth phoney you sound like.
tell me what you think a loop in SU(3) is
Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert address this issue in their book, Stratigraphy and life History. The evidence only supports the fact that these early fossils appeared suddenly fully formed and functional. A little aside, you quote some vaste ages, it is a commonly know fact, that the dating methods, ie Uranium, Thorium, Potassium are not reliable, because of so much guess work. That in itself ca ...[text shortened]... onclusion, but I will continue to research. As a famous cyborg once said, "I'll be be back."[/b]Originally posted by Langtree
The problem with the Cambrian fossils is they are too complex, where are the simpler forms, according to evolution these should have appeared first, but they didn't.
Yep they did. Precambrian fossils.
Originally posted by Langtree
"it is a commonly know fact, that the dating methods, ie Uranium, Thorium, Potassium are not reliable, because of so much guess work"
So why do different radiodating methods on different sources collaberate on the same 4.4 billion year age for earth?
Originally posted by Langtree
" Archaeopteryx is strictly a bird, it has a complex wing structure like a bird, it has a fucula, rather than a keel, but that enabled flight."
Your knowledge of Archaeopteryx is lacking - you don't seem to know about its many reptile features that are not present in birds.
Originally posted by PotatoErrorHe's just another loudmouth that's out of his tree. all hot air and full of creationist lies.
Originally posted by Langtree
[b]The problem with the Cambrian fossils is they are too complex, where are the simpler forms, according to evolution these should have appeared first, but they didn't.
Yep they did. Precambrian fossils.
Originally posted by Langtree
"it is a commonly know fact, that the dating methods, ie Uran ...[text shortened]... g - you don't seem to know about its many reptile features that are not present in birds.
Originally posted by LangtreeMy knowledge of science is pathetically weak? That's news to me.
It's obvious you don't understand very much. There is to deal with location, and their refers to possession. Maybe I made a mistake, but it happens. I have no problem with being humble. As usual your knowledge of the sciences are pathetically weak, and you don't want to learn, so you live in a day dream. Here's a quote you can use, "My mind is mad ...[text shortened]... for evolution never produces order, only chaos. Which is the governing force of your thinking.
Perhaps you can explain the mysterious link between waves, conservation of energy and evolution that I can't see.
I don't know quite what your finishing comment has to do with anything. Who says that humans are order?
Originally posted by LangtreeThat's not true. Chance is the mechanism that is supposed to create opportunities for change in evolutionary theory, but natural selection is the mechanism for evolution. The first step is random, the second step involves "pruning" unacceptable random changes from the gene pool. Of course, what qualifies as "unacceptable" is dynamic and is determined by interactions of the organism with the rest of the system.
Remember, random processes governed by chance, which is the mechanism for evolution never produces order, only chaos. Which is the governing force of your thinking.
Originally posted by Langtree
The reasons are simple, first, evolution can't explain the wave motions of light, electro-magnet and nulcear, because a wave shouldn't be able to occur in a vacuum, nevertheless it does.
Evolution has nothing to do with light. Light is physics. Evolution is biology. Would it suprise you to know that biology can't explain electricity or free market economics?
Originally posted by Langtree
Second, evolution flies in the face of the Laws of Energy conservation and Energy decay
There is no such thing as a law of energy decay. Anyway you are wrong to think that evolution flies in the face of elementary physics. If that were the case every phycisist would be dead set against evolution.
Originally posted by Langtree
The Cambrian forms appeared fully formed and functional with no preceeding form
Rubbish, look up pre-cambrian fossils on google.
Originally posted by Langtree
Fifth, is the discovery that dinosaurs were not cold blooded like reptiles, but warm blooded like birds
You have that wrong. *Some* dinosaurs *may* have been warm blooded. Even so why is this a problem for evolution? Tell me where evolution predicts that all dinosaurs must be cold blooded.
Originally posted by Langtree
Sixth, is the problem Melvin Cook discovered concerning Helium 4 entering the atmosphere, not leaving the rocks, thus bringing into question the age of the atmosphere
Melvin Cook's calculations were flawed.
Originally posted by Langtree
Seventh, there of course is what was the earth like in the beginning. Trying to duplicate what you don't know is pretty silly, nobody was there
That's like saying trying to deduce a crime from clues at the crime scene is silly because noone was there to observe the crime.
Originally posted by Langtree
Eighth, how such animals as the woodpecker, bombardier beetle, the cleaner fish and the Archerfish come about. There designs are very complex, and random processes governed by chance don't work.
The thing is that we know evolution has taken place even though we don't fully know how it took place. We know humans are decended from ancient hominids, but we don't know exactly how that change occured. Just because some of your specific "how" questions don't currently have answers doesn't disprove evolution. Does the fact that we don't know how gravity works mean that gravity doesn't exist?
Originally posted by Langtree
If you think so, then try this, take apart a simple mechanism such as a calculator, and dismantle it. Take those several parts and put them in a dryer and let them tumble, and see if your calculator will turn up fully assembled.
And how is that like evolution? It isn't. Your analogy is to spontaneous formation of an animal, nothing like evolution.
---
And what is the point of those rather unconnected strange questions? All they show is that in many cases you don't really understand what evolution says, and you seem to have found problems with your own incorrect notion of it.
Originally posted by Langtree
Frogstomp, radiometric dating is all fouled up. We live in an open system which inevitbly affects the parent to daughter element decay rate. Besides, one must know wht the relationship was before the decay began, and you can't possibly know that
Yes you can - look up isocron dating.
Originally posted by Langtree
Natural selection is a part of the real world, the canine is a perfect example of variation within kind, or horizontal change, not verticle.
Even the evolution of dog breeds has been accomplished via mutation.
Originally posted by LangtreeHow does this disprove TOE?
It's obvious you don't understand very much. There is to deal with location, and their refers to possession. Maybe I made a mistake, but it happens. I have no problem with being humble. As usual your knowledge of the sciences are pathetically weak, and you don't want to learn, so you live in a day dream. Here's a quote you can use, "My mind is mad ...[text shortened]... for evolution never produces order, only chaos. Which is the governing force of your thinking.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThoery aint even a word .
What proves the TOE?
PS: T = Thoery not fact. (Frogstomp)
Don't try to explain science terminology to me , you'll only get it wrong.
My definition of fact :theory :: your definition of theory : hypothesis.
if you dont have to stick to the proper science terminology,,, neither do I.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by frogstompThoery aint even a word .
Thoery aint even a word .
Don't try to explain science terminology to me , you'll only get it wrong.
My definition of fact :theory :: your definition of theory : hypothesis.
if you dont have to stick to the proper science terminology,,, neither do I.
Wrong. Just pick up a dictionary. Theory = An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
My definition of fact :theory
This is clearly where you are making the mistake which I am pointing out to you. Theory = An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Fact = Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed. Clearly you see that the two definitions are not at all compatible.
your definition of theory : hypothesis.
When did I say this? Like always you are simply putting words in my mouth.
Hypothesis = A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Why would I say that this is a theory!!??
So as it has finally come out of your own mouth TOE is an assumption based on limited information or knowledge. This is clearly not a fact.
Originally posted by dj2beckerLMFAO!!! You obviously don't even own a dictionary! Please cite the dictionary that gave such a ridiculous definition of "theory". My Webster's New Collegiate has several, but none use the words "assumption" or "limited knowledge" or "conjecture". As per a scientific theory like evolution the most fitting would be: A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (ex. wave theory of light). So I'd say frogstomp is right and you're wrong on this one.
[b]Thoery aint even a word .
Wrong. Just pick up a dictionary. Theory = An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
My definition of fact :theory
This is clearly where you are making the mistake which I am pointing out to you. Theory = An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conje ...[text shortened]... s an assumption based on limited information or knowledge. This is clearly not a fact.
[/b]