"The Creation Story!"

gungasnake wrote:

Snake are too close to lizzards for anybody to think they evolved separately and simply resemble lizards by chance.

I notice you didn't argue against the latter part of my argument, which makes logical sense.

Quote:

gungasnake wrote:

I obviously understand evolution a lot better than you do.

There are four things the average person needs to know about evolution:

1. It's junk science, which has been massively disproven over the last century.

Massively disproven? Prove it.

The fruit fly experiments I mentioned were the first thing that fell apart. That freaked a number of the scientists out so bad that they dropped out of evolutionism, most particularly the famous case of Goldschmidt and his "hopeful monster theory". All of that was back in the teens and twenties of the last century. Many web resources on that one, the one I recommend:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm[/QUOTE]

You're giving me evidence from a creationist website?

The fruit fly evidence showing that most mutations are harmful, is true. Most mutations are harmful and ensure those organisms do not survive. Natural selection means they never appear, whilst those that do have beneficial mutations do survive.

For drugs testing on animals to be of any use, evolution has to be true. In drugs testing it is assumed that evolution is correct and that we all evolved from a common ancestor and that the organs evolved pretty early on. If it were not true, then animal testing would be meaningless.

Quote:

Then there was piltdown man, Haekel's faked drawings, and a number of famous frauds which had always been viewed as support for evolution. The fact that it took the dufes several decades to figure the thing with piltdown out does not speak well for them.

So, you're basing all of evolution on a few fakes? Perhaps I should base my viewpoint of all Christians on those that would lynch black people and those that hate Jews. Or maybe, maybe I should see them for what the are, exceptions.

Quote:

Then there's the thing about the fossil record. Darwinism demands that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediate types, and the fossil record does not show any at all. For that reason Gould, Eldredge, and a number of leading paleontologists got tired of having their papers vetoed by evolutionists and devised a new version of the thing called "punctuated equilibrium", or "punk eek", which is supposed to jive with the fossil record, but the new version turns out to be even more fubar than the old version for a number of reasons.

I cannot comment on that.

Quote:

Then there's the problem of population genetics and the Haldane dilemma, and the multi-quadrillion and quintillion year time frames which spreading evolutionary changes through the populations of animals on the Earth would take even in theory. A sizeable number of scientists have dropped out of evolution on account of that.

Quadrillion would be longer than the age of the Earth by evolution standards.

Quote:

Then there's the problem of life itself arising from inanimate matter, or "abiogenesis". Mathematicians claim it's impossible from a purely probabilistic and statics point of view. Evolutionists claim evolution is not related to abiogenesis, but that's a sort of a copout.

Evolution doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis. Evolution is the Theory concerning the Rise of Species, not the formation of life. There currently is no decent scientific theory concerning the formation of life.

Besides, what is life? I can give you examples of viruses resurrecting cells that are technically dead. Viruses themselves do not exhibit all the characteristics of life, yet within a cell they do, and they display the majority of life characteristics. There's a debate in science about whether viruses are alive or not.

Do you know that science has no decent definition for life? We can say what characteristics life may have, but not what life is. It's unfortunate I know, but scientists hope with to find out what life is on other planets so as to compare and figureo ut what makes life what it is.

Quote:

Then there's the problem of human evolution. The neanderthal has been ruled out as a possible ancestor for modern man since his dna shows him to be a glorified chimpanzee, and all other hominids are much further removed from us than the neanderthal. That leaves no other plausible ancestor for modern man at all.

Where do you get your sources from? I think we should start citing references, because I've never heard of this stuff.

Quote:

That's aside from the fact that the standard thing you see on PBS (Pinko Broadcasting System)/quote]

Now you're starting to be belligerent and close-minded. Stop it.

Quote:
showing homo erectus coming down from the trees to live on the savannas is basically ludicrous. All monkeys, apes, and humans are too slow and too NOISY to live on the savannas. What's gonna happen the first time some human infant starts screaming his head off out on the African savannas with 500-lb predators walking around all over the place??

You are once again assuming that the creatures we see today are the same as their ancestors.

Actually, there is some neat speculation to suggest our ancestors went off to the sea first. All that seafood is protein rich and can help brains and musculature develop. Swimming would also explain the loss of fur (streamlined) and the development of our noses (which prevent water from getting into our nostrils when we swim forwards).

Quote:
Get yourself a copy of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and/or Wells' "Icons of Evolution" and catch up a bit.

Oh, really?

Quote:
Quote:
2. As junk science goes, it's dangerous junk science. It was the major philosophical corner stone of naziism, communism, and the various eugenics programs in western countries.

I hate to say it, but you are talking absolute BS.

Fraid not.

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number14/Darwin14.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hscom.htm

Sorry, you misunderstood me. You are referring to Social Darwinism, which is a branch off subject of evolution.

As Judaism branched off into Christianity, and Christianity into its major fragments, and then into Islam, so did evolution branch off into different fragments.

Besides, you're thinking of natural selection. Natural selection is a part of Evolution Theory but it is not Evolution Theory itself. Natural selection states that anything that's weak will die off, and anything that is strong will survive so that there will only be the strong left to procreate.

Evolution states that species change through natural selection in that any traits that are not beneficial to an organism kills it off, and anything that is beneficial will help it to survive, allowing that beneficial trait to survive. it's a subtle difference, but it is one you must make.

Quote:

Evolution and Communism

Another interesting facet of history is the connection between evolution and communism. With communism the struggle of "race" is replaced by the struggle of "class" as history is viewed as an evolutionary struggle.

Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were evolutionists before they encountered Darwin's "The Origin of Species" - (Dec 12, 1859) Engels wrote to Marx: "Darwin who I am now reading, is splendid" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Zirkle). Like Darwin, "Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life... In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Borzin). "There was truth in Engel's eulogy on Marx: 'Just as Darwin had discovered the law of evolution in organic nature so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Himmelfarb).

"It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).

Other Soviet Communist leaders are evolutionists as well. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin were all atheistic evolutionists. A soviet think tank founded in 1963 developed a one-semester course in "Scientific Atheism" which was introduced in 1964. Also, a case can be made that Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China.

Interestingly, according to Morris, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, the co-founder of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution is a Marxist in philosophy, along with other distinguished Harvard evolutionary scientists and university professors across the country. One has to ask - could a person espouse the Marxist view and tolerate creationism?

Now you're starting to ignore rational logic.

So what if they're evolutionists? They're atheists so anything that can be used to put God out of the picture is welcome to them. Let me explain why Evolution and Communism are opposites.

Evolution's major philosophy is natural selection. Only the strong survive. The weak cannot survive. Only the strong survive and the traits that make them strong can then be passed on to future generations, whilst those weak traits cannot be passed because they belonged to those beings that died.

Communism states that all human beings are equal. It seeks to elevate the poor and take away from the rich. In economic terms, the poor are the weak, the rich are the strong. In our world, is it not the rich that decide what happens? Has not every President of the United States been a rich man? If Communism seems to ensure that the weak, the poor, survive, then how can it be true to evolution, which states that they must not survive?

I cannot continue any further, as time is not on my side.

However, may I state this. I have been to many of these debates before and Creationists have always provided absolutely zero positive scientifc evidence for Creationism. They always provide negative evidence, that is, evidence that disproves evolution.

Evolutionists can always cite positive scientific evidence, evidence that suggests that Evolution is true.
Creationists, as far I can tell, have never been able to cite any positive scientific evidence to suggest that Creationism is true. (at least, not in any debate I've ever been in).

If you are able to provide positive scientific evidence for Creationism, then I will overlook your selective reading and your strange ability to ignore and misread some scientific papers.

0 Replies

El-Diablo wrote:

Gunga it started off ok but Ive noticed you never really post evidence FOR creationism but AGAINST evolution. This is fine and dandy except you overlook one aspect: evolution being a part of science is not fixed but is transient and only strives to find the truth about nature. If it is wronged it will be reformed. Creationists think they are high and mighty pricks every time they provide "counter-evidence". You are just helping science as your stupidity helps fuel the ever progressive search of the truth. Gunga it is YOUR theory that needs proof. For it is rigid and can't really change and also has the most holes. so please stop constantly refuting evoution and big bang. They can change; creationism can't. Prove it and we'll see whos right. And also prove the Ark the flood the partiong of the Red Sea any of those. Because if one part is wrong, it all must be wrong being that's supposedly "from the heavens".

Amen!

0 Replies

snood. Id agree with you with the one proviso. The Creationists are forcing the Constitution into grounds that the formers never wished. So, by "talking out their arses" they are trying to have legislation made that affects the way we would teach science. Not as long as there is a pulse in my carotid.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

next time you fill up your car with gas, thank the years of work done in unravelling the rules of uniformitarian stratigraphy and economic geology that make petroleum much more easily discovered than it was during the days of spindletop.

I can think of at least one very major petroleum geologist who was anything but a believer in uniformitarian strategraphy and that would be C. Warren Hunt. Moreover, last I'd heard, Hunt was fairly close to being a billionaire from his ability to find oil fields.

How far are you along on your first billion?

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

El-Diablo wrote:
Gunga it started off ok but Ive noticed you never really post evidence FOR creationism but AGAINST evolution.

That's because I believe evolutionism to have been responsible for naziism, communism, and the two world wars of the last century. I despise evolutionism and believe that God wants it out of this world.

Creationism I could take or leave; I don't have any real interest in pushing it. Likewise when people ask me about religion, I tell them that I RECOMMEND Christianity, but I don't peddle or push it.

0 Replies

Sorry Gunga,

I Believe (clearly noted as a "belief") that imagination and religion are responsible for Naziism and communism.

To wit. National Socialism is based on the belief that the government can do a better job of allocating rescources than a free market is able to do. This in the USSR was clearly (IMO) demonstrated to be false.

To wit. Communism is based on a complete disregard of human nature. When the political leaders are obviously self serving then the notion that the proletariat will not be self serving is obviously on a par with talking to bushes in the desert.

To wit. Imperial Japan was based on the "belief that a "God (as emperor) knew what was best for the Japanese people. IMO Hiroshima and Nagasaki adequetly disproved that notion.

To wit-- Need more Question

All forms of socialism are based on the notion that a well trained, selfless bureaucracy can allocate rescources better than a free market.
This has been shown to be false. A well trained selfless bureaucracy does not, and has never existed on this planet. Probably one does not exist anywhere as I suspect that it would be evolutionarily unsuccessful.

Because--

1. Humans are necessarily selfish. This is evolutionarily necessary.(If I don't share I live- my genome lives on. I only share if it improves my competiveness) ie. "altruism"
2. Governments are necessarily inefficient because-- See reason one.
3. Governments must be inefficient because efficient governments raise hell with humans. (Mussolini made the trains run on time)

As a Mechanist I must assure you that, regardless of our emotional attachments, our personal self image, or our personal belief system vis-a-vis "Creation".--- That is the way it works. Like it or not!

This universe may not be the way we would wish it, but that is the way it is. Unless, of course, you have confused reality with illusion, which is not an uncommon happenstance considering the fertility and necessity of human imagination. The difficulty arises in the confusion. (Confusion also often causes traffic accidents) :wink:

0 Replies

Newt Gingrich once put it very succinctly, noting that the question of whether a man views his fellow man as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of stochastic processes simply has to affect human relations. Once you start to believe that your neighbor is a meat byproduct of random events, the gates of Hell stand open.

0 Replies

Snood,

I suspect that you have not noticed how restrictive an imaginative society can be.
It may be that the restrictions do not appear important to you and therefore have escaped your notice but they are real.

Marriage, a religious ceremony that one has to endure in order to gain some taxpayer supplied benefits.

If I wish to remove my tan lines I can only do it on a state mandated reservation.

www.avalon-nude.com A reservation. Very Happy

If I wish to have a sexual encounter with a professional it's illegal. (at my age fat chance Crying or Very sad

)

Yet the same people will set up a system that systematically encourages the homosexual rape of young boys and premature intercourse with young girls and then holler foul when the system works as it was designed to.

Thes are just a few of the happenstances that occur when our rulers allow imaginations to supplant facts in their minds. Then their particular insecurities and inconsistancies are visited upon the rest of us. To everyones detriment. Sad

0 Replies

Gunga, You probably didn't even notice but in that short paragraph you made three assumptions than probably cannot withstand investigation.

You assumed that a "God" exists.

You assumed that a "Hell" exists.

You assumed that Newt Gingrich was an honest man.

I aver that none of these can be shown to exist outside human imaginations. (particularly Newts) :wink:

Consequently you are confusing observable facts and deductions with purely imaginary hypotheses. Regrettable, IMO, and very human Exclamation

0 Replies

gunga-your faith in C Hunt is amazing. Hes been laughed off so many stages and podiums. He was a good (not great) economic geologist when he stuck to his field, when he got into "abiogenic" oil and anhydrite coal measures, he had nothin to back up.
As far as being a billionaire, last time I saw him and his magazine buddies, they were driving a van to the Fairmont hotel. Im not sure youre correct about his wealth.
He could have been part of a team that made a few hits and got significant "overrides" (we pay ourselves residuals on depletion curve resources, so Im not unfamiliar, Im no "Billionaire" but I do ok)

Hunt, last I heard of him as putting out this UFO type of magazine that dealt with catastrophism science.
He's never been an evolution denier hes just been, like Velikhovsky, a bit of a wing nut.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

gunga-your faith in C Hunt is amazing. Hes been laughed off so many stages and podiums. He was a good (not great) economic geologist when he stuck to his field, when he got into "abiogenic" oil and anhydrite coal measures...

Like I say, I don't have any reason to think you've ever done as well in this life as Mr. Hunt has.

Other than that, the idea of oil as something other than "fossil fuel"" is rapidly becoming accepted. You appear to have slept through it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

Quote:

Sustainable oil?
Posted: May 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Chris Bennett
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late '60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil.

By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s.

Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source.

Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East reserve oil.

Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could there be another source for crude oil?

An intriguing theory now permeating oil company research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation. The theory suggests there may be huge, yet-to-be-discovered reserves of oil at depths that dwarf current world estimates.

The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:

* Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system - huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.

* At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.

* Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."

* In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.

* In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.

* Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.

* Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.

There are a number of observations across the oil-producing regions of the globe that support this theory, and the list of proponents begins with Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements) and includes Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas.

In his 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Dr. Gold presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation. He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated fossils or even current surface life.

He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry - oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it come from?

Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product.

Even more intriguing is evidence that several oil reservoirs around the globe are refilling themselves, such as the Eugene Island reservoir - not from the sides, as would be expected from cocurrent organic reservoirs, but from the bottom up.

Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a "renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs."

Smaller oil companies and innovative teams are using this theory to justify deep oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, among other locations, with some success. Dr. Kenney is on record predicting that parts of Siberia contain a deep reservoir of oil equal to or exceeding that already discovered in the Middle East.

Could this be true?

In August 2002, in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US)," Dr. Kenney published a paper, which had a partial title of "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." Dr. Kenney and three Russian coauthors conclude:

The Hydrogen-Carbon system does not spontaneously evolve hydrocarbons at pressures less than 30 Kbar, even in the most favorable environment. The H-C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment.

He was quoted as stating that "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century."

Deeply entrenched in our culture is the belief that at some point in the relatively near future we will see the last working pump on the last functioning oil well screech and rattle, and that will be that. The end of the Age of Oil. And unless we find another source of cheap energy, the world will rapidly become a much darker and dangerous place.

If Dr. Gold and Dr. Kenney are correct, this "the end of the world as we know it" scenario simply won't happen. Think about it ... while not inexhaustible, deep Earth reserves of inorganic crude oil and commercially feasible extraction would provide the world with generations of low-cost fuel. Dr. Gold has been quoted saying that current worldwide reserves of crude oil could be off by a factor of over 100.

A Hedberg Conference, sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, was scheduled to discuss and publicly debate this issue. Papers were solicited from interested academics and professionals. The conference was scheduled to begin June 9, 2003, but was canceled at the last minute. A new date has yet to be set.

Related links:

Gas Origin Theories To Be Studied

The Mystery Of Eugene Island 330

Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods Oil Experts To Seek A Deeper Meaning

Fuel's Paradise

Chris Bennett manages an environmental engineering division for a West Coast technology firm. He and his wife of 26 years make their home on the San Francisco Bay.

0 Replies

This is old news gunga. Oil migrates after its been formed and then cooked in diagenesis. Abiogenic oil has been a stupid pet trick for 50 years. Hunt and his UFO crowd are just the latst proponents. You, are , fortunate for them, one of the recent gullible ones . You can go to any good university library and get back copies of American Assn of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) journal and read about abiogenic oil and how the "hypothesis" has been tested to death. We look for simple geophysical structures in specific geologic horizons, do a fossil check for forams of a certain thermo range on their shells and drill test wells. Weve been going deeper to untapped older reserves as younger ones DRY UP ( DRY-UP a term meaning to exhaust or otherwise lose content). Once a field dries up or loses its communication with other traps, the oil doesnt reform. I wish it did, Ive got overrides from fields I helped develop in the late 70 and theyve slowed down by more than 75%

LAst time Hunt showed up at a meeting he saw his shadow and we had six more weeks of winter. Im a member of the AAPG , and, theres a reason why the abiogenic oil conference wasnt held, and it wasnt because the oil companies wanted to keep a secret.

Weve recently hit a nice find of gas in the NY to WVa Trenton Limestone. The find is natural gas and is as much as is in Iraq. Standard geology and petroleum engineering

Now, methane can be formed by recent biogenesis. Think about a pile of manure thats anaerobically digesting. It produces methane, so does a landfill. We can tap a landfill for gas and make electricity that powers the entire operation of the business. Theres methane Clathrates at the bottom of the continental shelf that are fromed by methanogenesis of CO2 being converted by facultative bacteria. Hunt wants us to believe that oil is forming the same way. It aint happening and I hope you arent buying stock in some daffy drilling for abiogenic oil,cause youll be pissing away good money. Invest in Titanium (hee hee)

0 Replies

heres some quotes from the East v West theories of abiogenic oil. While Is tipulated to methane Clathrates at the seabottom, the amount of worldwiide non-biologic oil is undoubtedly very small . Weve been looking t carbon isotope ratios since the 50s when the abiogenesis became and issue started by the Russians. here

Quote:

"The key point is that abiogenic hydrocarbons have been talked about for a long time, but until now we didn't have a very good constraint on what they looked like," Sherwood Lollar observed.

Katz said Western science recognizes that abiogenic hydrocarbons can result from natural processes, including the possibility of hydrocarbons originating at great depth.

"I don't think anybody's arguing that gas couldn't be generated from the mantle," he said.

However, even the Russian scientists he has worked with accept the organic origin of petroleum found in large, commercial accumulations.

"I've worked with geochemists and basin modelers at what was the Soviet Union's Institute for Foreign Geologic Studies. They were working with the same concepts we were," he said.

If abiogenic petroleum exists in amounts large enough for economic production, he hopes details of the science involved will be presented at the London Hedberg .

"I have yet to have anyone show me that there are commercial quantities of these hydrocarbons," Katz said.

"I'm a scientist, so I have to keep an open mind. But I need to see some evidence."

The hedberg conference was cancelled in 2003 and rescheduled for 2004 in London. I think the isotope data was boogered up and cooked . All the abiogenesis guys have been keeping their heads down these last 2 years or so.
Ifyou go to http.www.aapg.org and search their archives, look for HEDBERG CONFERENCES. These are held periodically on key topics of reservoir exploration and production. You can see that all the conferences have been about specific basin geology and standard exploration techniques and isotope ratios. ALAS, while its nice to have hope about an "unlimited oil supply" Its probably just a dream.
BUT , having said that, Im not saying that Im just not willing to look at any new data, I just havent seen any since the Dnieper field. AFter all, when we think about the outer planets and the recent Titan probe,look at all the liquid ethane that is present in lakes on the planet. Methane is easy to fom by abiogenic means , so, by extension, is ethane and some possible higher chains. We just dont see that on earth yet, carbon is such a good nutrient hat baxteria will actually eat oil

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Ifyou go to http.www.aapg.org and search their archives, look for HEDBERG CONFERENCES. These are held periodically on key topics of reservoir exploration and production. You can see that all the conferences have been about specific basin geology and standard exploration techniques and isotope ratios. ALAS, while its nice to have hope about an "unlimited oil supply" Its probably just a dream.
BUT , having said that, Im not saying that Im just not willing to look at any new data, I just havent seen any since the Dnieper field. AFter all, when we think about the outer planets and the recent Titan probe,look at all the liquid ethane that is present in lakes on the planet. Methane is easy to fom by abiogenic means , so, by extension, is ethane and some possible higher chains. We just dont see that on earth yet, carbon is such a good nutrient hat baxteria will actually eat oil

Thanks Farmerman, excellent stuff Smile

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

I despise evolutionism and believe that God wants it out of this world.

Isn't it amusing how God always seems to hate the same things you do Wink

Anyway, as richard dawkins said. "The theory of evolution has nothing to do with social darwinism. After all, just because we have a theory of gravity doesn't mean we should push people off buildings."

But yes, evolution is responsible for racism, war, genocide and slavery because they didn't exist before the nineteenth century... hang on. Me detects a flaw in your logic here.

And you're right creationism doesn't cause religious genocide against the jews. Christianity does. Read more history, focus on the first crusade and the resultant massacres of Jewish communities across Europe. By your logic God wants christianity out of this world.

Go figure.

*rolls eyes*

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

I despise evolutionism and believe that God wants it out of this world.

Evolution is a function of nature and of life, it's always been here and always will be, no matter what any of us like or dislike.

And if there *is* a God, it's clear that he not only put Evolution here, but that he also wove it into the very heart of the system. So before you go despising it, you might want to consider why it's here, because it's not only here, it's pretty much the star of the show, all the way from the first cells to the rise of intelligence.

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
I despise evolutionism and believe that God wants it out of this world.

Isn't it amusing how God always seems to hate the same things you do

I want you to marry me.

Like Rosborne pointed out, Evolution - whether put into play by God or the chemicals mixing together in the Big Bang - is fact. The theory that it's how live derived completely is not, but animals do evolve. You can't deny that.

Take certain species of Lampsilis clams for instance - through time, a small pocket on their rear as evolved into a decoy that is identical to a fish. It has eye spots, fins, patterns, and the clam even puts it into a swimming motion. [ I will find more info on this clam as soon as my reference is available, unfortunately I left it in my locker ]

You can not argue that this isn't result of evolution. Just as when Darwin sailed the Beagle, and realized the birds in some locations were all of the same species, but their beaks were shaped differently. This was because some birds with the long beaks lived where they had to dig around for food, while those with shorter beaks needed to be quick and flexible. Their beaks had evolved into the shape needed throughout that species' existance.

Evolution is all around you, and no matter how ignorant you are on the topic, doesn't mean you can deny it's existance. Chose to disagree, but that doesn't mean you can refuse to aknowledge it.

0 Replies

Sanctuary wrote:

theantibuddha wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
I despise evolutionism and believe that God wants it out of this world.

Isn't it amusing how God always seems to hate the same things you do

I want you to marry me.

Like Rosborne pointed out, Evolution - whether put into play by God or the chemicals mixing together in the Big Bang - is fact.

No it isn't. MICROEVOLUTION is a fact but the theory of evolution is not about microevolution; it's about MACROEVOLUTION, i.e. the production of new KINDS of animals via mutation and natural selection.

That's been disproven.

The fruit fly experiments I've mentioned were the first thing that fell apart. That freaked a number of the scientists out so bad that they dropped out of evolutionism, most particularly the famous case of Goldschmidt and his "hopeful monster theory". All of that was back in the teens and twenties of the last century. Many web resources on that one, the one I recommend:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

Then there was piltdown man, Haekel's faked drawings, and a number of famous frauds which had always been viewed as support for evolution. The fact that it took the dufes several decades to figure the thing with piltdown out does not speak well for them.

Then there's the thing about the fossil record. Darwinism demands that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediate types, and the fossil record does not show any at all. For that reason Gould, Eldredge, and a number of leading paleontologists got tired of having their papers vetoed by evolutionists and devised a new version of the thing called "punctuated equilibrium", or "punk eek", which is supposed to jive with the fossil record, but the new version turns out to be even more fubar than the old version for a number of reasons.

Then there's the problem of population genetics and the Haldane dilemma, and the multi-quadrillion and quintillion year time frames which spreading evolutionary changes through the populations of animals on the Earth would take even in theory. A sizeable number of scientists have dropped out of evolution on account of that.

Then there's the problem of life itself arising from inanimate matter, or "abiogenesis". Mathematicians claim it's impossible from a purely probabilistic and statistics point of view. Evolutionists claim evolution is not related to abiogenesis, but that's a sort of a copout.

Then there's the problem of human evolution. The neanderthal has been ruled out as a possible ancestor for modern man since his dna shows him to be a glorified chimpanzee, and all other hominids are much further removed from us than the neanderthal. That leaves no other plausible ancestor for modern man at all.

That's aside from the fact that the standard thing you see on PBS (Pinko Broadcasting System) showing homo erectus coming down from the trees to live on the savannas is basically ludicrous. All monkeys, apes, and humans are too slow and too NOISY to live on the savannas. What's gonna happen the first time some human infant starts screaming his head off out on the African savannas with 500-lb predators walking around all over the place??

Get yourself a copy of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and/or Wells' "Icons of Evolution" and catch up a bit.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Sanctuary wrote:
theantibuddha wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
I despise evolutionism and believe that God wants it out of this world.

Isn't it amusing how God always seems to hate the same things you do

I want you to marry me.

Like Rosborne pointed out, Evolution - whether put into play by God or the chemicals mixing together in the Big Bang - is fact.

No it isn't. MICROEVOLUTION is a fact but the theory of evolution is not about microevolution; it's about MACROEVOLUTION, i.e. the production of new KINDS of animals via mutation and natural selection.

That's been disproven.

No it hasn't.

The evolution of new species and of whole new phyla is a known fact of science, and has been for a long time now. The only people denying it are religious zealots, people with an ax to grind, and people with something to sell you (usually a book, or just plain old snake oil).

Let's see just how unbiased your opinion is:

gungasnake wrote:

I despise evolutionism and believe that God wants it out of this world.

Now isn't that just brilliant. Looks like you fall into the "ax to grind" category. And Michael Behe, with his flawed logic, has a book to sell us. So why should we listen to either of you.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, no matter how stupid it is, but if you're just going to say, "It's disproven, it's a lie, I despise it, waaaa, waaaa, waaaa" then don't waste our time, because frankly Snake, you don't have a leg to stand on.

0 Replies

Quote:

The evolution of new species and of whole new phyla is a known fact of science, and has been for a long time now.

Repeating that crap doesn't make it true.

0 Replies

"The Creation Story!"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know