Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Global Warming: Do you matter?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Global Warming: Do you matter?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40 ... 69, 70, 71 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Are your actions relevant to environmental degradation/global warming?

Yes

51%

[ 17 ]

48%

[ 16 ]

Total Votes : 33

Author

Message

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:38 am Post subject:

pangaea wrote:

Sure, hold on to your faith-based beliefs but stop trying to pretend that science backs you up.

But it does.
Sure, there are elements of the creation account that are clearly supernatural. The act of creation itself: the assembling of the animals at the right moment: the way they were possibly put into a state of hibernation: and so forth.
But the rest is backed up by real-world evidence.
Which is a lot more than can be said for your evolution myth.

Quote:

Scientific evidence is firmly on the side of evolution, no matter how many made-up, asinine, hyphenated terms you decide to label it with.

Then why can nobody provide a single example of anything that has definitely actually evolved?

Your evo-fantasy is nothing more than imaginative fiction. Sanctioned by a populist propoganda machine that Goebbels would have been proud of.
You are in the grip of some sort of socio-psychological brainwashing.

Globutron wrote:

Which still proves the point really.

Only to someone without basic logical reasoning skills.

Quote:

a catastrophic event would have happened over 1 million years ago

Science confirms a catastrophic event that put humans into a population bottleneck...and finally catches up to what was written in our "2000 year old book".
Evolutionists would rather eat their own grandmother than admit to anything in line with creationism though. So they made up some other story and slapped some ridiculous date on it. Bit like how they changed the date for mitochondrial eve from 6000 yrs ago to 140.000. They just can't bear to give any credence to creationism.

Quote:

if you're gonna use that link you're gonna have to accept the time scales they provide.

i don't think so....
If you'd prefer me to just post from creationist websites, do let me know.

Pangaea wrote:

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?

ScienceDaily (May 11, 2006) � Scientists at The University of Manchester have uncovered the first evidence of seawater deep inside the Earth
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060511083341.htm

Live Science, 28 February 2007
Huge "Ocean" discovered inside Earth
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070228_beijing_anomoly.html

seonsengnimble

Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:00 am Post subject:

nautilus wrote:

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.

Sorry, I haven't read the latest articles about dinosaur colors. I stand corrected, but keep in mind this article is from this year and it states this:

Quote:

It is the first time fossil hunters have known the true colours of a dinosaur.

You still have ignored the rest of my post explaining why dismissing research because an artist rendered a primate's flesh based on bone fragments for use in a magazine is ridiculous.

The artist rendered an image of a primate using limited information. The picture was not part of a study. It was used to make the article more interesting for the reader.

Can you understand the difference? Do you dismiss the bible because Willem Defoe played Jesus in one movie and James Caviezel portrayed him in a different movie?

pangaea

Joined: 20 Dec 2007

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:57 am Post subject:

Quote:

Globutron wrote:
if you're gonna use that link you're gonna have to accept the time scales they provide.

nautilus wrote:
i don't think so....
If you'd prefer me to just post from creationist websites, do let me know.

You can't have it both ways. Either the scientific studies you present are reliable or they are not. You can't pick out the information that suits you, then dismiss the information that doesn't. You undermine your own credibility ever time you do it. No one can possibly take you seriously when you use such juvenile and hypocritical tactics. You would be laughed right out of a serious debate.

Globutron

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:50 am Post subject:

pangaea wrote:

Quote:

Globutron wrote:
if you're gonna use that link you're gonna have to accept the time scales they provide.

nautilus wrote:
i don't think so....
If you'd prefer me to just post from creationist websites, do let me know.

You would be laughed right out of a serious debate.

Yes, exactly. If you were having this debate with my friends and I you wouldn't be laughed at, you would be shouldered out of the conversation as an idiot, before you even got to this point. Not because your information is invalid as a creationist, but because you are cherry picking. It's VERY CLEAR you are cherry picking, too.

You are saying the dates are wrong because people can't stand to go through the creationist route... that's basically saying all scientists lie about the results they find because they don't like them. THIS is also showing extreme ignorance to the process of science. You are calling it some kind of brainwashing propoganda like the world is North Korea. You sound partially insane!

Careers have been DESTROYED by the results they find, and they will sometimes persist for their life time to get the message even if, and it has, kills them. Why would they do that just so people will think something was 150 thousand years ago instead of 6.

You show incredible lack of knowledge in the aging process. I'd go into it but I'm about to get drunk with strange people who I hate (those waavy blonde hair cock eyes strolling around bangkok with a smug muscular face that are all over bangkok), and it's not directly evo/creo talk.

If you continue to be like this in the 'debate' then I'm gonna back out and occasionally come in with the odd snide and sarcastic remark, rather than putting any effort into it.

Conclusion; YOUR dates are wrong. ALL scientists (not evos) dates are ESTIMATES (they can't get it down to whether it was a wednesday), but they are a damn sight more confident about it than you. And that's because they have seen the evidence. 6,000 years is just stupid. There were settlers in Greece and Egypt 6,000 years ago. People were farming, advanced civilizations in china with houses and ancient religions.
You can't say THOSE dates are wrong, can you? Even if you have won in all the evo stuff -which you haven't, you only really have one question that hasn't been answered... and it HAS, just not in the blatant way you want, in a style that shows a misunderstanding of the definition of evolution - but even if you have, you are more than just wrong on this level, and it's the equivalent of a criminal calling the police, setting up a camera in front of a bank and then robbing it. Then denying it. Or something. You get the picture.

Globutron

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 6:00 am Post subject:

Also, your god water link:

Quote:

This work, for the first time, quantifies the 'geological water cycle'."

scientific prediction finally answered.

Quote:

"Our results also explain why ocean volcanoes, like Hawaii and Iceland, which come from the where the mantle meets the core, have a higher water content than ocean volcanoes that originate from shallower regions of the mantle.

So again, you've cherry picked. If you want to use these articles as evidence, you must accept that hawaii exists. And did not come to exist 6,000 years ago. And did not arise within about a week. which is what you're asking it to do.

Come on, 'dude', as you american honkeys say.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:59 am Post subject:

nautilus wrote:

Our ancestors were genetically superior. As predicted by creationism.

Gee, I must have missed that part of the bible that talked about DNA sequencing and alleles...

nautilus wrote:

The two are 99.8% identical. That means the genetic information is the same! how hard can it be to understand this?

Some basic logic for the sadly lacking:

For starters: which breed of dog's genetic information is 99.8% similar to wolves? There's more than one you know. You're claiming that a wolf's genetic information includes the genetic information of every breed of dog. 99.8% similarity is not identical, like you just said elsewhere, there are tens of thousands of genes in a wolf:

For simplicity's sake, let's say there are 10'000 genes in each animal. .2% of which is 20 different genes that are different in a wolf from each breed of dog. Multiply that by the number of breeds of dog (assuming that the differences are all different for simplicity's sake) and you get 400x20 = 8'000 genetic differences between wolves and all breeds of dog. That's 80% of the total number of genes initially assumed. Even if half of the differences were shared among the different dog breeds, you'd still need to account for the 4000 genetic differences, or 40% of the wolf's entire cache of genetic information.

In short, if the wolf somehow stores all of the genetic information of every breed of dog, then they have to have a great deal more genetic information than the average dog. This should be very easy to prove. Yet neither you, nor Sarfati can do it.

Uh oh!:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6730-wolves-genetic-diversity-worryingly-low.html

nautilus wrote:

Time to give it up wouldn't you say?

So desperate you have to ask me to stop trouncing you...

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:03 pm Post subject:

Something about my math bothered me, so after some thought I realized that what you propose is even more impossible. Individual dog breeds are presumably not genetically identical. In order for a wolf to share 99.8% of it's genetic information with dogs, every trait of every dog that differs from a wolf must be contained in that .2% of it's genetic information that differs from dogs. That should be very easy for you and Sarfati to prove...

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:16 pm Post subject:

seonsengnimble wrote:

The point is that evolutionists make up stories like this based on very flawed methods and reasoning, which they then present as fact to the world in glossy magazines. Is it any wonder most people have come to believe evolutionism after decades of media articles with ape pictures? All of them based on highly dubious artistic recreations, as are the "missing links" reported by palaeontologists.This isn't science, its arts and crafts.

Quote:

Can you understand the difference?

I can, but I don't think most of the dumbed-down masses can.

pangaea wrote:

You can't pick out the information that suits you, then dismiss the information that doesn't.

The only information that doesn't "suit me" is the artificial dates they impose upon the evidence, which are known to be guesswork even within the scientific community.
I'm not questioning the evidence itself or their general findings.

This is how, for example, the dates for mitochondrial eve were calculated, and the inherent flaws in the methodology.
http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:20 pm Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

For simplicity's sake, let's say there are 10'000 genes in each animal. .2% of which is 20 different genes that are different in a wolf from each breed of dog. Multiply that by the number of breeds of dog (assuming that the differences are all different for simplicity's sake) and you get 400x20 = 8'000 genetic differences between wolves and all breeds of dog. That's 80% of the total number of genes initially assumed. Even if half of the differences were shared among the different dog breeds, you'd still need to account for the 4000 genetic differences, or 40% of the wolf's entire cache of genetic information.

Dude its obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Laughing

. It is hilarious though. Do keep the laffs coming.

Quote:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6730-wolves-genetic-diversity-worryingly-low.html

Congratulations! You actually did some research!

Yes, of course we know that the wolves gene pool has become worryingly low. Such a fact must be obvious because the wolf has been heavily persecuted and extirpated from the vast majority of its former range.
Todays current wolf population is a tiny fraction of what it was when humans first began domesticating them.

This is what accounts for your 0.2 % genetic difference. A wolf sequenced today is not going to have the same dna range as one sequenced e.g. 1000 years ago. Some of the dna has been lost.. because most wolves have been eradicated.
Domestic dogs however have preserved some genes that were present in the earlier wolf population. 0.2% of them to be precise.

Thanks for proving my point again...

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject:

Globutron wrote:

6,000 years is just stupid. There were settlers in Greece and Egypt 6,000 years ago.

Really? I thought the Greek civilisation lasted from about 900-200BC.

The bible indicates the earth is between 6-8000 years old.

Science confirms it cannot be older than about 7000 years. How do we know this? From studying the decay rate of the earths magnetic field.

Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent. The record of measurements from 1835 to 1965 shows a magnetic half-life of 1,420.03 years. Thus even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. 20,000 years ago, this field would have generated enough Joule heat to liquefy the earth. One million years ago the earth would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and would have vaporized. Thus the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old.

pangaea

Joined: 20 Dec 2007

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject:

nautilus wrote:

Quote:

pangaea wrote:
You can't pick out the information that suits you, then dismiss the information that doesn't.

That is the point. You can't accept the information that suits you and dismiss the information that doesn't. The dates are not "guesswork." They are arrived at using scientifically proven methods for dating. The only reason you have decided they are wrong is because they don't agree with your creationist timetable. If scientists arrived at a date you agree with, I'm sure you would suddenly start considering their dating methods reliable. And where is the evidence that scientists consider their dating methods to be "guesswork?"

My point still stands. No one would take you seriously in a professional debate, or for that matter, an informal one.

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject:

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:31 pm Post subject:

nautilus wrote:

Dude its obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Laughing

. It is hilarious though. Do keep the laffs coming.

Dude, it's obvious that if that's the best rebuttal you've got, you've got nothing. Chalk up another debunk. I thought you'd at least know some basic math what with all the numbers you wantonly throw around.

nautilus wrote:

This is how, for example, the dates for mitochondrial eve were calculated, and the inherent flaws in the methodology.
http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

Already debunked pages ago. Remember the article you dismissed as "misleading double speak"? If you'd understood it, you'd know this. You're going in circles.

nautilus wrote:

Domestic dogs however have preserved some genes that were present in the earlier wolf population. 0.2% of them to be precise.

.2 percent per breed. That's a lot of genetic information that dogs have that wolves don't. I thought wolves had all the genetic information of dogs? Also, what happened to them being "genetically inferior mutants" or "one trick ponies"? Your latest "evidence" contradicts your earlier "evidence".

nautilus wrote:

Science confirms it cannot be older than about 7000 years. How do we know this? From studying the decay rate of the earths magnetic field.

Well then, I'm gonna pull a nautilus and claim that magnetic fields have decayed at different rates in the past. Problem solved!

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:37 pm Post subject:

Tectonic drift indicate that Pangaea was around about 250 million years ago. That's a bit older than 4000 years. I suppose tectonic drift rates have changed too?

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:21 pm Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

.2 percent per breed.

No, for all domestic dogs.

Quote:

That's a lot of genetic information

No it isn't. I already showed you that 2 humans have more genetic varience than a wolf and a domestic dog.

Quote:

magnetic fields have decayed at different rates in the past.

Evidence for this ridiculous claim?

Quote:

I suppose tectonic drift rates have changed too?

They must have been faster previously. Thats why many of your folded rock formations show no signs of cracking: they were formed while the rock was still molten. Indicating a fast rate of subduction.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40 ... 69, 70, 71 Next
Page 39 of 71

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe