How can YEC's ignore ALL the data of old Earth?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe that can be explained by exponential growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

No RJ it can't. The population of diatoms is roughly constant, give or take. This means that the deposits grow linearly. For exponential growth to occur the rate of change of population has to be proportional to the population. If these deposits were so deep as a result of exponential growth in the population of diatoms then we would not be able to move for the things. They would dominate the biomass of the world to an unbelievable degree. That you have posted this points to one of two things, you are grasping at straws or you do not understand exponential growth. Which is it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Bacteria remain bacteria. That is not an example of the theory of evolution.

The vast majority of cells in your body are bacterial (your microbiome). Your body is literally speaking mostly made up of single-celled organisms that outnumber the eukaryotic cells that houses them, ten to one. Your eukaryotic cells, in turn, can reasonably be thought of as the results of bacteria entering into symbiotic relationships - the endosymbiotic theory. So you see, not only is bacteria still bacteria, but in essence humans too are still just variations of bacteria, like it or not. Changes observed in bacteria therefore, have an impact on multi-cellular organisms too. Evolution at work.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No RJ it can't. .... you are grasping at straws or you do not understand exponential growth. Which is it?

Don't underestimate him. It's both.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe that can be explained by exponential growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

That question was for Kelly, not you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sorry you believe that in the beginning that evolution happen so fast
unlike today that if a bad summer or winter occurred it would adapt? Is
that what your telling me, pow one day its 95 then it goes to 125 or what
ever the top temps were and it would just adapt from say 8AM to 2PM?
That very fast, unless you have something else in mind?

The tro ...[text shortened]... hose you dismiss do not.

The world was not made for us, well again another assumption.
Kelly

I used the word "climate" for a reason.

You are just reinforcing everyone's opinion of you as a dumb ass.

Originally posted by C Hess
You need to study microbiology a little. The first forms of life would have been very simple procaryots (bacterial forms). As you no doubt know, bacteria has the ability to adapt to almost any kind of environment fairly quickly. The reason being that they divide so fast, that if only a few survive a sudden change in the environment, soon there will be a lot. ...[text shortened]... on has begun.

How did that first cell(s) come to be? Well, that's a story for another day. 😴

So tell me millions, why not billions, trillions, thousands, twelve?
Where did you go to get that information?
With respect to being able to adapt, an enivorment can change within an
hour, so how fast does evolution work again?
Am I to believe you know the abilities of the first life form, you can tell me
what it was, how sturdy it was?
Where do you get this information?
Dividing fast just means it is dividing fast, it does not mean that any change
within it throuh mutation would be helpful, it only means all of them could
die off faster if the changes were not good.

I'm quite content talking about my faith, is this your beliefs, or do you have
something you can point to that says the first life form came in these
numbers and abilities? You know just because you see a simple life form
now does not mean the first ones if there were first ones had the same
abilities....so why do you think that?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So tell me millions, why not billions, trillions, thousands, twelve?
Where did you go to get that information?
With respect to being able to adapt, an enivorment can change within an
hour, so how fast does evolution work again?
Am I to believe you know the abilities of the first life form, you can tell me
what it was, how sturdy it was?
Where do you g ...[text shortened]... ean the first ones if there were first ones had the same
abilities....so why do you think that?

I've said it time and again. The most plausible explanation works for me. That would be the explanation that fits all observations and requires the least amount of outside input. Now, if you can explain all the available evidence without resorting to a sneaky god*, an explanation that rest on even fewer assumptions of the early conditions for life than evolutionary theory, you'll have my undivided attention.

* sneaky in the sense that it created a world that makes it appear like evolution has been and is at work

Originally posted by DeepThought
No RJ it can't. The population of diatoms is roughly constant, give or take. This means that the deposits grow linearly. For exponential growth to occur the rate of change of population has to be proportional to the population. If these deposits were so deep as a result of exponential growth in the population of diatoms then we would not be able to m ...[text shortened]... wo things, you are grasping at straws or you do not understand exponential growth. Which is it?

I understand exponential growth and even gave a reference that explains it. If the population of diatoms are roughly constant now, then God must have created a bunch of them in the beginning or something stopped their growth. Maybe, it was the worldwide flood. Ha ha. 😏

Originally posted by C Hess
The vast majority of cells in your body are bacterial (your microbiome). Your body is literally speaking mostly made up of single-celled organisms that outnumber the eukaryotic cells that houses them, ten to one. Your eukaryotic cells, in turn, can reasonably be thought of as the results of bacteria entering into symbiotic relationships - the endosymbiotic th ...[text shortened]... served in bacteria therefore, have an impact on multi-cellular organisms too. Evolution at work.

That is utter nonsense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is utter nonsense.

Nope.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome

...average adults possess 10 times more microbial cells than human cells.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

In a study using genomes to construct supertrees, Pisani et al. (2007) suggest that, along with evidence that there was never a mitochondrion-less eukaryote, eukaryotes evolved from a syntrophy between an archaea closely related to Thermoplasmatales and an α-proteobacterium, likely a symbiosis driven by sulfur or hydrogen. The mitochondrion and its genome is a remnant of the α-proteobacterial endosymbiont.

Originally posted by C Hess
I've said it time and again. The most plausible explanation works for me. That would be the explanation that fits all observations and requires the least amount of outside input. Now, if you can explain all the available evidence without resorting to a sneaky god*, an explanation that rest on even fewer assumptions of the early conditions for life than evolut ...[text shortened]... in the sense that it created a world that makes it appear like evolution has been and is at work

Well yea, you make it up as you go you can make it fit whatever you like.
Come up with a good story that looks like it fits, then you can reject
what you don't like and accept only what you want to.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I used the word "climate" for a reason.

You are just reinforcing everyone's opinion of you as a dumb ass.

Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well yea, you make it up as you go you can make it fit whatever you like.
Come up with a good story that looks like it fits, then you can reject
what you don't like and accept only what you want to.

I'm saying you specifically can't make s*** up, reject what you don't like and accept only what you want to. You can only give explanations that fit the evidence, reject explanations that don't and accept only the explanations that do. That's the exact opposite of what you're accusing me of. Are you high?

Originally posted by C Hess
That covers all of science, I'd say. Evolution specifically is about accumulated changes in life producing new species over time. Imagination is simply a by-product of a specific type of brain. It's useful to us when we plan ahead and to avoid potentially dangerous situations. It can also wreak havoc with our minds and lead us astray. Whenever reality doesn't ...[text shortened]... with reality, we drop it like yesterday's underwear. That's science. That's evolutionary theory.

"Evolution specifically is about accumulated changes in life producing new species over time."

That...is a product of your imagination.

How can you sit there and actually state that imagination is a "by-product" of the brain? How is that idea scientific? Just as with all other "theory" associated with the theory of evolution are these ideas conjured up.

Everything in creation is the same as it was the day it was created. The only thing that is evolving is the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by josephw
How can you sit there and actually state that imagination is a "by-product" of the brain?

Because it is? Unless you point and say: "Look. There's imagination.", the scientific stance would be to assume that every thought produced comes from the organ we call brain. There's plenty of evidence to support that statement, such as what happens to thought processes whenever some part of the brain is injured. Now, if imagination were useful to avoid certain actions that would otherwise be harmful to the individual or group, those who possessed a brain capable of imagination would survive to a higher degree than those that didn't, allowing some to survive where others couldn't. Evolution.