|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are your actions relevant to environmental degradation/global warming? |
| Yes |
|
51% |
[ 17 ] |
| No |
|
48% |
[ 16 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| nautilus wrote: |
Actually its very simple to see how.
Humans have walked around the earth in less than 10 years. Why would it take cats more than 4000? |
I'm pretty sure those humans didn't walk across the oceans, nor have to deal with unsurvivable, post-apocalyptic conditions. Remember, everything else is dead because of your year-long, world-wide flood.
| nautilus wrote: |
Of course. They are specialised one-trick ponies. Having better sense of smell is hardly an advantage if you're less fit overall and harbor a cornucopia of genetic disorders.
Your "champion rottweiller is likely to suffer from hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, osteocondrosis dissecans, panosteitis, bloat, von willebrand disease, sub aortic stenosis, hypothyroidism, entropian, ectropian, progressive retinal atrophy, and osteosarcomas. |
How likely are wolves to suffer from the same genetic disorders? If they're inbred, just as likely. Sarfati's theory is demonstrably full of holes.
Didn't I just say we're already aware they're similar because of common ancestry? I didn't say show us they're similar, I said show us where the traits of all dog breeds are encoded in wolves. Again, you and Sarfati can't. You don't have a leg, or even one "stored" in your DNA somewhere, to stand on.
| nautilus wrote: |
| Be off with you. |
Aww, need me to stop poking holes in your fantasies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You don't have a leg, or even one "stored" in your DNA somewhere, to stand on. |
Haha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
I'm pretty sure those humans didn't walk across the oceans |
Why do you assume the earth was always the same in layout as it is today?Not even the evolutionists do that.
The creation account says the landmass was one at the beginning.
Scientists agree, although their dates are off again.
The creation account says the landmass was broken up and drifted apart during and in the centuries after the flood.
Scientists agree, although their dates are off again.
| Quote: |
| nor have to deal with unsurvivable, post-apocalyptic conditions. |
According to the account, animals and people emerged from the ark long after many areas of land had already been uncovered and sprouted plants. So there was already prime grazing available for the herbivores at least. Hardly "unsurvivable" conditions.
| Quote: |
| How likely are wolves to suffer from the same genetic disorders? If they're inbred, just as likely. |
Well if you're trying to make point that wolves suffer terrible genetic diseases, better provide evidence, hadn't you? I'm not going to research and make your argument for you..
| Quote: |
| show us where the traits of all dog breeds are encoded in wolves. |
So in order to keep denying reality you've moved the goalposts to being" show me a complete read-out of wolf dna with the genes and their functions clearly labelled, or I'll stop playing".
I've already shown you that wolves and domestic dogs are more genetically similar than two humans.
I don't really understand your mental disjunct here. If geneticists say 99.8% of wolf & dog dna is identical, why do you suddenly require the full read out so you can match up the dna markers yourself at home before you accept it?
Do you apply the same crazily rigorous standards to the wild claims of evolutionists? Obviously not...
I know continually losing must be painful for you, but please, don't let it warp your mind into places it should never logically go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
That article is a joke. Yes, reconstructing faces is not very reliable when using skulls. |
And they're not even using whole skulls, just tiny bone fragments.
How many evolutionists does it take to screw in a lightbulb again?
Dude my pre-schoolers could do better with their play-dough.
| Quote: |
| People draw dinosaurs, but we don't know what color skin dinosaurs had. |
Actually we do.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/27/fossil-hunters-dinosaur-true-colours
But I realise you're not very up on the latest news about this subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The creation account says the landmass was one at the beginning.
Scientists agree, although their dates are off again. |
Ouch. Ok I've come to the official conclusion that you have researched one, perhaps two areas of Science, and then come to shallow and brief conclusions on everything else.
Every single thing you've said about Geology and geography is... terrible, basically. Laughably so, and I'm not here galavanting around trying to belittle you like the others. But this is unavoidable.
One of about 75 things you need to explain: WATER moved the continents apart? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
Every single thing you've said about Geology and geography is... terrible, basically. |
I haven't said anything about geology or geography.
What I have shown (backed up with scientific proof) is that evolutionists have a flawed and highly debatable way of estimating the dates. At best their guesstimates are very imprecise, at worst, out by millions of years.
How is it "laughable"? I've hit you with ( secular ) links showing the doubt cast over their methods. You, tomato and co. havve provided nothing in response but denial and hand waving.
| Quote: |
| One of about 75 things you need to explain: WATER moved the continents apart? |
I've explained everything perfectly well and justified it all with evidence.
You're misrepresenting me here once again. When did I say water moved the continents apart?
According to biblical record, the flood was spurred by catastrophic tectonic upheaval, among other things.
Continental drift was first suggested by a creationist, Antonio Snider- who took literally a verse in Genesis saying that originally the earths waters were gathered in one place. Just one of numerous scientific discoveries already mentioned in our "2000 year-old book" many centuries before science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
The creation account says the landmass was one at the beginning.
Scientists agree, although their dates are off again. |
This is your argument over and over: This part of science doesn't disagree with me, it's good. This part of science disagrees with me, it's bad. This makes you no better than the scientists who do fudge, or ignore data that you oh so rail against.
| nautilus wrote: |
| flood blah blah, the account, blah blah |
The blatant impossibilities of "the account" are far too numerous to ignore.
Where did the water come from/go to?
How were the animals gathered, stopped from killing each other, fed, cleaned up after, etc?
How did 8 people breed so prodigiously to produce ancient Chinese, Indian, Egyptian and Greek, among other cultures, a mere 1000 years later? (Or for that matter, a society capable of building the Tower of Babel a mere century and a half later?)
and all of this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
| nautilus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| How likely are wolves to suffer from the same genetic disorders? If they're inbred, just as likely. |
Well if you're trying to make point that wolves suffer terrible genetic diseases, better provide evidence, hadn't you? I'm not going to research and make your argument for you.. |
You're the last person I would ask to make my argument for me. It's been shown that inbreeding results in genetic disorders regardless of species. Got any proof otherwise?
| nautilus wrote: |
| So in order to keep denying reality you've moved the goalposts to being" show me a complete read-out of wolf dna with the genes and their functions clearly labelled, or I'll stop playing". |
No goalposts were moved. I asked you to do this from the beginning, and you simply showed me that their DNA were similar, which I'd already admitted was true. Funny how I accused you first of "denying reality" and "moving the goalposts". Are you running out of arguments and have to falsely use my own?
| nautilus wrote: |
I've already shown you that wolves and domestic dogs are more genetically similar than two humans.
I don't really understand your mental disjunct here. If geneticists say 99.8% of wolf & dog dna is identical, why do you suddenly require the full read out so you can match up the dna markers yourself at home before you accept it? |
I'm fully aware you're incapable of backing up the theory. Sarfati, the guy who created it, can't back it up. You, and he, are claiming that all of the genetic information in every breed of dog is somehow "stored" in the wolf. Yet neither of you can even begin to show us where or how.
| nautilus wrote: |
| Do you apply the same crazily rigorous standards to the wild claims of evolutionists? Obviously not... |
If an evolutionist claimed that all the traits of a tiger were stored in a modern tomcat, you bet I'd demand it. Maybe if you started applying some standards other than "If it agrees with creationism it's good science. If not, it's the delirious ramblings of crackpots.", you'd be a little less misled.
| nautilus wrote: |
| I know continually losing must be painful for you, but please, don't let it warp your mind into places it should never logically go. |
You know what, for once I agree. I am losing by continuing to pretend that the mostly decades old, thoroughly debunked by those more intelligent than either of us, irrational slop you continue to spew is even worth the few minutes I spend per day making you look ridiculous. It's only that last little bit that keeps me going. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| What I have shown (backed up with scientific proof) is that evolutionists have a flawed and highly debatable way of estimating the dates. At best their guesstimates are very imprecise, at worst, out by millions of years. |
Your "scientific proof" consists of an article that suggests carbon and isotope dating may be flawed. Never mind that your "proof" doesn't disprove either method, merely questions them. Never mind that those dates concur with dates determined by genetic and geologic tests. Never mind that you don't even have a reliable dating method that agrees with creationism.
nautilus' chain of logic:
"maybe not A, therefore B, never mind the rest of the alphabet" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's laughable because
| Quote: |
| the flood was spurred by catastrophic tectonic upheaval, among other things |
Which doesn't even make any sense scientifically speaking (after all, we ARE using science to back up each others' claims here). Nevermind that there is absolutely no evidence for it.
You know we can measure the speed of continental drift. And it isn't remotely enough to do what you are suggesting in a few thousand years. Nothing you say geologically makes sense, so at the very least, stay away from that area when trying to prove a point from now on.
We understand how tectonics work, and they don't happen fast, and then slow down, which is one possible solution of yours for the fact that they move maybe 2mm a year (depending on the area). This literal bible representing geology is... well it's simply unacceptable, as you can probably tell by the way I'm repeating myself.
| Quote: |
| Continental drift was first suggested by a creationist, Antonio Snider- who took literally a verse in Genesis saying that originally the earths waters were gathered in one place. |
This isn't even true. I have JUST finished a book that told me the first person to suggest this. I'll get back to you on his name but he was ultimately ignored by the scientific population, but he pursued for the next 3 decades, providing evidence as to how huge rocks traveled thousands of miles via glaciers and so forth. Eventually, either near or after his death, they agreed to it all. And possibly credited someone else for it, but I'll get back to you on the details. It was not a creationist.
| Quote: |
| What I have shown (backed up with scientific proof) is that evolutionists have a flawed and highly debatable way of estimating the dates |
You haven't shown (that i've seen) any evidence of this super fast continental drift, sudden super active tectonics that started and stopped within a few weeks, the flood, or anything geologically or geographically.
| Quote: |
| I've hit you with ( secular ) links showing the doubt cast over their methods. You, tomato and co. havve provided nothing in response but denial and hand waving. |
I always provide lots of things, I just don't always necessarily bother with 'links' to things. I generally prefer discussing as a forum rather than some kind of university dissertation.
As underwater bob says, You say A may be flawed, so it MUST be B, rather than the other 24 options. Of course it's flawed, it's a science. As long as 2 or more scientists exists, science will be known to have a flaw or two. That's the way it actually works.
(Monsoon still happening... hence the long thread) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
Where did the water come from/go to? |
Your evo-theory has been utterly destroyed so you switch the debate to creationism to avoid the embarrasment?
I already told you numerous times that I don't claim to be able to prove creationism. The animals were supernaturally called to asssemble.I already acknowledged it as faith-based.
You're the one claiming that evolutionism is scientifically proven though. Which is why its so fun to tear it to bits for you.
| Quote: |
| It's been shown that inbreeding results in genetic disorders regardless of species. Got any proof otherwise? |
No, it hasn't. It varies from species to species. The Cheetah is known for having a very small genetic gene pool, and also for having very few genetic diseases.
The South American Sea lion population is known to be descended from just two mothers. However there is still enough diversity within the gene pool for the population to be healthy.
It depends on the genetic diversity initially present. If the gene pool is great and there are few genetic disorders or mutations, then its entirely possible for inbreeding within closely related groups to continue for a long time.
As I already showed you, our genetic diversity increases the further back we go in time, and the amount of mutations and genetic damage decreases. Our ancestors were genetically superior. As predicted by creationism.
You claimed that the wolf population is inbred and suffers from genetic disorders. You better get some evidence to back that.
| Quote: |
| No goalposts were moved. |
Dude when you demand to know something that is as yet unknowable, it just reinforces how ignorant of reality you are. Not even the scientists sequencing wolf dna know what jobs every one of the tens of thousands of genes are individually responsible for.
Neither do they know what all the human genes are responsible for.
But if you're going to be utterly ridiculous, then I demand video footage of the first cell evolving.If you fail to provide this undeniable evidence, then I win.
| Quote: |
| You, and he, are claiming that all of the genetic information in every breed of dog is somehow "stored" in the wolf. Yet neither of you can even begin to show us where or how. |
The two are 99.8% identical. That means the genetic information is the same! how hard can it be to understand this?
You've been utterly hammered on this point (and every other point). Time to give it up wouldn't you say?
*Btw, every shade of color found in domestic breeds is found in wild wolves. They are just mixed in and diffused rather than any one solid colour.
| Quote: |
| If an evolutionist claimed that all the traits of a tiger were stored in a modern tomcat, you bet I'd demand it. |
But if they vaguely told you a blue whale was descended from a mousedeer, you immediately accept it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
It's laughable because
| Quote: |
| the flood was spurred by catastrophic tectonic upheaval, among other things |
Which doesn't even make any sense scientifically speaking |
The last asian tsunami was caused by a slight tectonic twitch. you think a full scale upheaval would not result in flooding?
| Quote: |
| You know we can measure the speed of continental drift. And it isn't remotely enough to do what you are suggesting in a few thousand years. |
Would it ever occur to you that the speed has changed?
We already know that it has; the himalas are being upthrust at a slower rate now than previously, the Indian subcontinent is moving northward at a slower rate than previous.
| Quote: |
| This isn't even true |
look up:
Antonio Snider-Pellegrini
La Cr�ation et ses myst�res d�voil�s :1858 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't your genetic diversity thing now moot, since it was already heavily disproven by way of your own sources, which made it very clear that the Africans that were more diverse were as a result of becoming separated at a later date, rather than originating that way? Pretty sure that's the case.
You have done this frequently, as I'm sure you're aware; either ignoring or briefly dismissing something, before coming back to it as pure proof at a later date, with the possible hope that nobody will notice... I've noticed.
| Quote: |
| The last asian tsunami was caused by a slight tectonic twitch. you think a full scale upheaval would not result in flooding? |
Yes indeed, but these tectonic twitches are along tectonic plates which rub against each other. You're implying that all tectonics pushed against each other simultaneously somehow, at a sudden speed enough to move perhaps a metre or more all the way around the earth (again, not making sense since in some places they would be moving apart), causing water in all directions to be raised up and outwards in every direction, over 9,000 metres worldwide - of course without any need to withdraw back into the pits - gravity was just a myth back then afterall - long enough for all species, including water based creatures and plant species to drown off and die.
The fact that you're actually agreeing with science now, that the scientific process is well understood in this field, it means you cannot deny that the rate of tectonics is understood. Sure paces may have changed ever so slightly, because the Mantle acts differently over time, but there is no way in hell the pace has changed from... 20 miles a year (A rate that would destroy anything... the atmosphere Noah would be breathing would be 98% ash and lava), right down to 2cm a decade.
If so, then you now must dismiss the science and take back your previous point anyway.
None of it makes sense - to have doubt over the time period scientists have. It's like claiming the TV doesn't exist because nobody understands how electrons or lasers work, therefore there's no understanding and we just think we're watching TV.
As for that book, if it IS true, then it isn't VERY true. As in, I don't recall his name being mentioned anywhere in the history of tectonics, so he couldnt have been that widely recognised for it, which means he just made a random speculation. Of course, this happens in science constantly too. People have come up with things, only to be recognized 200 years later. Doesn't really mean that scientist was ahead of his time. It just means they speculated something. In the same way I am speculating mass produced flying cars in a few hundred years. When it happens, I'll be known as a genius.
Of course saying this, I am only really referring to one book, who may have jsut not mentioned him. So who knows. Stick to the first points for now, me being abroad and what not. I'm off to see some giant 3 headed elephant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
| Isn't your genetic diversity thing now moot, since it was already heavily disproven by way of your own sources, which made it very clear that the Africans that were more diverse were as a result of becoming separated at a later date, rather than originating that way? Pretty sure that's the case. . |
No...I think you just didn't read the link.
| Quote: |
| there was more genetic diversity in our early ancestors than there is in modern humans. |
http://www.physorg.com/news183278038.html
Maybe you got confused with a different link which stated that yes africans are more genetically diverse than europeans or asians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Underwaterbob wrote:
Where did the water come from/go to? |
Your evo-theory has been utterly destroyed so you switch the debate to creationism to avoid the embarrasment? |
If I'm not mistaken, this is a debate about evolution vs. creationism. You don't have an answer to this question so you just deflect it and hope everyone forgets the question? I'll ask again. Where did all the water go?
| Quote: |
| I already told you numerous times that I don't claim to be able to prove creationism. The animals were supernaturally called to asssemble.I already acknowledged it as faith-based. |
Then why are you still trying to prove it? Sure, hold on to your faith-based beliefs but stop trying to pretend that science backs you up. Scientific evidence is firmly on the side of evolution, no matter how many made-up, asinine, hyphenated terms you decide to label it with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Maybe you got confused with a different link which stated that yes africans are more genetically diverse than europeans or asians. |
Yes, that's what I was thinking of. Which still proves the point really. Glad you haven't tried to refute your geological theories, and posted a link that makes it clear that a catastrophic event would have happened over 1 million years ago...
Again, if you're gonna use that link you're gonna have to accept the time scales they provide. Otherwise it can just go in the 'evolution' folder for us to gorge ourselves on. You can't simply take small segments that suit you, and disregard other bits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
