Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where have all the Creationists gone? Come back, we want to fight some more!!
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 36 (38595)
05-01-2003 11:43 AM


I think we really did it this time, it seems that all of the creationists have left us [at least the bible literalist ones]. How Boring!
Hopefully, they will return soon so that we have something to write about. What happened to the flood debate and the bible inerrancy lark? It seems that the opposition has fled. Now we are reduced to debating with the likes of 'inquisitor' on the newbies board'.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 12:14 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 3 by gene90, posted 05-04-2003 2:24 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 05-04-2003 10:03 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 9 by Philip, posted 05-04-2003 11:33 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 29 by 6days, posted 06-24-2003 10:12 AM Gzus has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 36 (38601)
05-01-2003 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gzus
05-01-2003 11:43 AM


Now we are reduced to debating with the likes of 'inquisitor' on the newbies board'.
If debate is what you can call it... (I guess we'd have to ask him, tho. He's the master of definitions, or something.)
BBC is still posting, I notice... He's pretty inerrantist. Of course, he also has a job, so he's not able to post 24-7 like some of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gzus, posted 05-01-2003 11:43 AM Gzus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by wj, posted 05-04-2003 6:21 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 05-04-2003 10:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 3 of 36 (38934)
05-04-2003 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gzus
05-01-2003 11:43 AM


Yeah, I'm bored. Not that I'm a very reliable poster myself though.
But hey there are always *politics*. We'll never all agree on that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gzus, posted 05-01-2003 11:43 AM Gzus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 05-04-2003 4:13 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 36 (38937)
05-04-2003 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by gene90
05-04-2003 2:24 PM


When walls come skin deep
Maybe it should tell you that maybe we are at the edge of the end of "debating" this stuff.
You all are still not as excited as I was this fast few days as I tried to inhere in Boscovich's work for which I think I may even have seen a means to get both Mendel's developemental ratio (that "no transitional forms" were found as the dominants and receesive preeceesioned across generations)HOW (but not why) procayotes and not eucayotes express more contiguously in the same continuum reproductively. But for now let me return to my on 9-11 statement that pretty much pre-dated my appearence here. Then I had said on True Seekers who never sought more, that, and these ARE my words, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny because brownian motion is not mututally (reciprocally) indepenedt of gravity fall." I had identified TWO infinties in this statement with the more massive one from the biological direction and now that I have seen Boscovich's pre-Declaration of Independence Theory of equality among masses it does not seem impossible that I was not right about transfinite set theory and genetics but one must be willing to take on some creationism to prevent only debating ID etc for which I do not have much theology or plausibility (not that such is lacking...).
In the mean time I had, although I do not know if any paid$ much attention to the introduction of an addition & a subtraction to which I can "read" directly from Boscovich's diagram Child called an acceleration-interval graph. But let me not get to MY own stuff first and note for the historian in the audience that Boscovich had thought that did "better" than Newton and in a biological sense I can agree. But B. Cohen has recently in a re-print of the Principia included some of Newton on "an elastic and electric spirit" to which he seem to take pains to make out it as electric and not "sprit" in much of the magnitude way that Newton dispalyed in the paragraphs a patent knowledge of. Boscovich makes some hay over Newton NOT being specific as to the "spirit" but If I, BSM, am correct about the the molecular basis of Mendel's 'no transitional form' BEING Boscovich's IMPENETRIBILITY (which does not ALSO preclude application of Cantor point sets directly to Boscochivic's "impulsive" force to which any base pair may have denoted and so connote..)then not only HISTORICALLY did Newton ALREADY have (inthought but not in detail) Boscovich's reciprocal forcing on matter the mass of which IS in the three body problem but having ANSWERED questions I asked my self in Africa but had never seen answered as to the analogy of the Earth to biological fermentation the multiple shapes of WOlfram's sophiticated reducation seems as well delimited in its entirety.
Let me take a breath and get back to the explaining one point at a time but I really do not see ANY reason for c/e to be polarized but instead note that basing biotech bottom lines on the synthetic chemistyr industry was the mistake. Boscovich HAS two infinite assymptotes and whether different kingdome gene expression IS determined by a line (perpendicular) among his squiggles divided IN THOUGHT by use and non-use of the 2nd pricnciple of generation WITHIN MY 9-11 statement I do not know. It IS possible to work with the complex plane in making "some kind" of material model however even if it restricts rather than intructs on Mendel's ressive as a Boscovich recession. Haldane had already disagreed about this but I have stopped listening to these likes as long as I am ignored to this extension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by gene90, posted 05-04-2003 2:24 PM gene90 has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 36 (38940)
05-04-2003 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
05-01-2003 12:14 PM


Booboo hasn't posted for a few days. It seems convenient that he proclaims other commitments when his arguments are being thrashed. It didn't seem to be a factor when he started here. And I'm sure others have time commitments.
The absence of creationist would seem to indicate that they are embarassed by the paucity of evidence and argument for their own position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 12:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 36 (38946)
05-04-2003 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gzus
05-01-2003 11:43 AM


--I've been a bit busy, not to mention that I'm trying to do my research before doing some more posting in my threads. I'm still planning on continuing the forums, 'Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift', 'Paleosols', 'The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion'. For the grand canyon one, I'm still waiting for my fluid dynamics book to show up so I can research overpressures and the more in-depth into the lithification process for large-scale deposits.
--I'm also trying to finish up writing one of my articles on CPT for TJ(shut up, I know your going to laugh or something, edge ). Some of you know Chase Nelson, he used to hang in this forum, but only for a short time (I know Quetzal knows him). He has recently gotten a publication in TJ. More info on that at http://www.oysi.promisoft.net I put it in the news headlines.
--I think most of my fellow YEC's leave because they don't like to do very much research--but its difficult to blame some of them, its much more difficult to do research on the implications for a young earth than for the mainstream. We only have a couple years of somewhat good research by a hand-full of scientists doing work on the implications for a young earth--you guy's have many thousands of scientists and a couple hundred years. Poor us. Too bad we all just can't get along instead of going back and forth on whether were doing science in the first place. Direct effects of Hovind, Brown, Wyatt, et al.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gzus, posted 05-01-2003 11:43 AM Gzus has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 36 (38947)
05-04-2003 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
05-01-2003 12:14 PM


"Of course, he also has a job, so he's not able to post 24-7 like some of us. "
--Yeah, Percy for one is a beast(if I might be loose with my terminology) with his time constraints and being able to maintain this board.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 12:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 36 (38953)
05-04-2003 10:52 PM


We creationists are very busy self supporting our selves, our families and our churches, etc.

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 9 of 36 (38956)
05-04-2003 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gzus
05-01-2003 11:43 AM


Creationist Void?
I've been extremely busy.
Most evo topics are closed to me due to my own dogmatic speculations in this truly metaphysical arena.
Neither camp seems to be accurately employing science without perversely speculating. Admittedly I'm guilty of that.
But take an example or 2 to illustrate: I've always maintained that ...
1) Raw beneficial mutation(s) never have existed. Sure there are citings of "mutations" that are really just APRIORI forms of NS within organisms. Only a mad-scientist really could accept raw beneficial mutations, period. Thus, mega-evolutionism is madness.
2) Your name, "Gzus", manifests a perverted contempt of anything redemptive within scientifically observed data and/or metaphysical realities. Who wants to seriously argue with you?
3) Radiometric dating, with all it dexterously spun out paradigms, manifests a real contempt for what light and time really is, stuff that is very elusive to say the least. Would you (or anyone) care to explain quantum mechanics as it relates to special relativity at the beginning of the moment of the big bang/creation, and then how our Newtonian conceptions of orbital time now predominate? No, didn't think so. Throw out your radiometric dating then.
4) One prominent and truly brilliant Evo here maintained that all proteins were enzymes. Understand the madness and confusion going on in men's brains, including yours and (especially) mine?
Thus these perverse incredulities of Evo-scientists makes me not even want to discuss at length with them on scientific and/or metaphysical levels. These 4 evo-abominations I mentioned are too easily hand-waveable. Shame on myself and others who purport these or support these as science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gzus, posted 05-01-2003 11:43 AM Gzus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by edge, posted 05-05-2003 12:13 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 05-05-2003 1:39 AM Philip has replied
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2003 4:18 AM Philip has replied
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 05-05-2003 11:39 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 26 by derwood, posted 06-23-2003 8:42 AM Philip has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 36 (38958)
05-05-2003 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Philip
05-04-2003 11:33 PM


Re: Creationist Void?
quote:
3) Radiometric dating, with all it dexterously spun out paradigms, manifests a real contempt for what light and time really is, stuff that is very elusive to say the least.
I'm not sure exactly what radiometric dating has to do with demeaning light and time. Why are light and time elusive?
quote:
Would you (or anyone) care to explain quantum mechanics as it relates to special relativity at the beginning of the moment of the big bang/creation, and then how our Newtonian conceptions of orbital time now predominate?
Perhaps if you tell us why the moment of the big bang has anything to do with radiometric dating...
quote:
No, didn't think so.
Ooops! Another one of those nasty assumptions! But really, why should we respond to this vague challenge?
quote:
Throw out your radiometric dating then.
Are you serious? You haven't made a coherrent point yet. Why should we throw anything out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Philip, posted 05-04-2003 11:33 PM Philip has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 11 of 36 (38965)
05-05-2003 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Philip
05-04-2003 11:33 PM


Re: Creationist Void?
Philip writes:
quote:
Raw beneficial mutation(s) never have existed. Sure there are citings of "mutations" that are really just APRIORI forms of NS within organisms. Only a mad-scientist really could accept raw beneficial mutations, period.
Incorrect.
Do a bit of research on the frameshift mutation that allowed bacteria to eat nylon oligimers. Since nylon didn't exist until the 1940s, how could this be a previous existing (and it's "a priori," two words) genetic sequence?
In the meantime, here is an article on mutations:
Remold SK, Lenski RE.
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Sep 25;98(20):11388-93.
PMID: 11572987 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
"Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor."
And even more importantly, here's an experiment you can perform in the privacy of your own bio lab. It will how mutation not once but twice...both of which result in increased fitness:
Take a single E. coli bacterium of type K. This means that it is susceptible to T4 phage. Let it reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do you think will happen? That's right...plaques will start to form and the lawn will die since, after all, all the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor who was genetically susceptible to T4 phage.
But what we actually see is that while the majority of the lawn dies, we see a colony or two surviving happily in the midst of all this virus. How can this be? Remember, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single one that can't fend off T4. If these survivors were capable of fending it off because of some pre-existing genetic capability, then the entire lawn should be able to do so, too, since they all have the same genome.
The only answer, of course, is that they don't have the same genome. These bacteria that are surviving are mutants. And, indeed, they are called K/4 because they can fend off T4 phage.
But wait, we're not done. Take one of these K/4 bacteria and again, let it reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do you think will happen? Well, the lawn should survive without any trouble because the entire lawn is descended from a single bacterium that was immune to T4 phage.
But what we actually see are plaques starting to form. How can this be? Remember, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single one that is immune to T4. If that one could fend off T4, then the entire lawn should be able to do so, too, since they all have the same genome.
But wait a second...did the bacteria evolve or did the phage? A little thought shows that it had to be the phage that generated a mutant, not the bacteria. That is, suppose there were a reversion mutation in one of the divisions of the bacteria to wild type. Well, that bacterium would be infected by T4 phage and die, but it would then open up space for the K/4 bacteria that is surrounding it to fill in. Thus, we'd never seen any plaques...as soon as a K-type bacteria died, it'd be replaced with K/4 bacteria which are immune.
Thus, we necessarily conclude that the T4 phage is the organism that mutated. And, indeed, they are called T4h because of this mutation.
So there you go: Beneficial mutations right before your eyes.
quote:
Your name, "Gzus", manifests a perverted contempt of anything redemptive within scientifically observed data and/or metaphysical realities.
Logical error: Argumentum ad hominem.
Surely you're not saying that a person's name has any relevance to the veracity of the argument, are you?
quote:
Radiometric dating, with all it dexterously spun out paradigms, manifests a real contempt for what light and time really is, stuff that is very elusive to say the least.
And your justification for this is what, precisely? What data, studies, articles, or experiments are you using to validate your claim?
quote:
Would you (or anyone) care to explain quantum mechanics as it relates to special relativity at the beginning of the moment of the big bang/creation, and then how our Newtonian conceptions of orbital time now predominate? No, didn't think so. Throw out your radiometric dating then.
Double-talk generators at maximum, Captain.
Question: Would you care to explain the genetic transcriptive processes as it relates to cellular division at the moment of conception and then how the adult organism deals with specific cells? No? Didn't think so. Then throw out all of cellular metabolism.
You're absolutely right that we don't quite know exactly how physics works that close to the Big Bang. But, we are far-removed from the Big Bang. What on earth makes you think that because we don't know how things worked then, we have absolutely no indication of how things work now?
Your comment about "Newtonian conceptions of orbital time" is telling...we don't have any, at least not in any modern scientific usage. We determined that the universe is relative, not linear a long time ago. And indeed, while Newtonian physics is wrong, it is very accurate for many uses.
Here...let me see if I can describe it...ummm, here we go: Newtonian physics is, on a fundamental level, flawed. The universe isn't linear but rather relative and thus at every level of measurement, there is an error between the Newtonian answer and the actual answer. However, for many cases, that error term is so small that you won't be able to detect it without extremely sophisticated equipment. It is only when we get to extreme scenarios that the error terms becomes large enough to notice and affect the results. That is why it is sufficient to use Newtonian mechanics to calculate, say, the speed of your car: Any error term you generate will be so small as to be insignificant.
Now, our current understandings of physics aren't quite helping us when it comes to the Big Bang. However, they are of tremendous use right now. We can't find any corner cases in current actions that introduce error terms. It may very well be that there are error terms, but it is going to require extremely sophisticated equipment to detect them and we simply don't have any such equipment yet. Thus, it is sufficient to use our current understanding of physics to calculate radiometric dates: Any error terms we generate will be so small as to be insignificant.
We can physically detect light that is literally billions of years old. Even if our physics is off, it is not so far off that something that dates to a couple billions of years is really only a couple thousand.
quote:
One prominent and truly brilliant Evo here maintained that all proteins were enzymes. Understand the madness and confusion going on in men's brains, including yours and (especially) mine?
Logical error: Strawman. Surely you're not saying that because one person made a mistake, this means that everybody who agrees with his conclusion are mistaken? Do you really want to use that as a standard?
quote:
Thus these perverse incredulities of Evo-scientists makes me not even want to discuss at length with them on scientific and/or metaphysical levels.
Read: I got my ass kicked, even though I don't quite understand how, and thus I'm going to retreat in a cloud of misstatements hoping that nobody notices.
quote:
These 4 evo-abominations I mentioned are too easily hand-waveable.
And every single one of them aren't true. So where does that leave you?
Besides, you do understand that "hand-waving" is not a good thing, yes? If your claim is that you can "hand wave away" these statements you invented, then that means that your explanations really aren't that valid...it's just a bunch of "hand-waving" that a magician does.
In short, you're saying that your response is nothing but a distraction full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
quote:
Shame on myself and others who purport these or support these as science.
And thankfully since nobody in science seems to think they are science, you only have to deal with your own shame.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Philip, posted 05-04-2003 11:33 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Philip, posted 05-08-2003 1:42 AM Rrhain has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 36 (38971)
05-05-2003 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Philip
05-04-2003 11:33 PM


Re: Creationist Void?
Thus these perverse incredulities of Evo-scientists makes me not even want to discuss at length with them on scientific and/or metaphysical levels.
Maybe you'd have a little more luck getting people to debate with you if you put down the thesaurus. Big words might make one sound smart, but not if one uses them inappropriately (as you have, several times in this post).
Somewhere, deep in your post, I think you've reiterated a truth - there's a line between strict scientific methodology and taking the results of that methodology and advancing a specific philosophy with them. This is a line that is all too easy to cross and should be avoided, as you counsel.
On the other hand, positing an effactious, concerned God - with the power and will to act in the material world - takes philosophy and places it into the purview of science. At that point I think it's totally appropriate to apply science to the question of the existence of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Philip, posted 05-04-2003 11:33 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Philip, posted 05-08-2003 2:09 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 36 (39006)
05-05-2003 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Philip
05-04-2003 11:33 PM


Re: Creationist Void?
I am pretty much done with a monetary speculation on the cardinal perversions that may be acceisble (BY DOING RESEARCH as noted inter alia) for I have found a MATERIAL use of Boschovich's THEORY. The only "speculation" that prevents this from being a staple of the scientists diet is simply that it was thought in 1921 (the theory was writ in 1745-54) no body of sensible magnitude witnessed the "prejudice" this critic thought APPLIED to Clerk Maxwell.
As far as believing ONLY that matter is in the void and that there is not seperation absolutely of void and matter I leave you all to rest in/on that.... (joke). You can invert THAT speculatin in the last word. For there is a spirtuality to the axiom from experience that has a reason to exist if it is as I say it is that this sensible body of Mendel's OBSERVATION ~1880 etc was what was named "theoretical" in 1921 and because of dialectical materialism this application to the prediction of EODs has not been done. That is not speculation for there is an asymmetry in the theory wich will cause the intelligent design to be less so if it is false TO THE SENSIBLE BODY of knowledge we all have of Chromosomes. I WILL be adding the TWO FORMAL CIRCLES of topobiology to THE THEORY and that is all existentially that need be thought. With this the spritual end can be left to those places Ruse so much wanted this talk to be restricted to but if this works the higher education places must but a place marker here for all their students to uderstand. That is prediction based probably on Biblical Creationism that caused others to NOT see the sensible FLESH that the THEORY came from and only the stars in the line.
Boscovich answered for me a question NO ONE ELSE has (pastuer did but not directly) aka "what is a fermentation?".
THE BASE PAIR DNA HYDROGEN BOND IS A BOSCOVICH repulsive force and Mendel OBSERVED IMPENETRABILITY DIRECTLY as do ALL genetistis but still they use such phrases as "evolution of dominance", heterozygote, recessives and inbreeding. This is a materiality that was witnessed and if it PREDICTS the electric organ discharge to increasing orders of approximation THERE CAN BE NO CLAIM IN THIS VOID THAT CREATIONISTS by INTELLIGENT DESIGN should be oppressed any longer. Also I will have supplied what Harvard did not get out of Lewonitn as to a PROCEDURE TO DO TOPOBIOLOGY no matter ones view on the time involved. We need a more integrated finishing school and not just a discursive chat room.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Philip, posted 05-04-2003 11:33 PM Philip has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 14 of 36 (39325)
05-08-2003 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rrhain
05-05-2003 1:39 AM


Re: Creationist Void?
Nice English Rrhain. Thanks for another adhoc solution. At least you're original.
Yet you just don't see it. To argue succinctly and dogmatically for these 4 abominations of science manifests (to myself and others) a shameless bias. You need a little shame, humility, honesty, etc., in all your dogmatic speculations to appear more credible, methinks. (I may be wrong)
'Don't think anyone here will agree with your last few sentences, accept with emotional kadoos.
Rrhain, I've fought long and hard on these 4 points over and over for months and you just handwaved them like a crude ork from the talk-origins archives. You're going to believe what you want to believe no matter how you dress it up with your science-falsely-so-called.
What do you (or any of you others out there) really speculate about existential vs. past space-time continuums and/or how they compare now in orbital vs. atomic time? Why not make an honest hypothesis that makes some sense?
What do you (or anyone) really know vs. speculate about:
(1) A PRIORI mutations,
(2) raw mutations,
(3) NS and
(4) gene-regulated mutations?
You (all) need to find some better proof of (2) raw mutations (vs mere NS) to support YOUR outlandish mega-ToEs. I don't really see any evidence whatsoever of beneficial raw mutations having ever even existed in any life-form. This evo-science-magic (to me) fails on all taxa levels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 05-05-2003 1:39 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2003 1:49 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2003 5:30 AM Philip has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 36 (39328)
05-08-2003 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Philip
05-08-2003 1:42 AM


Re: Creationist Void?
What do you (or any of you others out there) really speculate about existential vs. past space-time continuums and/or how they compare now in orbital vs. atomic time? Why not make an honest hypothesis that makes some sense?
Maybe you could explain a bit? I for one don't know what you're talking about. Do you have some objection to the idea that time has proceeded at the same rate throughout Earth's history? (If such a statement could even be said - how could you measure the rate of time? What frame of reference are you using?)
You (all) need to find some better proof of (2) raw mutations (vs mere NS) to support YOUR outlandish mega-ToEs. I don't really see any evidence whatsoever of beneficial raw mutations having ever even existed in any life-form.
Maybe you hand't noticed - we're talking about that very thing over here. Perhaps you'd like to add your thoughts? Much evidence of purely beneficial mutation has been presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Philip, posted 05-08-2003 1:42 AM Philip has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024