The Justice Files: US debt clock runs out of digits

Thursday, October 09, 2008

US debt clock runs out of digits

The US government's debts have ballooned so badly the National Debt Clock in New York has run out of digits to record the spiralling figure

169 comments:

Anonymous said...: That's hot.

Paris; Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 6:06:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: This banking crisis will be limited only to America because the banks in europe are so heavily regulated. Then, reality set in. Reality??? Isn't that the name of an old radio show?

Mike; Friday, October 10, 2008 at 4:06:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Black people caused the stock market crash.

George; Friday, October 10, 2008 at 6:24:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: Another reason for calling big government libs dumbasses.; Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 3:02:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFeMAzWyHQg

This is good if you're pro or anti Obama.; Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 11:09:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: Who are you, oh speaker through the youtube?; Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 3:41:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Man, don't let George sit in. He's a one trick pony and we've all already had that ride.; Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 3:53:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: 9-11 boofer alert...David ray Griffins newest book "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" is so full of lies. Lets use DRG's discription of one of his wrong doings. MTJ and this guy have alot in common.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

After having his book refuted and noted for disinformation he responded and i quote.

DRG- "My point, I thought I made clear, was that although I had not been "intentionally misleading," I had been careless. (I had quoted those statements from secondary sources---three of them from Thierry Meyssan's "Pentagate"---without looking them up for myself to read them in context. Also, when I wrote the passage 12 pages later about people "claiming to have seen a missile or small military plane," I failed to realize that the people I had quoted did not specifically claim to have "seen" such a thing but had merely said they thought---as I then falsely believed---that it was either a missile or a small plane."

After 6+ years and a few more books later, he finally admits he was wrong. Seems the twoofers are loosing major steam.

Just another fine example of the lies and distortions. Remembering the good Dr. lieing and a particular host not challenging him on his lie. Notice a deceitfull pattern?; Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 3:06:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYsMgGED9vE; Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 3:57:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Dare to watch this shit MTJ?????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDUMp0OniVI&feature=related; Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 4:19:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjFRLOktHXo; Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 5:08:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: bigdogtube; Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 1:41:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Bill Maher's movie total dollar sales = $5. Who bought the ticket?; Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:09:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: I watched Bill Mahers movie for free on the interwebs. Nothing new to me, got a few chuckles out of the deal. I suspect you might learn alot from the movie, anonymous(Mike).

-Marcus; Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 3:03:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Alex Jones a Jesuit?

Hmmm...how is it other secret social groups has Alex Jones full attention? Yet somehow he never talks about the one he is in....Hmmmmmmm!!! makes you think doesnt it MTJ.

Of course i know MTJ isnt civil enough to respond. However, i hope he examines the group his mentor Alex Jones is involved with.

LeanDOG; Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 5:15:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: "Holy" shit, LilPuss is right! Fuck the Bilderbergs, we've got Jesuit issues. You know, Bill Cooper was calling Alex Jones a likely CIA plant several years ago (before he was murdered by our government in his front yard). Of course, ad hominems don't dispute facts, you should stick with saying "no bombs, no missles, no idea" because you haven't got any more than that. Jesuits? Are you serious? This isn't the 17th century. Have you been trying to decipher the bible code again, LilPuss? You know that method works with ANY book, right?

-Marcus; Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 6:09:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: This video was posted on YouTube May 19, 2008 with the same title it has now. Interesting, to say the least...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy7urlWLP84; Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 8:51:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: I dont do bible codes Marced-puss.; Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 9:08:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: Cause we all know this is the Alex Jones forum.

Seriously, you come here to whine about David Griffin and Alex Jones...Why don't you call Alex Jones or go post on the prison planet forums?

You don't see hardly anyone else here talking Alex Jones other than a light mention here and there, and even then, it's usually to describe a clip from one of his films that come from a mainstream source.

You are either jealous of him, or wish you could be with him.

Honestly, BigFrog, I got sick of debating you because you got some obsessive superiority complex.

Sure David Griffin admitted fault, can you?

Time to grow up man, again, I ask, is there anything you can talk about other than bash the 9/11 truth movement?

honestly, in 2008 we have alot more problems than discussing something we can't change about 7 years ago.

Now, I do believe we need answers, but I still maintain that it is not the most pressing issue of the day.

-Miles; Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 10:20:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: Hmmmm...There is an Alex Jones link on this homepage. Making him a free target on this forum at anytime. Find the jesuit oath and read it. You may find many similarities in jones' behaviour and many others on the hill.

BTW there is no truth in the 9-11 truth movement. You got sick of debating me because i cut you off at the knees, demonstrating your ignorance many times over. You changed more positions than a whore at rush hour...HAHAHAHA!!

Half your post about me are assertions,trying to goad me in some fashion.

Miles you are far more intellegent than myself. Guess that eliminates the superiority complex assertion.

NEXT!!!

LeanDOG; Friday, October 17, 2008 at 12:11:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: First, There are links to Anthony's site too, I don't see you in an endless discussion on him.

Secondly, You haven't cut anything off at the knees. Your circular logic has skewed any debate you've had with me. You say 9/11 truth has no truth, I say the Official Story has no truth......hmm what do facts support?

"Noone could imagine using planes in that manor" -Summary of what Bush and Rice have both said

OBVIOUS LIE, they were running drills THAT DAY of hijacked planes flying into buildings. Able Danger, The FBI, The President's Briefings, There are so many things that show foreknowledge of the attacks, instead of beefing up defense, they are willing to move most of the planes away from the east coast and change rules of engagement to make it harder to shoot down planes.

Sure, the 9/11 movements range from a variety of unexplainable and theories from bombs to missiles to UFOs and not everyone agrees with those messages. Nobody is arguing with the unbelievability of some claims from the 9/11 truth movement, but it's not about what one or two people think happen, it is about what millions of people are being told to believe, that DID NOT happen.

This is the problem I have with the 9/11 movement, is we have so many people that are 100% sure about controlled demo, when that isn't even the main point.

It doesn't need to be CD, the controlled demo discussion is all good speculation, but the buildings falling can never be 100% proven one way or another, the important thing here is the official story regarding the encompassing 9/11 "idea" does not add up.

Overwhelmingly the evidence points to them letting it happen, and the insiders stated ahead of time their motives for wanting "a new Pearl Harbor"

They pinned it on this lone boogeyman in various caves and hospitals throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, then try to make us believe that Al Quaida is this unending fight that requires us to give up all of our rights.

Classic problem reaction solution, if you can't see that, and at least come halfway and agree that there are fish in this pond that smell bad, then you are fooling yourself.

From the Put Options to the Isreal connections, there is evidence that there were alot of people who knew what was going to happen ahead of time, are we to believe that all of these people are sitting in on Al Quaida planning sessions?

I already have an idea how you are going to respond to these points, ignoring half of them and skewing the direct aspect of the remaining questions, which is why I don't like debating with you. I make a point addressing specifics, and instead of addressing whether my thoughts are possible, you offer a different possibility for it.

You say you cut my argument off at the knees, I say you are closed minded and don't understand the nature of the debate, between what could have happened, what a person think happens, and weighing possibilities with probabilities and cross-referencing them with common sense.

The last argument we had, you couldn't even admit that explosions could do what random fires could do. If you don't understand that Explosions are more powerful than random fire, then I'm not the one with the problem.

This is why nobody wants to debate you, because even if you do have some good points, and can win over on alot of points, most of the time you're spent in circular logic moving one point in a new related direction instead of understanding what someone is saying and answering directly point by point.

I'm not going to be pigeon-holed into debates that move away from speculation and explanation and into defending each others' paradigm. Nobody wins those fights.

Ultimately, your main problem, is that you don't seem to distinguish the difference between speculation and the issuance of fact when you make comments about 9/11 not being truthful.

On speculative points, 9/11 truth doesn't need to be truthful because it is speculation, dealing with the unknown. The speculation is to understand if alternative theories are as believable or more believable than what the official agencies are telling us happened.

The there is undeniable fact. These are points we agree upon, but then have to speculate their relation to the topic.

This is why the 9/11 commission was a joke, it was narrowed in what it covered, when everyone asking for an investigation wanted thorough explanations.

Ultimately, When you are dealing with an administration that wants WAR and to change Human Rights based on an event, you BETTER deal with speculation. Ask yourself if rights and lives are important enough to ask yourself the unlikely possibilities, (dont read more into what I'm about to say) even the UFOs and shit deserve speculation when dealing with the important aspects of American Life.

Now Understand me, there is a difference between focus and speculation, and THAT IS WHERE I HAVE WENT WRONG in my debates with you, I try to emphasize where I focus my proof based accusations and where I am speculating based on a lack of available evidence.

I believe it is Proven that some people in and connected to government did not do their job in defending this country, and allowed a terrorist attack that they said they wanted. What I speculate on is the thermate/CD, there is imo enough supporting evidence for me to believe that is what happened, but not enough to prove it one way or another. That evidence is gone for good.

But by all means, feel free to respond, but don't expect another debate. I regret getting this deep into these topics when my intent was to just show the fallacy in your debate style and your reasoning that you somehow have good reason to bring this up over and over again when it isn't the topic being discussed.

I'm not going to let this get into another debate with you on this subject, don't try to skew this as you somehow "winning," as the only reason I'm quitting this is because a person can only go round and round circular logic and distortion of my speculative musings for so long before realizing that the argument is moot because the opposition is irrational and intolerant.

I wish we could have a rational discussion, Bigdog, because I have actually learned some things from debating you on this, and have learned where I was wrong on some points. But the enlightenment is lost in the sea of bravado showmanship and irrationality.

-Miles; Friday, October 17, 2008 at 5:09:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: I posted on anthony's blog and here also. I cited his plagiarism of an article, claiming it as his own. Very deceitfull person this anthony, alex jones, and MTJ omittions. He doesnt respond because he knows i am right about their deceitful ways. If you want to defend such actions then be my guest.

LeanDOG

NOW!!.. you admit to your wrong assertions. You now admit you were ignorant on many points (cutting you off at the knees). Yet you dont except the science that proves CD was not used. Nor thermite. The initial impact of the planes would have ignited the thermite causing an immediate reaction. You call this a circluar arguement. Sure it is, because the facts send your head spinning...HAHAHAHA!!!

You say 9-11 truth movement. I even called the 9-11 commisions report a political document. BTW the 9-11 commisions report has nothing to do with the cause/investigation of the collapses. In fact it covers the complacancies and lies from FFA and NORAD...etc. Like i said we can argue complacancies. You may even say complicencies. Well it still has nothing to do with the truth movement until recently with yet another release of 90% bogus info and skewing the timelines to obfuscate and distort. They actually have something on the complacancies leading up to 9-11, i must admit (able danger). To say they all let it happen is still speculation. WHY? after years of 9-11 speculations and distortions coming from the "9-11 speculative movement" is a more accurate name. They dont want to lose their cash cow. So now they are keeping the monetary flow going with Feebled enemies. NOw the lies and distortions are out there again. Stirring the pot you dont want anything to do with. Saying able danger proves anything, other than complacancy, would be a lie, a distortion of fact, unproveable is a better word.

You say you show the fallacy in my debate style.

Miles: "I regret getting this deep into these topics when my intent was to just show the fallacy in your debate style and your reasoning that you somehow have good reason to bring this up over and over again when it isn't the topic being discussed."

WOW you are stupid. Debate is a contest. Established topics are discussed, debating the facts or how ones oppinion supports the facts or visa-versa. Waying the pros and cons to determine the best answer/course of action. Your assertions didnt hold up to ANY redicule from the facts i presented. You on the other hand admit to your assertions and speculations, yet dismiss my arguements as circluar and a fallacy of debate style.

WOW. That surmises what i have thought all along. You are way to smart for me Miles.

You claim you were debating my style. Yet somehow you are not able to debate the facts. Nor are there any facts supporting your opinion. Inlays the difference.; Saturday, October 18, 2008 at 4:31:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: You claim you were debating my style. Yet somehow you are not able to debate the facts. Nor are there any facts supporting your opinion. Inlays the difference.

To clarify. "Nor are there any facts supporting your opinion."

The opinion im noting is about the collapses and a few others i have corrected you on.

LeanDOG; Saturday, October 18, 2008 at 4:45:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: I think one of the biggest parts of the problem with you, LilPuss, is that you seem to prefer attacking the people trying to uncover the real story about 9/11 rather than the ones trying to cover it up.

I was thinking about something Rich Brilliant used to talk about: his neverending pie of wealth. I guess it needs more ingredients than an unlimited amount of currency for anyone to want a piece. I'm in more of a mood for some Sweeney Toddish congressional pies.; Saturday, October 18, 2008 at 6:26:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Name of the topic:

"US debt clock runs out of digits"

not 9/11 whining.

-Miles

(p.s. regarding the timeline, the Barry Jennings interview with Dylan and Jason clears up your timeline. He clearly says explosions AFTER the planes, BEFORE the collapses.); Saturday, October 18, 2008 at 9:11:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Bigdog these buffoons are not interested in how wrong they are. More interested in pointing out how bad your style is. I have read your debates with them. I will say this. They know they can not match your intellect, so they blame your style. So they say you attack them, yes you do, with the truth. You make them look silly is more like it. Typical liberal claiming the victims role again. Fucking laughable.

Keep up the liberal bashing. They cant debate the facts. That is why they don't care about being ignorant and miles saying he was attacking your debate style is more or less a way of dismissing their own ignorance.

Bigdog in all honesty you have helped keep my head on straight about 9-11. I'll give you big props for taking these speculators on.

Flip; Saturday, October 18, 2008 at 3:28:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: That's all well and good. Unfortunately, in fifty years, when the truth about what happened is declassified, your grandchildren (who will either be chinese or named a number by the government) won't be allowed to learn to read about it. I wish I could join you in ignorant bliss, sometimes.; Saturday, October 18, 2008 at 7:25:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: Oh look more speculation. Its a never ending dogma with these loones.; Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 6:21:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Are you trying to make 'speculate' and it's derivitives "bad words"? Do you sneer when you say or type them? There is nothing inherently wrong with speculation, it is a healthy mental function. The problem occurs when your speculation does not yield to the evidence. This is further complicated by what you accept as evidence. For example, a christian may accept the bible as sufficent evidence to worship Yahshua as the only path to "salvation", while a heathen, like myself, would require slightly more from an omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent being before I pledge an everlasting nothingness (or soul) to it. So, please, stop trying to villanize the word.

Marcus; Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 10:05:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: LeanDOG: "Oh look more speculation. Its a never ending dogma with these loones."

Marc-puss
1.? No. However is the word conjecture, a derivative, to mean something else?

speculation 101: "4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts."

Is credulousness a healthy mental function? (considering all derivatives or just the ones you choose for me.)

2.? No. I sneer sometimes when i watch the Chiefs play...LOL

3.One mental function is called faith. Bad comparison on your part unless; i'll wager you think faith is speculation, so you villanize it; you cant deny you dont. Is Faith a healthy mental function?

The other deals with ignorant bliss/credulousness. Is that a healthy mental function? Quote: "when your speculation does not yield to the evidence." Ignorant bliss sums it up nicely.

Quote: "This is further complicated by what you accept as evidence."

So you dont except science and their tools as evidence or is that just Miles. Yet somehow im to except someones speculations (conjectures) as evidences, not science? Is that a healthy mental function?

Other than you trying to re-write derivatives of grammer and to somehow equate me villanizing words for not excepting speculations as facts. Then you sir, are a complete moron. Speculations gets you "cut off at the knees" when it comes to debates.

Oh and thx Flip for the atta-boyee.

LeanDOG; Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 3:51:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: 1) Go "cut someone off at the knees" who is actually debating you, it's not me. I've found your debates confusing.

2) I'm sure throughout this message you were meaning to type 'accept' and not 'except'. The meanings are completely different and further illustrates the confounding problem of debate with a LilPuss.

3) One significant difference between faith and speculation is the fact that evidence does not sway faith (faith is based on zero evidence) while speculation is derived from previous observation. Would you believe in your god without the bible? I think so. Has a skyscraper EVER been brought down by fire alone? No.

4) What is a "loones"?

5) Admit you were trying to give the same tone to 'speculation' as you do to 'liberal' or 'nigger' and this can be concluded.; Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 9:17:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: The scientific method is perverted when it is improbable that a reproduction of actual events can be achieved or there is a conflict of interest in those offering their so-called scientific conclusion.

When the scientists and the method are independent of presumption, then I do believe in science and its outcomes.

But face it, NISt and these other goons who so-called investigate 9/11 won't even do thermite testing in regards to a 9/11 related experiment.(even though these are the guys who study thermite the most)

They start out with a preconception that they "must explain" what happened to the buildings without factoring in an explosion, so that's what they study.; Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 9:26:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: Oh btw, yeah debating BigDog does get confusing, he interchanges words quite a bit, and then blames you for being "stupid" or not responding to something he doesn't make clear.

-Miles

p.s. Is there some way to tell if this flip character is coming from Mike's or Bigdog's IP?

He only really seems to respond when BigDog gets insulted, could be a fan of BigDog, but I'd like to know if he's bigdog's alt post.; Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 9:30:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: A valid speculation, Miles. I'm curious about Flip, as well.

I want to try and clear up something about the nature of science. It is only meant to tell us what the most probable explanation is (like how historians can only tell us what most likely happened). The only absolute proof that exists is mathematical. There are areas of science that can be proven with mathematics and we call these laws. The rest, we can only be up to 99% certain about, and refer to as theory. Observation leads to speculation which leads to testing and verification which eventually becomes theory. Speculation is an important step in the scientific process, maybe the MOST important. You learn all of this in high school but, it seems certain people have forgotten.
Faith is a different beast and, in my opinion, the world could do with a bit less of it (in regard to deities in particular). It is based on nothing (like the dollar) and will even reject evidence and logic to preserve it's existence.

-Marcus; Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 10:38:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: I meant accept. My bad.

More speculations made to sound like truth. Miles said "But face it, NISt and these other goons who so-called investigate 9/11 won't even do thermite testing in regards to a 9/11 related experiment.(even though these are the guys who study thermite the most)"

So let me get this straight NIST and their goons study thermite the most....hmmmmmm...ok! Yet somehow you claim they didnt do any testing for thermite. NIST explains why no testing was done. Yet you claim they study the shit the most. If thats the case you dont like their answer, as i have stated time and time again.

So if i show you a report from a chemist, who refutes Jones, whos independent of any ties to government, would that help?

BTW flip has called in on MT show. I have never met flip. I have heard him say he is from blue springs. So miles thinks i have a fan and that his post insulted me...HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Miles you are not anywhere close to being offensive or insulting. Yet i know your intentions were such and if flip was trying to insult me, you would have his back. Since he says thanks to me, he now is me....hmmmmm...can this be tested? or is this more speculation without method or theory of study.

BTW marc-puss there are laws that have very little to do with mathematics. Speculation is presented as such and duly noted, then tested, not maintained as an empirically determined constant. Inlays the difference. If you cant see this then you are lost.

LeanDOG; Monday, October 20, 2008 at 3:05:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: More speculations made to sound like truth? (correction); Monday, October 20, 2008 at 3:18:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: A. Flip acknowledges you in ways that go above and beyond "Good point" for things that aren't above and beyond normal discussion.

B. Dr. Shayam Sunder was one of the Lead developers of Spray On Thermate. He is now lead investigator at NIST. So yes, someone can study something and then not provide any experiments in regards to a specific instance of use.

C. Sure I'll trust the chemist providing: He does a complete study, including all possible known theories, has building experts, demolitions experts, and physicists as references working on the project with him, and none of these experts are involved in any way with any company or official who profited off of 9/11.

-Miles; Monday, October 20, 2008 at 8:51:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: A. Mabe he is just being friendly and acknowledging what you were trying to do by doing the opposite. Instead of rediculing my style and you admitting the insults, he was trying to say job well done. Mabe he will respond soon, i dont know. Its seems to me he responds every other week. I dont know, i'm speculating. Shall we study it?

B. I suggest you read what he has been saying. From the beginning to end.

August 21, 2002
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/sunderremarks.htm

Of course you know how to get a hold of the final NIST report.

See miles this is where we part ways. You say these things and voice your opinion. However you dont like the answer because it doesnt match your speculations. Yet somehow you say the leader on nano-thermite didnt address the issue. Yes they/he did.

NIST factsheet: "The elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions."

Again you dont like the answers. Heres another link for you to read on.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF

Note the individuals and their related fields and the address correspondence to: . No affiliations to NIST and i have yet to get to the chemist independent study.
P.J. Lioy, Exposure Measurement and Assessment Division, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute

Environmental Health Perspectives, page 709, second column over top of page:

"The levels of many of the elements are consistent
with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium."

Yet somehow Jones concludes in all his presentations and i quote.
"A consistent picture begins to emerge: Thermites were used at WTC incorporating aluminum powder and oxegen bearing compounds of iron,zinc,barium, and manganese..."

This is not speculation, nor theory, he is saying that thermite was used. Offers no evidences that ruled out building materials and the many zinc alloy-aluminum compounds in building materials and zinc coated air ducts and used as an alloy in electrical wiring....etc. He also says zinc oxide was used in thermite to make it more violent. Ummmmmm...zinc oxide is produced when zinc burns. So the presence of zinc oxide was a result of burning zinc. Not to mention aircraft components are coated with zinc corrosion protection. He doesnt tell you this becuase it would raise serious doubts about the authenticity of his claims.

C. Now to the chemist. even though you pigeonholed his study. He still refutes jones claims as conjectures on the thermite issues. He also directs NIST to do more fire tests of realistic on site materials; to conlude the degree of sulfidation by these known materials.

F. R. Greening February 26th, 2006

http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

LeanDOG; Monday, October 20, 2008 at 6:36:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: I'm curious which scientific laws you think have nothing to do with mathematics. Also, you did not contradict what I said about speculation, only reworded it. Does the idea that no explosives were used to bring down the buildings mean, to you, that the government was not complicit in the attacks?; Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 6:19:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf; Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 10:40:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Ummmm...wow...the laws of nature existed well before any man put a mathmetical/scientific formula to it. Meaning exactly what i said:

"BTW marc-puss there are laws that have very little to do with mathematics."

wikipedia: "Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws."

You keep trying to be arguementative towards me when all you had to do was think about all the laws of nature that existed before man began.

Jones and others like him, put forth speculations as truth; as i have demonstrated many times over, this thread inclusive.

I wasnt disagreeing with you on your point of speculation. Just merely pointing out these lunatics are calling their conspiracy theory and speculations as absolute truth. Almost to say they are dealing in absolutes intangled in a theory without testing or peer review support. So i guess we should be calling it the 9-11 absolute movement. Guess we cant test the veracity of their claims then huh?
------------------------------

"Does the idea that no explosives were used to bring down the buildings mean, to you, that the government was not complicit in the attacks?"

Yes. The whole point was that 9-11 was an inside job and that CD (including thermite) brought down these buildings. I think your question is rhetorical at best.You already know, i know, they were complacent on many levels and how removing complacancies, if you will, would infringe upon our civil rights.

LeanDOG; Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 1:44:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: LoanDog, How did the plane hit the pentagon through all of the defenses of Washington DC, and in the yard of the pentagon itself?; Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 8:11:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: What are the "laws of nature" that have very little to do with mathematics? Science is the study of the natural world (nature) and is the process to create a "natural law". I think you're trying to bring philosophy or semantics into it (maybe religion, I can't tell). Gravity is a 'natural law' that is proven with mathematics. Saying that it was a law before we decided it was a law is kind of like a tree falling with noone around to hear it.

Marcus; Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 1:40:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Also, you said Alex Jones puts things out as truth. I would argue that he gets very emotional sometimes and sounds like a preacher (who claim to reveal 'Truth') but, everytime I've listened, he says "Don't take my word for it, look it up yourselves". Never catch a preacher saying,"Noah's Ark? It's true! Go look it up!" matter of fact, they usually stop pushing that story to people over 8 but, it's part of the "Truth".

Marcus; Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 2:58:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: 1.)"Gravity is a 'natural law' that is proven with mathematics."

Yes it is a natural law, in that, it is provable using math, using your definition, and is dependepent upon observation and study. However gravity existed in nature well before anyone put an equation to it. Therefore your idea is not correct; considering the phenomenons in nature have existed before mankind began. In fact your opinion deals in natural law, wich is far more philosphical than the law of nature would ever be.

Im lazy so im using wiki to best describe it.
wiki: "Laws of nature are distinct from religious and civil law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law. Nor should 'physical law' be confused with 'law of physics' - the term 'physical law' usually covers laws in other sciences (e.g. biology) as well."

2.)"Saying that it was a law before we decided it was a law is kind of like a tree falling with noone around to hear it."

????HUH???? ....man you better go back to school. I hope the above class on natural law shows just how silly that sounded.

About alex jones...Well until you look them up for yourself you will never know about these lies from alex jones. see i have looked them up and found enough to satisfy my disdain for him. Make it a quest and you will see. You equate him to a preacher. I agree with that. I also agree with your noahs ark take. However i choose to deal with this man now, because i am alive at this time and dont know exactly what happened before the world flooded. Dont know if the world flooded, i have seen some impressive studies on it tho. Could nature whip up a batch of whoop ass, using water, on this world. Me thinks it could.

LeanDOG; Friday, October 24, 2008 at 4:11:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: I think YOU'RE the one that needs school. I'm not going into the 'law' bit again because I think it can be worked around. I still think you don't understand what I'm saying but, lets move to the Ark. You don't know if there was a world flood in human history? There was not. Populations flocked to the rivers in our beginning which made them susceptible to flooding, hence the stories of global floods (not only from the bible). Geologists have found no evidence FOR a worldwide flood and plenty evidence AGAINST it (see geology, archeology, biology, chemistry, and a little physics). Aside from the ridiculousness of getting two from every species on a boat, keeping them from eating eachother while keeping them fed, and soooo much more bullshit, consider what a population bottleneck like that would do genetically (inbreeding). Then again, I guess Mike would be a damaging bit of evidence FOR the ark. Maybe it was a miracle, followed by the miracle of hiding every trace of the previous miracle. Praise the lawd!

Marcus

PS- We know how and why rainbows form and it has nothing to do with "a promise".; Friday, October 24, 2008 at 9:01:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: Like i said i dont know about all that flooding and whatnot. Do i believe its possible? seen some impressive studies. Not 100% sure. As far as my faith aspect is concerned, it doesnt mean that much to me. That story means nothing to me and my current valued relationship with GOD. I dont judge you by some story, nor do i judge you because you dont have a relationship with GOD. In fact i prefer you to make that decision on your own. Wich you have. I am however judging you on your honesty in discussion.

You act as if you bashing the ark story is somehow important to your nonsensical behaviourism towards law of nature and you not understanding the differences. Wich i clearly pointed out to you. You wanting to work around it shows your dishonesty. This is where you get cut off at the knees.

CHOP!@!; Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 6:51:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: I wanted to "work around it" because I'm not entirely sure where the miscommunication is. Scientific law is backed by the only proof that is 100%, mathematics. You bring up the "laws of nature". I asked you to name one because I wasn't sure if we were still talking about the same thing. Scientific law can be referred to as the law of nature because science is the study of the natural world. You, however, were talking about a philosophical natural law. I thought you could keep science and philosophy separate, you lack that ability, apparently. If you want to debate on the mathematically proven invariance of scientific laws, you will lose. If you are trying to debate philosophical differnces in the acceptance of certain "natural laws" as fact or truth, you have to name a law (which you have yet to do, although I asked repeatedly). So, my knees are fine, LilPuss. Perhaps you can explain your position a little better. So far as the Ark crap goes, I thought you were a christian...my bad.

Marcus

PS- A global flood in human history is IMPOSSIBLE.; Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 9:02:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: 1.) I asked you to name one because I wasn't sure if we were still talking about the same thing.

We were talking about one...gravity. I didnt feel i had to mention one because we were talking about one.

2.)Scientific law is backed by the only proof that is 100%, mathematics.

Yes it is empirical and usually supported by mathematics.

3.)a.Scientific law can be referred to as the law of nature because science is the study of the natural world. b.You, however, were talking about a philosophical natural law.

a. Scientific law is not refered to as law of nature regardless of how you want to spin it. One is observable and the other is empirical.

b.No sir you brought up "natural law" confusing the issue. Then i showed you the differences. Yet somehow you say, i said, i was talking about natural law. This is where i begin to see your dishonesty in this discussion.

4.)I thought you could keep science and philosophy separate, you lack that ability, apparently.

No sir, this was your doing, as i clearly pointed out.

5.)a.If you want to debate on the mathematically proven invariance of scientific laws, you will lose.
b.If you are trying to debate philosophical differnces in the acceptance of certain "natural laws" as fact or truth, you have to name a law (which you have yet to do, although I asked repeatedly).

a.No sir i agree with you on that. However scientific laws are not to be confused with laws of nature. Scientific laws are made when studies are done and approved through peers and tests. Laws of nature exist without any proof nor explanation as to why.

b. Again we were talking about one. Oh and again, you said, 'natural laws' and that is not my premise. You keep changing your premise from natural law to scientific laws. You are not being rational at all. Since natural law doesnt fit your arguement you switched to scientific law. One is philosophical and the other is empirical. As i demonstrated in the above post.

6.)So, my knees are fine, LilPuss. Perhaps you can explain your position a little better.

Actually you keep trying to grow new ones. I havent changed my position, you have. I have made myself crystal clear. You on the other hand, keep changing your position to fit your arguementitive state of being. Like throwing shit on the wall and see if it sticks.

Let me set you straight on christianity in my life. I despise the 'dogmatic institutions' of christianity. If it satisfies you to call me christian, then so be it. I have a personal relationship with the one being you say doesnt exist. Well marcus, he does exist and if you deny him, you deny his son, and in the end he will deny you. Let it be known you have been told. Right it off as dogma, but what i speek of is true, in accordance with my faith. Now you cant say, "nobody told me".

PS- if you say so. I cant prove it one way or the other. Like i said. I have seen some impressive studies from both sides.; Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 5:51:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: I first mentioned scientific law on the 19th. I did not specifically say "scientific law" nor did I say "natural law". However, if one (not you, apparently) were to read the context, it wouldn't take long to surmise (mayhaps with some speculation) that I was, indeed, speaking of scientific law. You are a liar, and a bad one (this is easily proven by simply scrolling up). On October 21st I ask,"which scientific laws have nothing to do with mathematics," to which, you replied three hours later,"Ummmm...wow...the laws of nature existed well before any man put a mathmetical/scientific formula to it," clearly showing YOU brought up "the laws of nature" and demonstrating your deep ignorance of the subject. You then proceed to run to wikipedia to copy and paste some definitions that you believed were relevant but, actually had nothing to do with what I said. I then began to use YOUR term 'natural laws' or 'laws of nature' to extract just one example so that I might be sure we were on the same page (perhaps, I made a mistake in using YOUR terminology). If I am understanding this all correctly now- I said science backs laws with math, then you say there are laws that don't use math, I inquire about a specific scientific law that isn't backed with mathematics, and you come with natural laws aren't backed with math. I decide I want to work around this small semantic problem and you accuse me of doing what YOU are clearly guilty of. You're dum and I'm dun.

I'm not calling you a christian. When you say "dogmatic institutions" are you speaking of churches or the bible or both? Without the bible, where is your Yahshua? I absolutely DO deny 'him?' and 'his?' bastard son. You see, that is all fiction, created in the minds of first to third century scholars based on even older beliefs. Religion began as the precursor to science. People wanted an explanation for things they didn't understand. We use science to explain the world we live in now, and when a science book becomes outdated and the information obsolete- we throw it out.
You have a personal relationship with this god? If it asked you to kill your son, would you? It's been known to happen. If you would, you are a disgusting piece of shit. If you wouldn't, what's the point of your faith? You say, in accordance with your faith, that I will be condemned to an everlasting "hell" because, for the less-than 100 years I might spend on this planet, I didn't believe in your god. What a hateful fucking thing your god is, and I would prefer to be as far from it as possible. What is the purpose of the crucifiction story? Why didn't the guy the books are about write anything himself? Do not ever call your shitty faith true, you couldn't get further from it.

Marcus

PS- Show me these impressive studies and I will clear it up for you.; Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 4:54:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: You poor child. I know i am right about the laws of nature. I know you obfuscated the issue with natural laws. I pointed out the difference and you call me a liar. Cool beans. I can live with that. Its obvious you cant deal with the reality of your misunderstanding, you keep saying natural laws and they are different. I agreed with your point on scientific laws being empirical and are proveable using math. You seemingly disagree that gravity never existed until they put a formula to it and they called it a scientific law. Well you are wrong and misguided.

Is the bible an institution?
Have you ever studied the bible?

1.)You have a personal relationship with this god? 2.)If it asked you to kill your son, would you? 3.)It's been known to happen. If you would, you are a disgusting piece of shit. If you wouldn't, what's the point of your faith? 4.)You say, in accordance with your faith, that I will be condemned to an everlasting "hell" because, for the less-than 100 years I might spend on this planet, I didn't believe in your god. 5.)What a hateful fucking thing your god is, and I would prefer to be as far from it as possible. 6.)What is the purpose of the crucifiction story? Why didn't the guy the books are about write anything himself? 7.)Do not ever call your shitty faith true, you couldn't get further from it.

1.)Yes and it offends you?
2.)The new covenant doesnt demand that of me. You are misguided.
3.)Why the disdain for something you say doesnt exist. Strike a nerve, did i?
4.)Thats your choice and i dont have any disdain towards you for denying his son. You can never say you were not told.
5.)Dont know i would call it hate. Gods love is more powerfull than your hate for him. I mean sense you dont believe in him why does it matter. Or is your point to insult my faith. Either way, you have been told.
6.) Why do you care you dont believe anyways. You have been told.
7.) My faith is true and is based on the way, the truth, and the life. To bad you dont have any.

You can look these impressive studies up on the net. Inclusive there is a bible online you should start there. After you are done reading it. Maybe we can have a more informed conversation instead of all this hate for something you say doesnt exist.

!@!CHOP!@!; Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 6:27:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: I don't hate the part of christianity that doesn't exist. I hate part that thinks it exists and ruins my country with it's ignorance.

I've read that book more times than I should have. Knowing what I do now, I wish for all those hours back.

You must be out of your mind if you think I could handle a theological discussion with someone who thinks you have to believe some terrible story for a reward you get after you're dead. That's the sort of thing that the hijackers believed. Your irrational faith lends credence to those with a more literal take on those stories. Regardless of what I do or don't believe, the fact remains that christianity is a threat to this country and should not be given a free pass to infect another generation.

Marcus

I can find no impressive studies supporting a global flood in human history.; Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 7:56:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: 1.)I don't hate the part of christianity that doesn't exist. I hate part that thinks it exists and ruins my country with it's ignorance.

Yes you do. You deny god and called his son a bastard. They dont exist in accordance with your faith/belief system. Yet you deny something that doesnt exist. This denial is based on what? a non-existent happens chance? or deeply rooted in fear of servitude by faith? Blessed are those that have not seen yet still believe. Are you blessed?

Well their ignorance founded this country, for the most part. Do you hate that aspect of this country also? From the sounds of things you hate the founding fathers who believed the opposite of you?

Isnt it interesting you said you couldnt find anything. Well im guessing you havent looked. It took me 2 minutes to find alot of information. To bad you are not as savy as i am when it comes to researching on the net.

So let me get this straight, just to clearify.

1.)If the ark never existed then there was no global flood?

2.)If the ark existed there is a strong possibility of global flood?

3.)What if mountain regions around the world have sedimentary cretaceous water laid rock, towards their summits, what would that indicate to you?

I have read both sides and im not sure about a global flood. Like i said before. Atleast im being honest in our discussion.; Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 6:47:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: I can't hate your god any more than you can hate Zeus or leprechauns. The problem is YOU not your holy phantom.

Christians DID NOT found this country. Stop propagating lies!

1.)If the ark never existed then there was no global flood? No, you fool, there was never a global flood in human history. That kinda makes Noah and the magic boat a lie, doesn't it? Noah is a lie based on an exaggeration.

2.)If the ark existed there is a strong possibility of global flood?
What? Is that christian logic? See the above answer.

3.)What if mountain regions around the world have sedimentary cretaceous water laid rock, towards their summits, what would that indicate to you?
That would indicate, to me, that you have no impressive studies supporting a global flood in human history. You are getting your shit from pseudo scientists at the Intelligent Creation Institute. They like to leave out the part about the NONmarine sedimentary layers that are interspersed with your "summit rocks".

How about you quit LilPussyfootin' around and show me these impressive studies? Are you afraid? You have no problems with the cut and paste function any other time, what's the difference here? Your faith will always fail the science test, nothing to be ashamed of but, always be aware of it. Don't spread christian lies and exaggerations as truth. No flood, no virgin birth, no raising the dead, and no apocalypse. Of course, all the stoning and slavery was real (feel free to keep disobeying that shit).

Marcus; Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 5:27:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: "I can't hate your god any more than you can hate Zeus or leprechauns. The problem is YOU not your holy phantom."

HUH?? i never said anything about other beliefs yours inclusive. I have made it clear i dont judge people based on their beliefs. The problem is your denial of something that has been warring within yourself and your hate for a phantom. Your division has very little to do with me. In fact you fear a relationship with GOD. You have all the excuses figured out. Just remember you have been told.

2.)"Christians DID NOT found this country. Stop propagating lies!"

HAHAHAHAHA!!! man you are a revisionist.

"1.)If the ark never existed then there was no global flood? No, you fool, there was never a global flood in human history. That kinda makes Noah and the magic boat a lie, doesn't it? Noah is a lie based on an exaggeration."

No it doesnt mean anything to me as i have stated before. I just wanted more clearification on your part. The second question was to re-inforce the first one, leading to the next one.

Yet if the ark was found and studied how would you feel about that?

From your post im gathering you dont care, nor does it matter. Thats why i dont post anything for you. Discover it yourself.

"3.)What if mountain regions around the world have sedimentary cretaceous water laid rock, towards their summits, what would that indicate to you?
That would indicate, to me, that you have no impressive studies supporting a global flood in human history. You are getting your shit from pseudo scientists at the Intelligent Creation Institute. They like to leave out the part about the NONmarine sedimentary layers that are interspersed with your "summit rocks"."

Still havent answered how it got there? See this is why i dont know. How did it get there and because you indicated that it is there and interspersed amongst other NONmarine sedimentary. How did these layers get there? You admit to water laid sedimentary being there amongst other NONMarine layers. BTW they are not just rocks they are layers of sediment too. At some point you are admitting that those 'summit rocks' (your verbage not mine) was under water, leaving layers of sediment. You didnt prove your so called psuedo science claim. You in fact admitted to the sediment being there. How is that psuedo science? Once again you fail to take the initiative and look this shit up yourself, but you have every excuse not to. I never mentioned anything about the flood, you did. You brought it up and now you have been exposed.

!@!CHOP!@!

????Intelligent Creation Institute???? who??

BTW what would happen if the polar ice cap and all the glaciers melted? would there be major flooding around the world? Im not trying to equate that to global flooding covering all lands. Just demonstrating how science says these things can happen on a smaller scale around the world. Your hate towards a phantom wouldnt allow such logic...huh?

!@!CHOP!@!; Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 6:51:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Geological overthrust is one explanation, without knowing the specific mountain region, I can't give specific answers. I call this pseudo science but, it should be called christian apologetics. These theories have no merit, they have been 'debunked' by actual science. As I said, it is indicitive of your ignorance of science, brought on by your irrational faith.; Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 7:19:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: Is this 'geological overthrust' a scientific law?
or
A theory from evolutionists and if this theory is wrong...it !@!CHOPS!@! you at the knees, once again.

What apparent studies have done on geological overthrust?

Care to examine the pros and cons of your explanation? This will be fun. So i will briefly cover a few cons.

BTW it doesnt matter what mountian region we consider, you are describing something that has been debunked by actual scientists whos concerns didnt involve the mis-use of eras and periods to alter the geographic column...to create a timeline to fit within their theory of evolution. In fact it doesnt explain why the older strata can lay upon younger strata. Unless of course by some miracle the world is repleat with mountians having the ability to move sideways for some 50+ miles. Coming to rest with NO visible fractures on/in the Eocene strata. I mean glaciers leave their paths and moveing mountians dont?

I was glad to see you accuse me of psuedo science and now you throw this wet noodle on the wall....LMAO!!! I love asking loaded questions.

Marcpuss = "circulus in probando"

Please lets examine how my faith has failed yet another scientific test. Specifically this one 'geological overthrust' we are undertaking; If you dare to. You still have yet to answer a few more questions i have asked.

Somehow im getting the impression the truelly ignorant one has just stepped in it. Lets debate this 'geological overthrust'. Im no expert, but i will use experts.

Study up brah!; Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 4:26:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: As I said, you've pulled this from creationists that have been debunked and thrown out of the court of law in the couple of states that have attempted to put this bullshit in our public schools. You are a fool. Geological overthrust causes layers from an older age to be thrust to the surface. There is a construct known as the geological column. Everywhere on this planet, where the layers of sediment have been studied, they are found to coincide with this model. Only creationists deny this fact. Where the layers appear to be out of order, it is usually due to massive geological forces that can crumple the layers or fold them onto eachother. Say the expected order is A-B-C-D-E (layers of sediment), where folding occurs, you will find A-B-C-B-A (the older layer on top). It is not miraculous and is well documented (except in christian circles). As I said, there was no global flood in human history. You have no impressive studies showing otherwise, you have shown me debunked creationist bullshit. Teach that to your children and you perpetuate lies, YOU have been told. You deny the geological column and overthrust, and even implied that evolution is false. Your ignorance here surpasses my comprehension. In other words, "How the fuck are you so stupid?". You have yet to show me what study this is (though, I think I know) because you know it comes from some creationist bullshit. Give me a specific study and I will show you all the holes that have been glossed over, even though it is a waste of my time. You want to debate geological overthrust? You haven't exhibited an elementary understanding of it, I would be teaching you from scratch. I think your lack of acceptance of evolution is a bigger issue. Poor deluded bastard...

Marcus

PS- Show me the studies!; Friday, October 31, 2008 at 12:09:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: The geological column doesn't exist?

Look up the Bonaparte Basin in Australia or the Williston Basin in North Dakota.

The geological column is out of order?

I think I explained overthrust and folding. If you still don't understand, where is your confusion?

The geological column is based on evolution?

No. It is based on the observation of faunal succession which has been accepted longer than evolution, even by creationist "science". You can look up Adam Sedgwick-he described and named the Cambrian Era- he said evolution was a "frenzied dream". The column is also further validated by radiometric dating, which is based in physics not evolution.; Friday, October 31, 2008 at 3:37:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: 1.)Geological overthrust causes layers from an older age to be thrust to the surface.

I understand the concept, but i dont understand how such an event left no visible fractures on the eocene strata. Considering most of the mountian ranges are miles long and several hundred and thousands feet high and rest on such undesturbed stratum. Yet no visible fractures have occured around said upheavels/folds. I mean fault zones leave their marks and moving mountians dont? Ill repeat from above:"I mean glaciers leave their paths and moveing mountians dont?"

BTW I never denied the geological column construct. I never asked those questions in your second post. You are putting words in my mouth and i never asked those questions ("out of order" is more like it). You are avoiding the premise of your claims. I was very pointed in my disputes with, how some scientists have altered timelines to match their theory. FS will come later. You first have to overcome this major obstacle i clearly pointed out.

2.)Where the layers appear to be out of order, it is usually due to massive geological forces that can crumple the layers or fold them onto eachother.

"usually due to"....HUH? so this means geological thrust isnt a solid explaination? and this is done with no stratum fractures in the said stratas around such upheavels/folds/thrusts. You still have yet to explain this. This is a 'major hole' in your geological overthrust THEORY. HAHAHAHA 'major hole' no pun intended. There goes the law of superposition.

FS=faunal succession we can discuss later. lets stay on premise. or is this another visit from.......

Marcpuss = "circulus in probando"; Friday, October 31, 2008 at 8:09:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: The only hole is in what you are saying. Where is this mountain region where no thrust fault exists? You STILL have not referenced the study you are getting this from. I will not ask again.

I will assume you are talking about the Lewis overthrust that covers around 3000 square kilometers from Montana to Alberta. This is an area some creationists claim has no evidence of a thrust fault. Arthur Newell Strahler has shown that there is, indeed, a thrust fault between the strata, as well as other actual geologists (takes a few more than 2 minutes to find, though). Also, the strata on either side of the discontinuity are in the proper order to support a thrust fault. Mountains are not glaciers, there are different geological forces at work on each.

What is this bullshit about altering timelines? What scientists? To fit what theory?
Read this: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.html

Impressive studies my ass.

Marcus; Friday, October 31, 2008 at 9:43:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: 1.)Where is this mountain region where no thrust fault exists?

I never said this. You are doing it again. Why cant you be honest. You keep creating questions i never asked. Seemingly to allign with your rhetoric and conjectures.

-REPEAT----------------------------
marcpuss said: 2.)Where the layers appear to be out of order, it is usually due to massive geological forces that can crumple the layers or fold them onto eachother.

"usually due to"....HUH? so this means geological thrust isnt a solid explaination? and this is done with no stratum fractures in the said stratas around such upheavels/folds/thrusts. You still have yet to explain this. This is a 'major hole' in your geological overthrust THEORY. HAHAHAHA 'major hole' no pun intended. There goes the law of superposition.
-----------------------------------

Let me make this clear to you, dont confuse fault lines and fault zones with your "usually due to" 'thrust faults' and or geological thrust or how many more names you can associate with it.

For example. You mentioned the Lewis overthrust. This site has been studied. When these fault lines, wich separates the Paleozoic strata from the Eocene strata, after study, reveal themselves to be normal. No evidences of massive crushing of rock beneath the fault line has been found. You are saying Strahler shown this area of horizontal rock with a thrust fault, then slid sideways, for a great distance over shale, without any disturbances of the shale nor limestone it rests on today. Strahler is wrong unless you both are refering to fault lines or zones, not thrust faults.

So right here right now.

1.) a.Do you support the law of superposition? b.Does your claims line up with this principal?

2.) a.Do you believe the continental drift theory? b.How does this theory match your "usually due to" geological thrusts? c. You posted a link to Plate tectonics so i assuming you have read it and agree with it?

Thrust faults you say. Well lets address this as it is. There are several different names for your claims: overthrust, thrust fault, low-angle fault, nappe, detachment thrust. You seemingly think that i wouldnt catch your circlular arguement. IN FACT YOUR IGNORANCE AND DISTORTIONS ARE VERY ENTERTAINING. >HAHA<

I am saying there is no fractures, marks of grinding, no evidences supporting the sliding and buckling do to enormous horizontal pressures, no disturbed eocene strata. The Lewis overthrust should have produced a large mass, of broken breccia or rubble, in front and on its sides, as it traveled over land. It did not do this. That alone is strong evidence that the Lewis overthrust did not move sideways indulging the theory of thrust fault and rejects Strahlers claims and yours of a thrust fault.

!@!CHOP!@!

BTW. Before i show you all my resources and studies it takes awhile to compile a list from books i have read and whatnot and yes some quotes from the experts from the net. You keep interjecting things into this discussion. Things i have never said and questions i have never asked of you. You havent answered my question and nor will i give you my resources until you clearify some issues. See 1a,b and 2a,b,c

"What is this bullshit about altering timelines? What scientists? To fit what theory?"

REPEAT: BTW it doesnt matter what mountian region we consider, you are describing something that has been debunked by actual scientists whos concerns didnt involve the mis-use of eras and periods to alter the geographic column...to create a timeline to fit within their theory of evolution. In fact it doesnt explain why the older strata can lay upon younger strata. Unless of course by some miracle the world is repleat with mountians having the ability to move sideways for some 50+ miles. Coming to rest with NO visible fractures on/in the Eocene strata. I mean glaciers leave their paths and moveing mountians dont?

Oh and the difference between a glacier and a mountian in your example mentioned. A glacier leaves a visible path of movement and your thrust theory didnt.

!@!CHOP!@!; Friday, October 31, 2008 at 2:18:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: This is my final attempt to educate you.

"I am saying there is no fractures, marks of grinding, no evidences supporting the sliding and buckling do to enormous horizontal pressures, no disturbed eocene strata. The Lewis overthrust should have produced a large mass, of broken breccia or rubble, in front and on its sides, as it traveled over land. It did not do this. That alone is strong evidence that the Lewis overthrust did not move sideways indulging the theory of thrust fault and rejects Strahlers claims and yours of a thrust fault."-Lilpuss

This is a perfect demonstration of your ignorance about geology. There doesn't have to be rubble to show a thrust fault. A fault can be buried beneath rock, not visible without further investigation, it's called a blind-fault. You have massive heat and pressure bending and folding large areas of land without breaking all layers of strata. Of course, without your specific "impressive studies", I am left to refute the (factless) ludicrous ramblings of a nincompoop.

1)a. Yes. b. Yes but, it isn't my claim, it is the claim of REAL GEOLOGISTS.

2)a. Yes. b. I posted you a link to a book that explains very well, im my opinion. Where is your link about these impressive studies? Oh yeah, YOU HAVE NONE. c. Yes.

What is your argument? You have REFUSED to show me these impressive studies, you have LIED about my position, you have PROVEN your IGNORANCE (willful stupidity) about geologic forces. I guess we're done here.

Marcus

PS- Reminds of a special someone from Fairway and his ridiculous claims against evolution. Only, now, I'm ready for idiots like you.; Friday, October 31, 2008 at 9:05:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: Blind fault eh? Changeing the premise again. The mere fact the Lewis overthrust is visible does not make it a blind thrust fault.

PS- No your not ready, you havent proven anything except you can change your positions many times over and i havent a need to show you my resources. you cant even handle me.; Friday, October 31, 2008 at 9:24:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: Tell me your "impressive studies" or shut the fuck up.; Friday, October 31, 2008 at 9:47:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/thrust.htm; Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 4:15:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/sorting.htm; Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 4:32:00 AM CDT
Michael T Justice said...: * 1. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

* 2. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

* 3. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

* 4. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

* 5. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

* 6. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

* 7. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

* 8. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

* 9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part,

* 10. but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

* 11. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

* 12. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

* 13. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1 Corinthians 13; Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 10:54:00 AM CDT
Anonymous said...: One of the least disagreeable verses from that book. Even a rapist can have good philosophy on some things. Regardless, I understand your point.

Marcus; Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 10:55:00 PM CDT
Anonymous said...: quote: "Tell me your "impressive studies" or shut the fuck up."

You havent even shown the ability to handle myself.

However i will give you one resource for a teaser. BTW the authors are NOT known creationist. So it destroys your claim all my resources are creationist driven. Whats interesting is this "mechanical paradox" has never been resolved as Rubey mentioned somewhere in his book. I have read this book and i cant find the exact quote (on the net)that describes how this paradox has not been solved. If i find it i will post it. Much harder find without paying for it. I did find this below showing the recognized PARADOX of your overthrust theory.

"Promise of resolving the paradox of overthrust faulting arises from a consideration of the influence of the pressure of interstitial fluids upon the effective stresses in rocks."

*M.K. Hubbert and *W.W. Rubey,

"Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrusting Faulting"

ok one more

Dont remember the book name but i did read a few things written by a guy named Kulp. It may have been a paper or two in scientific journals. Yet another tough find.

Found this on wiki. It may have been some written journals to the ASA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Laurence_Kulp; Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 2:01:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: If you want to make an argument from authority rather than show these "impressive studies", make sure your authorities support your argument. Kulp and Rubey were against the idea of a global flood in human history, like me, because science showed them that it could not have happened. I assume the same goes for Hubbert. Also, they ARE creationists. An old earth creationist isn't as bad as the young earth variety but, give it another 50 years and science will be rid of them as well. I will take this as your concession to the factlessness of a Noachian deluge and thank you.

Marcus; Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 4:18:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/othrust.htm; Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 7:37:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: I dont have to show you ones that support my arguement. Just ones that shows yours to be a "PARADOX" and nothing has been found to substantiate your claims 100%, nor theirs and the reality of undisturbed strata after all this lateral movement and Rubeys book talks about this enormous pressure. How much pressure would porous rock allow or take before fracturing or exploding?...DUH!!!

How much pressure would it take to move your prescious "Lewis overthrust"? (measured at a whopping 3miles deep, 135 miles long, and 35to 40 miles wide) Kiss Montana goodbye.

This is why i said i didnt know about a global flood. Your side said it was "never resolved". I know what the book said about overthrust and you dont . So how can you determine my concession.

Its easy you are dishonest in discussion. In fact it is determined that you are talking out the side of jo azz!..once again.

Always changing your answers when your previous one got destroyed. Calling for concession and a thank you is truyelly laughable. Read the book first and then we can talk, because im tired of !@!CHOP!@!..ing your BS UP!!!

You dont need to see my resources anymore than i need to see yours. I dont think you would like them....Remember you are argueing about a phantom and his fables...LMAO!!!!

For something that doesnt exist you sure like to argue about it. Your science has failed you. My science lives for eternity....

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!...lights out stumpy!!!

!@!CHOP!@!; Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 6:04:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: You fool. I have been telling you that there was never a global flood in human history. Your "paradox" was a paradox 40 years ago, not anymore. Even when it WAS a paradox it was not proof of a global flood in human history. You are using the studies of good scientists interpreted by the bad "science" of creationism. You named Hubbert and Rubey- neither of them believe in a global flood in human history, their work had nothing to do with it. Your misconceptions come from the faulty science and outright lies of young earth creationists. Kulp, whom you also named, has done specific work DISPROVING a global flood in human history. He is an admitted creationist (the old earth kind) and is very much against the pseudo science of young earth creationists, like yourself. You have been told (but then, what does fact have to do with faith?). I might relate your knowledge of science on this topic to your knowledge of science on the trade towers's collapse (or any scientific study) but, again, what good is fact against the faith you have in this administration. You should strive to be more like Michael T with regard to your religion, don't believe the hype. I can admit to a few gems that can be found amongst the detritus that is the bible (or talmud or quran or any holy book). Can you admit science has answers for questions your book doesn't? If there were ever a global flood in human history, the evidence would be apparent and abundant. So, say what you will, you have been told.

Marcus; Monday, November 3, 2008 at 12:54:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: This is a video by a friend of mine on YouTube, it's 10 minutes but it may help clear your goggles...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8&feature=related; Monday, November 3, 2008 at 3:28:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: BTW MTJ is just as inept as you on this matter and brings nothing to the table. Just like you.

Like i said i dont know, you claim you know there wasnt, and many experts cannot conclude either way. Now you call me a young earth creationist. HAHAHAHAHA!!! time to unload on your stupid circular arguements.

Genisis chapture six the great flood is mentioned. Chapture seven "all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." Is this describing the pressures needed (Rubey) to cause overthrusts and the beginnings of continental drift? Note:(written in the 1500 BCE). Well before any hypothesis you agree with existed.

There are plenty of evidences of some global flooding in the days of Pangaea and after. A persian geologist, Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī (973-1048), observed india subcontinent was once a sea. Lots of landmasses above water now, were under water back then.

If some mountians of today were created as a result of your overthrust THEORY, before the time of continental drift, then the next claim would be, no thats the work of tectonic plates colliding and/or seperating. Demonstrating your circular arguements. OH BTW, they are two different theories (drift and plates). Lets just say they both happened.

1.)It is very possible before the drift of the supercontinent, into many, that some overthrusts were not around at the time of the great flood? Yes it is. Especially when you support the superposition theory and you said you do. Law of superposition defined:"Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top." Wich you destroyed your own arguement agreeing with the drift theory and their overthrusts.

In chapture 10 it claims that God divided the land. Maybe God used natural geological forces in the earth, to divide the earth he created. You assert that these overthrust arose due to tectonic plates colliding or shearing. I also pointed out RUBEY and the pressues he wrote about....etc. Dont forget chapture 7 "burst forth" claim.

2.)Could the Pangaea have been more flat and an easier flood plain? Yes it very possible given your support of the law of superposition and support of the Pangaea drifting apart. Thats why i asked if you supported the drift theory and the superposition. I love loaded questions.

The Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus ... suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa ... by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents].

What rupture? what earthquakes? what floods?

Maybe a great flood started the genesis of the drift. The bible accounts for all of this activity without any known scientists writing anything about it until well after (some 2000+ years), this HOLY BOOK was written.

The first book of the bible was written sometime in 1500 BCE. I wonder how this account for your "contenintal drift theory" exposes you in agreement with the bible. In 1500 BCE or around that time frame, a book was written giving an account for a great flood and the earth being divided by God. Later explained by some geological forces undescribable and untested, but lots of THEORIES.

Interesting PARADOX you have caused for yourself. You actually support something the Bible says happened. How did these 'fools' claim an event happened with NO KNOWN geologists around at the time; to hypothesise such a theory or was it the hand of GOD? Oh i know you think the theory from MAN, is more accurate than the BIBLE from GOD. Oh damn thats right its a book of lies and GOD doesnt exist.

GOD divided the land in the bible, genisis chapture 10. Written well before any geologists ever created a theory to try and explain said event, then how can you claim nothing is real or is this another said GEM you are admitting to?

!@!CHOP!@!; Monday, November 3, 2008 at 7:54:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Wow. You know less about this subject than I thought, LilPuss. Pangaea was over 220 MILLION years ago... people weren't around THAT far back. Whether there was or was not a global flood at that time has nothing to do with what I or your bible says (unless you think Noah was living in Pangaea).
I'm not even going to touch the rest of your "garbage" (for lack of a kinder word). As I said, it IS NOT SCIENCE. You are using lies and misinformation spread by people who share your faith but, not your interests (if you're interested in understanding reality). Your argument on thrust faults is almost a mirror of Whitcomb and Morris.

Whitcomb and Morris state:

"It is recognized that phenomena of this sort have taken place on a small scale, in certain localities where there is ample evidence of intense past faulting and folding. However, these visible confirmations of the concept are definitely on a small scale, usually in terms of a few hundreds of feet, whereas many of the great overthrust areas occupy hundreds or even thousands of square miles. It seems almost fantastic to conceive of such huge areas and masses of rock really behaving in such a fashion, unless we are ready to accept catastrophism of an intensity that makes the Noachian Deluge seem quiescent by comparison! Certainly the principle of uniformity is inadequate to account for them. Nothing we know of present earth movements÷of rock compressive and shearing strengths, of the plastic flow of rock materials, or of other modern physical processes÷gives any observational basis for believing that such things are happening now or ever could have happened, except under extremely unusual conditions. "(Emphasis added) (TGF, pp. 180-181)

"The problem of overthrusting becomes still more difficult when an attempt is made to understand it from the viewpoint of engineering mechanics. The mass of rock in the Lewis overthrust slab, for example, must have weighted approximately eight hundred thousand billion tons! Assuming for the sake of argument that a somehow sufficient force could be generated in the earth's crust to start such a mass moving with both a vertical and lateral component (moving vertically against the force of gravity and laterally against the frictional force along the sliding plane), it still does not follow that really large blocks could be moved in this manner. It can be calculated, on the basis of knowledge of known friction coefficients for sliding blocks, that so much frictional (shearing) stress would be developed in a large block that the material itself would fail in shear or compression and, therefore, could not be transported as a coherent block at all." (Emphasis added) (TGF, p. 191)

We of course recognize that there are evidences of folding and fracturing along many of the fault planes, and this may well indicate that there has been some motion of the upper and lower strata relative to each other. But this certainly does not prove that the upper strata have moved the many miles that would be required by the overthrust theory!" (Emphasis added) (TGF, p. 198)

Whitcomb and Morris make two general claims: the stresses required to cause thrust faults are impossibly large; and there is not evidence of large motions along thrust faults. Their statement about the amount of displacement along thrust faults (in the third quotation) is a potential source of confusion. The statement that displacements of "many miles. . . (is) required by the overthrust theory" is potentially misleading. A thrust fault is nothing more than a fault across which the hanging wall block has moved up relative to the footwall block, and the amount of displacement along a fault (regardless of the type of fault) is calculated the same way for faults of any size: the distance between a feature that has been offset and is present on either sides of the fault is measured, and that distance is equal to the amount of displacement along a fault. In the case of large thrust faults, such features are offset by tens to hundreds of kilometers.

-John G. Solum (REAL scientist)

You didn't even watch the video I linked, did you? If you don't want to look at all ten minutes, at least watch the part from 7:50 to the end (especially 8:18 minutes). Science is more amazing and beautiful than your ridiculous stories- I implore you learn about it.

Marcus; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 4:04:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Oh and, no, the flood story is NOT one of the gems from the bible.; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 4:12:00 PM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: jeez guyz your really going at it.; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 5:52:00 PM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: we can all still get along can't we?; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 5:53:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: It's a form of "tough love", Jerry.; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 6:09:00 PM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: Who are you?; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 7:02:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: HAHAHA...he agrees with the bible and the land being divided...isnt that a GEM...LMAO!!!!

!@!CHOP!@!; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 7:39:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: BTW how fast does the moon drift away from the earth? 1.6 inches; 3.8cm a year. 1 mile = 63,360 inches. Divided by 1.6 = aprox 39,600 years it moves a mile?

Most scientists agree that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do the arithmetic and post your conclusion. What was the distance between the earth and the moon at their genisis. Even in their gaseous state if you need to.

Show me some more tough love and use your mathmetic skills. Here let me help you. Thats right divide the 4,500,000,000 by 39,600

Whats the answer?

LOL; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 8:52:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: You think rocks floated on water and people were around before the dinosaurs. Your "impressive studies" are for the birds. By, "for the birds", I mean like the old days of horse-drawn wagons, when the locomotive power left behind lovely nuggets of wealth for the sparrows, and they would come land to partake of the oat filled fecal delights. In other words, your studies are "horseshit".
There are many scientists that are christian. They don't mix their faith with their work. Most think of the bible as a philisophical text rather than thinking it gives any sort of accurate historical benefit.
Now, I didn't say I agreed with the bible and I damn sure don't agree with your version of geological history, that isn't to say we can never agree. You just need to wise up a little (okay alot but, don't let that discourage you). I can link you to some good sites that don't peddle horseshit and quote mines, rather actual scientific knowledge. It doesn't mean your god doesn't exist (that can never be proven), it just means your reading selections should be tweaked. Connect some new neural, pathways you might enjoy it.

Marcus; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 9:18:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.

The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).

The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.

The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth.

-Straight from REAL science! Will you stop this MADNESS!?!?; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 9:25:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Nothing at this website is science:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204; Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 9:51:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Oh look he cant do math. He agrees with the bible and now he cant do simple arithmetic.

!@!CHOP!@!; Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 5:27:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Counter Creationism handbook huh? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! like fish in a barrel.

Using your numbers that YOU posted and are from the "COUNTER CREATIONISM HANDBOOK". I did my own calculations. Something you cant do.

3.85x10(10th power)cm=385,000,000,000cm/16934(cm in a mile)= 22,735,325 miles away.

Ummm i think your post is a little off on its conclusions. WOW almost a 22.5 million mile mis-calculation.

LMAO!!!!

!@!CHOP!@!; Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 5:57:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: LOL. Yeah, a typo. 3.85 x 1 to the tenth power...oops. Did you read the rest you, dumbass? As Yoda would say,"Stuck on stupid, you are."; Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 8:33:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Actually, 10 to the tenth power is 10,000,000,000.
10,000,000,000 x 3.85= 38,500,000,000 centimeters
100 centimeters in a meter
1000 meters in a kilometer
385,000 kilometers

Close enough...; Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 8:48:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: There was no typo. I have read your claims many times over. Yet i was wondering if i added one to many zeros and i missed a 0 in my cm number. Im more awake now..lol

So we now agree to the statement that it is. 38,500,000,000 cm away.

38,500,000,000/160934(cm in a mile)= 239,228 miles.

Your post shows a mis-calculation of the earth to the moon by atleast 400 miles on average.

Average distance=238,857

I believe we have established a nice base for distance. Oh BTW if you are off 400 miles in any direction you will be lost in space my friend.

But hey close enough. Just like early predictions of earths age being about 50 million years old to some 60 years later their theories changed to 5 billion. But hey 'close enough'.

The spin rate? if extrapolating from todays rate how fast would the earth be spinning 5 billion years ago, considering its slowing down as of today? Care to figure that out?

I'll repeat: Show me some more tough love and use your mathmetic skills. Here let me help you. Thats right divide the 4,500,000,000 by 39,600 years.

Whats the answer? How many miles is that?

!@!CHOP!@!; Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 3:06:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: The math fits.

Hers's a question for you: Is it the promise of a heaven or the threat of a hell that keeps you addicted? It IS an addiction (look it up), not a healthy one for you. It seems to make you stupid because you think your book tells you the truth. You don't want to understand your world? Fine by me but, don't expect respect for your beliefs. I don't respect people who believe they know the minds of the gods with no reason whatsoever.

Marcus; Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 11:00:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: I know. We all choose our paths through life. I hope he serves as a warning to you, Jerry. College might get you nicer 'shoes' but, if you're not careful, you may find yourself on the same 'path' as poor LilPuss.

Marcus; Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 2:55:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: I actually thought we had come to some conclusion that we can agree upon. Yes im setting your dumbass up again. So now that we established your 'close enough' theory, and we both made errors. Lets continue this discussion or did your handbook run out of excuses. Just like early predictions of earths age being about 50 million years old to some 60 years later their theories changed to 5 billion. But hey 'close enough'. Geological column hasnt changed? right?, but MANS timeframes and theories have. Yet the bibles account still remains as early as 1500 BCE.

Nope no addiction. If thats the only thing you can equate to faith. Then you sir are deceived. Yet your faith in science is overwhelming when it comes to defending it. Defending it against something you say doesnt exist or whos holy book is packed with lies. In fact ill say it. My GOD is the greatest scientist of all. Mankind is baffled, so much so they now equate science and mathmetics as being 'close enough'. My faith is in GOD, yours is in man. Theres the difference. BTW i dont need you to respect my faith, just remember you have been told. No more excuses for you...lol

The math doesnt fit. Maybe at one point in time and in one spot on the orbital path of the moon, but it isnt a constent. It fits because you want it to, how you put it? 'close enough'. Wow nice science, its 'close enough'. I'll ask you one more time. HUH?....What?...hmmmm...your handbook doesnt have an answer?

Close enough only counts in horeshoes and handgrenades and in your case women...LMAO!!!

1.) I'll repeat: Show me some more tough love and use your mathmetic skills. Here let me help you. Thats right divide the 4,500,000,000 by 39,600 years.

Whats the answer? How many miles is that?

2.)I'll repeat: The spin rate? if extrapolating from todays rate how fast would the earth be spinning 5 billion years ago, considering its slowing down as of today? Care to figure that out?

I'll be waiting for your answers.
Look you have taken a giant baby step, lets keep the stride going...LMAO!!! oh thats right, keep crawling. You have to.

!@!CHOP!@!; Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 6:05:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: There are four hypothesis on the formation of our moon (the most accepted being a mars size planet impact). I'll repeat something that seems to be having difficulty getting through that rotten gourd you call a head. Science can only tell what is MOST LIKELY. When something becomes more likely (through testing and evidence) than what was previously thought, it changes. I know that's not how you creationists do it but, that is REAL science. Science does not claim to have all the answers to the universe but, it has more answers than your storybook. Right now, the evidence shows our planet is around 4.5 billion (with a "b") years old. I would submit that not you or any man alive can comprehend even 1 million (with an "m") years. Your claims are religious horseshit and have no basis in the scientific method. Science is a self-correcting process and I do have faith in it (with good reason). Just because science doesn't have an answer yet doesn't mean "God did it". You can use a god (not one from any holy book) to plug the gaps for now but, understand that it won't fit in those gaps forever (especially with that new hadron collider online).
Here's a calculation: How many fucking times do I have to tell you creationists don't do science before you understand? Hint- it's a multiple of 10 to the 10th power. How about this one: How many more times will I tell you? Hint- less than 1.
As for your equations:
1) 4,500,000,000 (whats?) divided by 39,600 years equals 113636.36 (somethings). I have no clue how many miles that is.
2) According to my calculation, 5 billion years ago (had the earth been around), it would have been moving a bit faster. If you were at the north pole it would still be 0 kph, if you were on the equator it would be around 3,674 kph, if you were where Kansas City is now it would be around 2,475 kph to 3,190 kph.
Now go learn something, you fool.

Marcus; Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 9:33:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: In case you were curious about what real scientists say about the speed of the early earth's spin, they go as high as 5 times the speed it is now...; Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 9:49:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: A must watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8XXaDrK4A; Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 11:19:00 AM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: dear god; Friday, November 7, 2008 at 1:34:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Wahoooooo 101 posts...new MTJ blog record....lol

You havent a clue about real science Marcus, you think you do. You have to pull from a handbook and make claims that creationists, who are scientists, are not 'real scientists'.

*Show me where these guys didnt earn their degrees and you may have a point.*

Then you excuse your evolutionary scientists by saying science isnt exact, its self correcting, and you have faith in it for good reason. No sir its self correcting for your evolutionary delusions and agendas just like the creation scientists and their agendas. Thats the whole thing in a nut shell. Everything rides on evolution and the support it has from those who dont believe in a GOD, who created all this and visa-versa. Like you, they make excuses and re-write their conclusions. ME?...I DONT KNOW.

Myself i have studied these things for along time, read many books, seen many documentaries on this subject and on various subjects relating to this matter. Im no expert, thats for sure, but i have demonstrated your ignorance of something you say "doesnt exist" and whos "book is full of lies". This my friend makes your ignorance hold no bounds. I thought real scientists gather all 'pertinent' information concerning their hypothesis and then its examined by their peers.
Oh its ok, they are close enough. Oh excuse me; self correcting close enoughs. Oh excuse me self correcting close enoughs x 10 10pwr. Sorry it isnt me using GOD to plug gaps as you say. It is you who are plugging the gaps using close enough sciences (i do mean plural) because its ever changing.

That final answer (113636.36)is how many miles the moon was away from the earth at their genisis or ummm...close enough. Coupled with the fact the earth was spinning at 5 times its rate, according to you, that is close enough.

Next question: 1.)a.How does earths mass (much smaller at the time according to the law of superposition) and relative spin rate. What effect would its smaller mass have on its gravitational pull and its centripetal acceleration? and
b. Exactly how many minutes were in a day during your 5x excelerated spin rate?Remember 'close enoughs' is all you need.

2.)How big (approx dia.) was the sun 5 billion years ago during the genesis of earth? BTW it is approx 865,000 miles in diameter and shrinking to the tune of approx. 8 miles a year. Come on smart guy show me your arithmetic skills...LMAO!!!

Your science is nothing more than theories. AS I STATED FOR THE 5th TIME> "I DONT KNOW" and frankly neither do you. Nor does your scientists. Now you pull from the "close enough" handbook. You believe in the drift theory and thrusting wich blows the superposition theory off the charts. Yet you believe in both and still its close enough. You have no evidences of such a drift other than the continental edges seeming to match up. Maybe rivers in-between these pangaea land mass, now continents, made its mark just like the colorado river has done to the grand canyon. Massive geological forces erupting from below may have started a drift, who knows? Again who knows how these continents assumed their position they are in today. Noone does it isnt exact science as you mentioned its close enough. So now you have actually admitted to science not being so accurate but close enough. Then your only conclusion should be "I DONT KNOW". So why dont you be honest an admit you dont know. I have many times over.

I like our discussion BTW. I just wish you would be more honest about it.

!@!CHOP!@!; Friday, November 7, 2008 at 6:52:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: I know exactly what science is, it's a process. You are the one who doesn't understand it (because you're blinded by your bible, I think). All of science, in no way, relies on evolution (I know that is what creationists say) I don't believe you even know what evolution is! You are being deceitful when you keep saying
I refer to your "Counter Creationist Handbook", I gave you some of my sources in an e-mail, if I were to tell you every source I've used, your handbook would not be among them. You have demonstrated an utter lack of scientific knowledge with your theories and your questions.
You want me to show you where WHAT guys haven't recieved degrees? You've named three people, two of which were well-respected scientists (whose studies are not related to but still disprove Noah's flood), the third is a former YEC (young earth creationist) who has since dedicated his work to debunking the ridiculous claims and misinformation of YECs. You seem to think that by taking someone elses work out of context and making up numbers you can disprove 400 years of peer reviewed research. Why don't you take this "impressive study" for the existence of Noah's Ark and go get yourself a Nobel Prize? Why don't ANY of your pseudo-scientists? Give up? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THROWN OUT AND RIDICULED!
You like to focus on my "close enough" statement. Sorry, it IS close enough. Some things science isn't as sure about as others, that I have to explain that to you is just another example of your ignorance. You say you "don't know" but then turn around in the same breath and say god tells you the truth. What does he tell you about the birth of our universe or solar system or the orbit of the moon? Nothing that matches what we can observe. You know something he DOES tell you in that book? He says not to eat certain types of birds, including 'bats' (that's in [Deuteronomy]). He tells you it's okay to beat a slave but, not to death, unless he dies after a day or two (then it's cool)[Exodus]. He tells you he'll send bears to tear apart 42 children for making fun of a bald guy [2 Kings]. He tells you it's cool to sacrifice animals and burn them because he enjoys the smell [Leviticus]. He tells you to stone people for picking up sticks on Sunday (that's HIS special day) [Numbers]. Then he sends himself as Jesus to remind you that everything in the bible is real [Matthew, Luke, Peter, Timothy, Mark, and John]. I could go on and on about the "truth" in your book. Was that your god or some ancient LilPuss who didn't know better? Science may just be a bunch of theories agreed upon by the greatest minds ever to evolve on this planet but, it's close enough for me (not to mention, it doesn't threaten me with hell if I deny it). I know how easy it is for you to get confused so I want to say this again... it doesn't disprove a god or gods (it never can) but, it disproves ALOT of the bible (I would pick on the quran, too, but they're not in control of my country).

Marcus; Friday, November 7, 2008 at 8:30:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: “Evolution, if it has occurred, can in a rather loose sense be called a historical
process; and therefore to show that it has occurred historical evidence is
required. History in the strict sense is dependent on human testimony. Since
this is not available with respect to the development of the world of life we must
be satisfied with something less satisfactory…A long enduring and regrettable
effect of the Origin was the addiction to unverifiable speculation… The success
of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity… This
situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable
to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting
to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and the
elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”

W. R. Thompson, F.R.S.
Director of the Commonwealth Institute
Of Biological Control, Ottawa

The above is excerpted from the twenty-four pages of introduction to the centennial edition of The Origin of Species. W. R. Thompson had sufficient prestige among the world’s scientists to be chosen for this honor. Although written some fifty years ago, his observations have maintained, if not gained in, their relevance.
Ponder this Marcus and then I will explain its significance.

Fairway; Friday, November 7, 2008 at 11:37:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Recent events have made it clear that Thompson’s remarks regarding the evolution community’s handling of contrary views and evidence are more valid than ever. Case and point; on page A19 of the November 9, 2001 Kansas City Star an Associated Press story covers the issue of an evolution disclaimer put in the Alabama biology textbooks. In the article Eric Meikle, outreach director of the National Center of Science Education, who gives out the alarm that such a disclaimer raises questions about the quality of Alabama’s biology education, is quoted as saying, “It’s definitely a negative in people’s view of education in the state.” The same kind of challenge and battle is occurring throughout the country.
The following is the offending disclaimer: The theory of evolution by natural selection is a controversial theory that is included in this document. It is controversial because it states that natural selection provides the basis for the modern scientific explanation for the diversity of living things. Since natural selection has been observed to play a role in influencing small changes in a population, it is assumed, based on the study of artifacts, that it produces large changes, even though this has not been directly observed. Because of its importance and implications, students should understand the nature of evolutionary theories. They should learn to make distinctions between the multiple meanings of evolution, to distinguish between observations and assumptions used to draw conclusions, and to wrestle with the unanswered questions and unresolved problems still faced by evolutionary theory. (Alabama Course of Study – Science, Alabama Department of Education Bulletin 2001, No. 20, p. iv (Preface))
I challenge Eric Meikle to show an inaccuracy in this disclaimer. Certainly he would not argue that there is no controversy or that there are not important implications. His discomfort would be in teaching students the difference between assumption and observation. For the sake of science, I hope people of his thinking do not continue to be successful. Before the scientific method established the criteria of observable, repeatable, measurable and falsifiable, people accepted Aristotle’s assumption that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones. It was repeatable, measurable and falsifiable observation that freed us from that dogma and led to our current understanding of gravity. Meikle would want us to blur the distinction between empirical demonstration and mind constructs for the sake of his evolutionary theory. True science has and will continue to suffer if his monopolistic point of view prevails.
More to ponder Marcus.

Fairway; Friday, November 7, 2008 at 2:18:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Looks like marcus has his wish. Here is Mike from Fairway (i think). You know marcus the guy you called out a few posts ago.

"Marcus

PS- Reminds of a special someone from Fairway and his ridiculous claims against evolution. Only, now, I'm ready for idiots like you."

You are not ready for idiots like me. As i said before, you cant even handle me. Now answer the next two questions as i have clearly questioned you into a confused state of being. Im asking you questions and taking baby steps with you. Fairway is nicer about it. After said baby steps you will begin to see the ridiculous claims you call science.

ILL REPEAT:
Next question: 1.)a.How does earths mass (much smaller at the time according to the law of superposition) and relative spin rate. What effect would its smaller mass have on its gravitational pull and its centripetal acceleration? and
b. Exactly how many minutes were in a day during your 5x excelerated spin rate?Remember 'close enoughs' is all you need.

2.)How big (approx dia.) was the sun 5 billion years ago during the genesis of earth? BTW it is approx 865,000 miles in diameter and shrinking to the tune of approx. 8 miles a year. Come on smart guy show me your arithmetic skills...LMAO!!!

Fairway remember these three words when it comes to marcus..."circulus in probando"

BIGDOG; Friday, November 7, 2008 at 4:25:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: "disprove 400 years of peer reviewed research."

Yeh and heres what your reviewed research has discovered.

Straight from the book i had in a box, found it yesterday. Now i have discovered it online. I would love to share it with you.

SCIENCE VS. EVOLUTION

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/index.htm

Read it marcus its online and it cost you nothing. You will also see the history behind evolution. BTW i never said anything about evolution until you started mentioning it and attacking creationism. Thats always a sign.

BIGDOG; Friday, November 7, 2008 at 5:00:00 PM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: Wow you guyz are really into this.; Friday, November 7, 2008 at 9:59:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Well, aren't I the popular one. Still making the same claims as always, Mike from Fairway (may I call you MFer for short?). Please, allow me to retort.
In your first post you quote a Dr. W.R. Thompson (1887-1972) in his introduction to the 1956 release of the Everyman's Library version of Origin of Species. Let us forget that he was an old earth creationist and that he was NOT chosen by scientists for the honor of writing this introduction. Instead, let us take this 52 year old quote and look at it with modern understanding. It is true that for 100 years since Darwin wrote his book the majority of evidence for evolution was based on a (lacking) fossil record (because fossilization is a rare process, it is expected we will only find less than 5% of all life that has ever existed in the fossil record, there are still plenty of fossils). That changed in 1962 with the discovery of DNA. Dr. Thompson also states in this intro (that was not peer reviewed) that scientists are "unable to define...and demonstrate with scientific vigor" evolution. That is a lie today and I suspect a lie 52 years ago. Here is the scientific definition of evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Evolution needs three things in order for it to happen 1) Time (generations) 2)Genetic mutation (genetic drift) and 3) Natural selection (which consists of many different facets). The more we discover, the more evolution fits.
Your second post says,"Recent events (in the scientific mecca know as Alabama) have made it clear (to you) that Thompson's remarks regarding the evolution community's (a.k.a. respected scientists) handling of contrary views ("god did it") more valid than ever.". The source of this clarity? Warning labels on science books, telling the future generations of minds and leaders that evolution has not been directly observed. Go google "observed speciation" and catch up to the 2oth century (I know we're in the 21st century, LilPuss, that's my point). Also, to agree with what is referred to as micro-evolution while denying what is referred to as macro-evolution is like admitting I can walk to my fridge but, saying it would be impossible for me to walk to the grocery store. Well, I haven't said it all but I've said enough. Enjoy your weekend.

Marcus; Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 12:04:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: LilPuss, I started reading that book you cited. I read maybe five sentences into the author note to the reader and was overcome with the urge to find out who the fuck this crazy asshole named Vance Ferrell was. I suggest you do the same (the guy is batshit nuts!). I DID get a good laugh, thanks.=)

Marcus; Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Man you are full of excuses and full of shit and they both stink.

"1) Time (generations) 2)Genetic mutation (genetic drift) and 3) Natural selection (which consists of many different facets)"

1)Time: See my two questions. Lets examine the time extrapolating from known facts.

ILL REPEAT:
Next question: 1.)a.How does earths mass (much smaller at the time according to the law of superposition) and relative spin rate. What effect would its smaller mass have on its gravitational pull and its centripetal acceleration? and
b. Exactly how many minutes were in a day during your 5x excelerated spin rate?Remember 'close enoughs' is all you need.

2.)How big (approx dia.) was the sun 5 billion years ago during the genesis of earth? BTW it is approx 865,000 miles in diameter and shrinking to the tune of approx. 8 miles a year. Come on smart guy show me your arithmetic skills...LMAO!!!

2) Genetic drift: accumulation of random events that change the makeup of a gene pool slightly.

3)Natural selection: Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes.

2&3 Seems to me that genetic drift leads us into the natural selection side of it all or are both closely related? Is this a correct observation that you are saying is true? Is natural selection a result of genetic drift?

I appreciate an answer so we can continue the dismantling of your supported theories.

BIGDOG; Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 1:39:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Okay, LilPuss, I'll humor you. You seem to cling to the idea that the planet was made around 4004 b.c.(BCE), you're not alone. I suppose there still some years before publicrelationsography catches on in the science community.

First, I must clear up your confusion on the law of superposition. It does not say the earth was smaller, it says only that newer is laid on older where the rocks have not been disturbed. We've been over the geo thrusts and erosion and all that already and scientists take it all into account when calculating the age of something (you and your creationists don't, either from ignorance or to purposefully deceive). There are many, many ways science calculates the age of something (geology, cosmology, paleontology, chemistry, astrophsics, geophysics, stratigraphy, biology, and so on). You can look at the rings on a tree (dendrochronology) and compare to the rings of older trees and older and older, all the way back to around 10,000 years. Or they can look at the rate of decay of carbon 14 and go back 60,000 years, there's also potasium decay, uranium decay, paleomagnetic dating, DNA, well you get the picture. We can look back 3.8 billion years by what the 'rocks' tell us. If you want to use your method of dating the earth, all you need to do is: a. develop a method b. publish and explain your results to the public c. test samples with age everyone can agree on d. do blind tests on rocks throughout the geo column. Then go collect your Nobel (but quit trying to have me do your work).
Genetic drift and natural selection are two different things but, they are very similar. Natural selection has a stronger focus on environmental things like predators, disease, and usefulness. Genetic drift is more random, but not exclusive of natural selection. Christ, LilPuss, this is mostly high school shit. What year someone went to high school appears to affect how many years a person thinks the Earth has been around...
If you like math so much, calculate how much hydrogen the sun has fused into helium, then tell me how much is left...wait, science has done it for you:

"Fusion involves low-mass nuclei whose combined mass is more than the resulting fused massive nucleus. The mass that was given up to form the massive nucleus was converted to energy. Remember E=mc2? That tells you how much energy (E) can be made from matter with mass m. Remember that c is the speed of light and it's squared (!) so a little bit of mass can make a lot of energy.
In the cores of main sequence stars, four hydrogen nuclei, each with the mass of one proton, are fused together to form a single helium nucleus (two protons and two neutrons) that has a mass of 3.97 times the mass of one proton. An amount of mass equal to 0.03 times the mass of one proton was given up and converted to energy equal to 0.03 × (mass one proton) × c2. The efficiency of this reaction is about 4/5 of one percent. The Sun could last for about 10 billion years on hydrogen fusion in its core. This is plenty long enough to satisfy the modern geologists." -Nick Strobel [astronomynotes.com]

Marcus; Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 12:15:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: "You seem to cling to the idea that the planet was made around 4004 b.c.(BCE),"

No sir, i never said that. Show me where i said that. Yet another dishonest moment on our discussion. However, you have pigeonholed me as a new earther, 4004 BCE is your input not mine.

AGAIN!!!
ILL REPEAT:
Next question: 1.)a.How does earths mass (much smaller at the time according to the law of superposition) and relative spin rate. What effect would its smaller mass have on its gravitational pull and its centripetal acceleration? and
b. Exactly how many minutes were in a day during your 5x excelerated spin rate?Remember 'close enoughs' is all you need.

2.)How big (approx dia.) was the sun 5 billion years ago during the genesis of earth? BTW it is approx 865,000 miles in diameter and shrinking to the tune of approx. 8 miles a year. Come on smart guy show me your arithmetic skills...LMAO!!!

Get your handbook on close enoughs and answer these questions you are avoiding. I have done my homewrok and until you learn to do your own work and discover things you havent read.....Pffffft!! Just like a stubborn kid...eat your beets then crow......lol

Then again i have shown you to be ignorant of all the challenges and questions raised by evolutionist theories; as you dismiss other info for what ever excuses you make at the moment.

I'll get to your genetic drift and natural selection whifs. BTW my high school taught me what real science is. You are not prosilitizing real science of wich...

Fairway clearly pointed out:

"Before the scientific method established the criteria of observable, repeatable, measurable and falsifiable."

Your theories do not match this criteria. As i have stated I DONT KNOW. You say you do based on theories, ever changing i might add. When i ask you these loaded questions they are based on this criteria and questions the veracity of your claims/quotes. When you avoid or make up excuses then it demonstrates why you cant handle me, let alone Fairway.

!@!CHOP!@!; Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 5:44:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: HAHAHAHA!!! "First, I must clear up your confusion on the law of superposition. It does not say the earth was smaller, it says only that newer is laid on older where the rocks have not been disturbed."

Marcpuss said this shit above.

Nicolas Steno: "Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.

If a solid body is enclosed on all sides by another solid body, of the two bodies that one first became hard which, in the mutual contact, expresses on its own surface the properties of the other surface."

Translation: a solid object will cause any solids that form around it later to conform to its own shape.

Yes its mass would increase with each impending sediment layer, layered itself onto the other, formed itself in a different manor according to Sterno... What effect would this have on its size/mass? (see avoidance of q1)

Are you saying the results of superposition have no effect on a planets mass?

Oh boy this is getting strange. Are you feverish marcus. Now im concerned about your health.

BIGDOG; Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 6:31:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: This is it, LilPuss. I will not answer any more of your questions. You've denied being a YEC but, whenever I look into where your arguments originate...yeah, it's with them. Enjoy:

1)a. The law of superposition DOES NOT say that the earth gains mass with each layer. The only ways for the earth to gain mass is through energy from the sun (which is incredibly miniscule compared to the current size of the planet) and from space debri (falling stars and whatnot). The Earth can lose mass, as well (space missions take away from the planets total mass and large storms have been known to push particles out of the atmosphere).
b. Is a ridiculous question (not to mention there is no such word as "excelerated") and I will simply say, "5 x as many".

2) According to current estimates, Sol is 4.73 Billion years old, not 5 Billion- so, I guess 5 billion years ago you could measure the particle cloud that would become our sun in light years. The fact that you say the sun is shrinking by 8 miles a year exposes the source of your argument (YECs). The consensus (among the credible) is that the sun is on an 80 year oscillating cycle (that can be further broken down into 11 and 22 year spans). Only the YECs use your abstract to extrapolate that our sun must have encompassed Earths orbit or, at least, come near enough to prohibit life until the last several thousand years.

I hope that satisfies you because it's all you get. I hope you learn from this.; Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 8:03:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: What i have learned personifies your ignorance 20 fold. Yeh....close enough.; Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 7:10:00 PM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: Why can't we all just get along?; Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 10:39:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: http://www.bransonshows.com/activity/NoahTheMusicalatSightSoundTheatreBranson.cfm?gclid=CITbi9L56pYCFQIfswod2iTNNQ

maybe you two should take a road trip and solve your discussion.; Monday, November 10, 2008 at 9:58:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: LMAO-Only a 3 hr trip!? I'm there!; Monday, November 10, 2008 at 10:41:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: And the winner is bigdog. Marcus has always been a looser.; Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 2:46:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: And the winner is bigdog. Marcus has lawyas been a loser.; Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 2:47:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: And the winner is bigdog. Marcus has always been a loser.; Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 2:48:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: And the winner is loser. Marcus has always been a bigdog.; Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 2:48:00 AM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: Who is this Marcus?; Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 10:05:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus, you should drop the surliness and be more careful with the content of your writing. Yes, I am still making the same claims being that no one of your ilk has shown me a reason to change. Below I quote you and respond.
“Please, allow me to retort.” A retort is a witty or cutting reply or a counter argument. Obviously there was nothing witty in your remarks and as a counter argument they are a house built of straw.
“Let us forget that he was an old earth creationist and that he was NOT chosen by scientists for the honor of writing this introduction.” Thompson’s being an old earth creationist is irrelevant to whether what he wrote is accurate and valid. The choice of the person to write the introduction always falls to the publishers. For the edition printed a quarter of a century earlier they chose Sir Arthur Keith, the most prominent evolutionists of his time. Keith was not chosen by scientists either. Marcus, you must have a pertinent point hidden there somewhere.
“Instead, let us take this 52 year old quote and look at it with modern understanding.” Let us get something straight Marcus; the edition of The Origin is some 52 years old. The “52 year old quote” you refer to was a 24 page introduction written by W. R. Thompson, Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa. I excerpted about ten sentences from the same, claims that are supported by the rest of the text.
“It is true that for 100 years since Darwin wrote his book the majority of evidence for evolution was based on a (lacking) fossil record…” Darwin admits the same in The Origins on page 441 in the chapter Recapitulation. So you and Darwin admit that the fossil evidence was lacking and by implication you believe that for 100 years scientists rallied to the defense of a doctrine without evidence to support their position. Unlike Thompson, you seem to be OK with this situation. The history of evolutionism has been one of bloopers, blunders, fraud and unverifiable claims. In the Cincinnati meeting (1923-1924) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science the following dictatorial proclamation occurs: “The evidences in favor of the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist in the world.” The declaration was untrue. Every scientist was not convinced. Moreover, not every believer in evolutionism thought the evidence was conclusive. Even more convicting is the fact that the evidences then referred to have since been discarded. Piltdown man and Pithecanthropus were intentional hoaxes. Piltdown man was “discovered” in 1912; not until 1949 was it revealed that it was a rather amateur hoax that had fooled the evolutionists for some 40 years. As late as 1947 “an exhibit in London, designed for public instruction, presented human development in such a way as to insinuate the truth of the ‘biogenetic law’; and in the same exhibit were problematic reconstructions indicating the descent of man and including the Piltdown type.”(Introduction page xxii) The ’biogenetic law’ was the idea of evolutionary development of man being mirrored by human embryologic development put forward by Ernst Haeckel. In 1874 his drawings were declared fraudulent, however as late as 1997 they appeared in text books. That is OK with Eugene Scott (executive director of the National Center for Science Education and activist in the battle over origins) who believes as long as the general idea can be proven it does not matter that Haeckel lied. ‘Nebraska man’ mentioned in the Scopes trial by Clarence Darrow was found to be speculated from an extinct pig’s tooth. Evidences have been discarded while the conclusions supposedly derived from those evidences remained. It has become clear that, instead of a conclusion being arrived at based on the evidences, evidences are judged by a preordained conclusion. This is very well illustrated by the clash between the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. Gould said that the absence of transition fossils made the belief in ‘gradualism’ untenable and he proposed the idea of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ where the static condition of phyla would be interrupted by bursts of genetic mutations and physical transitions which were so rapid that there would be no fossil evidence. Dawkins rejected the abandonment of ‘gradualism’ and the viability of ‘punctuated equilibrium’. Because they both remained evolutionists, they are regarded as great scientists. I agree with both of them; both ‘gradualism’ and ’punctuated equilibrium’ are untenable. This position is pretty much tantamount to a rejection of evolution and for this I am considered a ‘flat-Earther’. As Thompson says on page xxii, “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of the evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable.”
“Your second post says, "Recent events (in the scientific mecca know as Alabama) have made it clear (to you) that Thompson's remarks regarding the evolution community's (a.k.a. respected scientists) handling of contrary views ("god did it") more valid than ever." The source of this clarity; warning labels on science books, telling the future generations of minds and leaders that evolution has not been directly observed?”
Your attempt to be cute poorly disguises the fact that Thompson’s remarks immediately preceding yours are even more relevant today. Evolutionists are now using the courts to keep the public from knowing that the King Evolutionism has no clothes. In fact, if the excerpts I have chosen from Thompson’s introduction to The Origin of the Species were included in a text book today, evolutionists would be running to court to have them removed.
“That changed in 1962 with the discovery of DNA. Dr. Thompson also states in this intro (that was not peer reviewed) that scientists are "unable to define...and demonstrate with scientific vigor (should be rigour)" evolution. That is a lie today and I suspect a lie 52 years ago.” You really seem to be confused, Marcus. Thompson is peer reviewing Darwin’s Origin. As you stated, his introduction was written some 52 years ago. Nothing stopped other scientist from reviewing his introduction. You seem to be implying that he should have submitted his writings to the high priests of evolution for approval before it could be included in the centennial printing of The Origin; nonsense.
Your contention that in 1962 the discovery of DNA rode up on a white horse to save evolutionism from a lack of scientific evidence, is interesting. First, let me correct the chronology; Oswald Avery discovered DNA as the genetic carrier in 1944. Watson and Crick determined the structure of the chromosome in 1953 and subsequently received the Nobel Prize in 1962. Let us remember that Darwin did not know of Mendelian genetics published in 1865. The furor over Darwinism left fruitful research on heredity until the rediscovery of Mendel’s work in 1900. Darwin relied on natural selection and inheritance of acquired characters. The latter allows for environmental pressures to influence use and disuse of physiognomy, thus causing changes which would be passed on to subsequent generations. Neo-Darwinism had to abandon this position in order to synthesize Mendelian genetics and Darwinism. This presents serious problems to the Darwinists. Genetic changes (mutations) are completely impervious to environmental pressures; they are completely random. They do not occur to satisfy a need; any benefit is purely fortuitous. Add to this the most common if not universal estimate that only 1 in 10,000 mutations is not lethal or harmful and that no mutation ever observed can be absolutely declared beneficial, it should be clear that Neo-Darwinism has a serious problem. Do you comprehend what that means Marcus? Let us say that, in order for an organism to create a new structure, 500 mutations would be necessary (that is of course an extremely modest number). During this process probabilities tell us that the same organism would have to survive 4,999,500 lethal or harmful mutations. This would be true for every organism being evolved. Evolutionists who seem to attribute divine powers to natural selection would now have to attribute unbelievable compassion to the same. Against all odds, natural selection has protected all life forms. Maybe we should re-designate it unnatural selection. Neo-Darwinism eliminates this difficulty by saying evolution would be a slow and gradual process. How that alters the probabilities is not explained.
Add to that the fact that molecules distinctive to all life (proteins, DNA and/or RNA) have resisted all efforts to make them chemically. They have only been produced biochemically, that is with genetic information already available. This difficulty led Francis Crick to postulate his idea of ’directed panspermia’ where the genetic material was purposely seeded on Earth by extraterrestrial intelligence. Marcus, tell me when, in all of human experience, we have encountered information created randomly. If you can then the SETI Project should be scrapped.
“Also, to agree with what is referred to as micro-evolution while denying what is referred to as macro-evolution is like admitting I can walk to my fridge but, saying it would be impossible for me to walk to the grocery store.” Marcus, last December 28 I experienced respiratory failure and remained bedridden in the hospital for over a month. When I returned home, with the help of a tube feeding me oxygen from a concentrator, I could walk to the fridge. However, it was impossible for me to walk to the grocery store.
There was a quantitative difference (distance) and qualitative difference (the need for a portable supply of oxygen). Marcus you and Neo-Darwinists mistakenly reason that small-scale micro-evolutionary changes can be extrapolated almost limitlessly to produce macro-evolutionary changes. Marcus, let me illustrate this claim with a more appropriate analogy. Mercator Throttlebottom was bragging to me that he was going to break the world track record by running the mile in under 3 minutes. When I exhibited considerable skepticism he challenged me to accompany him to the track where a third party would time him. This we did. He ran 100 yards and then approached me. I assumed he had be warming up, however he produced a stopwatch which read 10 seconds and boasted, “I told you I could break 3 minutes” “But you only ran 100 yards; not a mile,” I retorted. Mercator rebutted, “Multiply 10 seconds by 17.6 and you get 176 seconds or 2.93 minutes for a mile.” “But it is not the same thing.” I said. “There is both a qualitative and quantitative difference when one runs a mile. What’s more, many people have run the 100 yard dash faster than 10 seconds. Why haven’t we seen the 3 minute mile broken already?” To which Mercator shot back, “You flat earther!” Micro- and Macro-evolution are the same thing – only different! Marcus, I am going to ask you the same question I have been asking for the some 25 years. When was it that any human witnessed an increase in structural and functional complexity that occurred by chance; not design? If the answer is never it doesn’t prove that it could not have happened millions of times prehistorically. It does show that your belief in evolution requires extraordinary faith. - Fairway; Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 9:07:00 PM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: dear god

that is so long.; Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 10:22:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Yes it is long Jerry. Little effort is needed to spill garbage. Much more effort is recquired to clean it up.
Fairway; Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 10:34:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Your multitude of words is an attempt to obfuscate, Fairway, let's be honest. You say you've waited for 25 years for proof of increased structural complexity occuring by chance? Ever go outside in the snow and look at a snowflake? How about the discovery (over 25 years ago) of a new nylon eating bacteria (nylon not being on earth before 1935)? Ever hear of a pond dwelling organism called a Volvox? Please stop trying to disprove evolution, you're purposfully making people stay dumber than they should be in 2008, you still get to go be with Jesus even though evolution is a fact.

Marcus; Friday, November 14, 2008 at 5:03:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: I should add this, so as not to confuse you. I call evolution a fact because it is. Just like we have the fact of gravity (what we can all observe) we also have the theory of gravity. The fact of gravity is the "what happens" and the theory is the "why it happens". We have the fact of evolution (fossil record, DNA, observation, experimentation, etc.) and the theory of evolution (mutation, natural selection, etc.).

Marcus; Friday, November 14, 2008 at 5:16:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Hey Marcus. Do all these fossil records (cambrian or precambrian)show organisms, comparable to todays organisms, are they more complex or less complex?; Friday, November 14, 2008 at 7:02:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Why does a person deny evolution?

Marcus; Friday, November 14, 2008 at 7:54:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus, you are a gem. “You say you've waited for 25 years for proof of increased structural complexity occuring by chance? Ever go outside in the snow and look at a snowflake? How about the discovery (over 25 years ago) of a new nylon eating bacteria (nylon not being on earth before 1935)? Ever hear of a pond dwelling organism called a Volvox?” Marcus, please explain to me how one snowflake, past or present, is more structurally complex than another. After you have failed to do that, explain what one snowflake can do that another snowflake cannot do. You are confusing diversity with complexity.
The same goes for the nylon eating bacteria. What was the predecessor of this bacteria like? Do we know that the same had fewer organelles and less complex structures? How do you know that this bacteria has not always existed with the ability to digest nylon but would have to await the production of nylon in order to become manifest? Why would we assume that the ability to digest nylon is more complex in bacteria that the ability to digest any sugar? After all, we are only talking about a difference in enzymes. Marcus, have you developed a standard to show that one enzyme is more structurally and functionally complex than another? You are confusing diversity and apparent oddity with complexity.
What do I think of an organism called a Volvox? Let me quote my biology text book I used at Washington University in St. Louis regarding the evolutionary relationship of blue-green algae, bacteria, and the green flagellates (Volvox). (The Study of Biology, Baker-Allen, 1967, pages 554-555) “Do we have evidence that would enable us to decide between these two hypotheses? Unfortunately, no. We do have one clue, however. Nearly all the blue-green algae are filamentous. It is not difficult to imagine that their filamentous character arose, in the course of evolution, from the failure of individual cells to separate after division… It must be emphasized that this solution is highly speculative, and that many biologists are in disagreement as to the exact order of descent. The problem is made more difficult because of the lack of specific knowledge. The fossil record is of little help in this matter…The hypothetical arrangement shown in Fig. 21-1 indicates that the common ancestor giving rise to the blue-green algae and the bacteria also gave rise to a third line of development: the green flagellates.” Interestingly, although being convinced evolutionists, the authors admit that ‘imagination’ and ‘speculation’ are necessary to determine what ‘might’ have happened because of the ‘lack’ of evidence. Certainly you can do better than that Marcus.
“I should add this, so as not to confuse you. I call evolution a fact because it is. Just like we have the fact of gravity (what we can all observe) we also have the theory of gravity. The fact of gravity is the "what happens" and the theory is the "why it happens". We have the fact of evolution (fossil record, DNA, observation, experimentation, etc.) and the theory of evolution (mutation, natural selection, etc.). ”
Must I remind you that the late Stephen Jay Gould said that transition fossils were absent in the fossil record? Now, what is the difference between the law of gravity and the theory of evolution? Gravity is observable, measureable, repeatable and falsifiable. Anywhere in the world at anytime one can design an experiment to determine the universal constant or to show that objects with different masses fall at the same speed. You do not have to take anybody’s word about it. Any legitimate theory has to be based on what has been experimentally demonstrated. Now, evolution, if it occurred, is a process. In order to demonstrate empirically that the process occurs, one must observe, measure, and repeat the process. Tell me Marcus when this has been done. Fossils are snapshots into the past. The only process one can observe in them is deterioration. Imagine if some one told you they were going to demonstrate empirically the validity of the law of gravity and they showed you the artifacts (e.g. weights) of past experiments and their interpretation of what the experiments demonstrated. Fossils are by definition artifacts and in no way can be used scientifically to prove evolution. Marcus, I am disappointed in your statement that, I call evolution a fact because it is.” I logic this is comparable to saying A=B because A=B. Continuing on the subject of logic, the next time you want to accuse me of obfuscation show me where my premises are wrong or my inference (reasoning) is not valid or that my conclusion is not sound or relevant. Otherwise one might assume you have no substance. Fairway; Friday, November 14, 2008 at 10:32:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: ILL REPEAT:

Hey Marcus. Do all these fossil records (cambrian or precambrian)show organisms, comparable to todays organisms, are they more complex or less complex?

BTW. I never denied evolution, just your explaination of mankinds origin and of course your obfuscations and circular arguements of geology.

Why does a person deny evolution?

If you are referring to the evolution of man from an amoeba.

You have no evidence.

If you are referring to the evolution of man from apes.

You have no evidence.

---------Draws the line-------

If you refering to "habitual changes", "adaptations", "exaptations"....due to enviromental conditions and what these organisms eat...etc. Passing changes onto the next generation (natural selection), then you are the one confusing the issues.

These changes are refered to as "evolutional history" of the species shown for study. All current presented evidences of these changes are observable, verifiable...etc. Im getting the impression, because adaptations or natural selection is considered an evolutionary process, and equating them to the evolution of mankinds origin, would be intellectually dishonest. Then you try and spice it all up with a hint of NUETRAL THEORY.(genetic drift) I understand the misinterpretations of this theory, suffice to say.

An adaptation is a feature produced by natural selection for its current function, opposite of genetic drift (Nuetral Theory) but not irrelevant to discussion.

Some biologists can get quite passionate about how much genetic variation is adaptive and is maintained by natural selection and how much is neutral and is maintained by genetic drift.

Feathers for example. The general form of feathers is an adaptation for insulation and an exaptation for flight. Neither are conclusive statements of their ORIGIN. Other than to say such adaptations are due to enviromental survival. Yet these changes have to meet certian standards. Are they heritable, functional, adaptive and what is the current function.

Ive noticed how circular your arguements are Marcus. I understand your plight (truelly laughable). I have studied this for along time, seen some impressive studies. I must say. You need to heed Fairway and myself and stop making judements about sciences that back up your confidence in scientific theories. (without enough evidences to be considered anything other than theory or a style of "circulus in probando"). Especially since they do not meet the criteria of study set forth by scientists.

!@!CHOP!@!; Friday, November 14, 2008 at 3:48:00 PM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: I have some new posts on my blog guyz.

here is the link

http://wwdefender.blogspot.com/; Friday, November 14, 2008 at 7:56:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Yeah, we've been over your "impressive studies", LilPuss. You believe the world flooded and killed everything except what Noah grabbed, fine. You believe there is evidence for evolution, just not certain animals, fine. As long as you two idiots stay out of my schools and government, you can believe you get your 72 virgins or whatever bullshit you favor.
I'm not a scientist. I could cut and paste and link you to the experiments (fruit flies have been used to show evolution in action) and observations (a much more expansive fossil record and DNA) but, LilPuss wouldn't read them and Fairway would deny them from a philosophical perspective. Here is a hopeful story about how human evolution may cure AIDS : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602394113507555.html

You are both fools. You follow charlatans blindly and willfully. I am ashamed for you and of you.

“The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start (examining evolution), and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science-or of any honest intellectual inquiry.” Stephen Jay Gould

“Creationist critics often charge that evolution cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be viewed as a properly scientific subject at all. This claim is rhetorical nonsense.” Stephen Jay Gould

“Facts do not 'speak for themselves', they are read in the light of theory” Stephen Jay Gould

Do not quote mine me, Fairway.

Marcus; Friday, November 14, 2008 at 11:41:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Is a snowflake more "Structurally complex" (whatever that means) than a drop of water?

Noah grabbed a nylon eating bacteria before he closed the doors on the ark?

Science is always progressing: www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-8-238.pdf; Friday, November 14, 2008 at 11:55:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus lied again.

"You believe the world flooded and killed everything except what Noah grabbed, fine."

I said "i dont know". In fact i dont need to know for sure its not that important to me. You do need to know for sure and you dont, thats obvious. Thats ok. I still like you as a human being, i mean ape, umm amoeba.

Marcus lied again.

"You are both fools. You follow charlatans blindly and willfully. I am ashamed for you and of you."

Pot calling the kettle black!

Can private schools teach creationism?

Without you blowing a head gasket.

How about it being a slective course, in public schools, where both are taught and studied?

I must say for someone who has been waiting 25 years to pounce on creationists, you surely shot your load to fast on this one or has that always been your problem?...LMAO!!!!

Im serious, is this all you have?

!@!CHOPO!@!; Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 2:30:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Teach creationism anywhere you want except SCIENCE CLASSES.; Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 4:53:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Just because an idiot doesn't know that Santa Claus isn't real doesn't make Santa real. There would be hoofprints on rooftops, ashes all around the christmas tree, fingerprints on milkglasses, or some kind of evidence that the stories of Santa Claus are real. The evidence is just not there, just like for your flood story (in fact, there is plenty of evidence AGAINST both claims). So stop acting like saying 'you don't know' is some kind of virtue with regard to the flood, it is an ignorance on your part. You don't know, then shut the fuck up (pardon my french) and quit acting like you do with your not-so-"impressive studies". Apparently these impressive studies for the flood and against evolution tell you that you didn't come from apes. It might suprise you to learn that we STILL ARE classified as apes. Maybe you should try a different book, LilPuss. It was Fairway who has been waiting 25 years for proof of evolution (I couldn't care less if creationists want to stay stupid, as long as they don't talk about it) he is apparently waiting for Yahshua or Yahweh (or are they one?) to call him to a mountaintop and tell him himself. Couldn't it be just as possible that your god made all it's creations evolve? That fits more with the evidence. Couldn't the flood story have come from a large localized event that, to the people in the area, made it seem the whole world had flooded? That fits more with the evidence. Of course, neither will do, they don't match your book well enough to make yours the TRUE god. I've seen Richard Dawkins tell an anecdote about a scientist (Kurt Wise, I think) who was struggling to reconcile that book with his work. One night, the scientist decides to sit down with some scissors and remove all of the parts of the bible that have been disproven by his work. I don't remember the exact quote but, it was something like it was impossible to pick up his bible without it being "rent in two". He made a decision, that night, that he would follow the bible even against the evidence and he likened it to tossing his years of work into the fire. Faith is a villain of science.

Marcus; Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 6:00:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: BTW how come you havent answered my question.
Keep avoiding this question? yeh i know that it will turn your evolutionary world upside down...lol

ILL REPEAT:

Hey Marcus. Do all these fossil records (cambrian or precambrian)show organisms, comparable to todays organisms, are they more complex or less complex?

--------------------------------
I said i do support evolution and drew the line for you. Quite succinctly i might add. So ill repeat my prior post because you obviously are making shit up.
Heres my post where i didnt deny evolution and yes GOD did give us the ability to adapt to our enviroment the one he created for us. The bible is real clear on the Creator. Your science about the origin of earth and mankind, not so much.

----------------------------------
ILL REPEAT:

BTW. I never denied evolution, just your explaination of mankinds origin and of course your obfuscations and circular arguements of geology.

Marcus queefed:

"Why does a person deny evolution?"

If you are referring to the evolution of man from an amoeba.

You have no evidence.

If you are referring to the evolution of man from apes.

You have no evidence.

---------Draws the line-------

If you refering to "habitual changes", "adaptations", "exaptations"....due to enviromental conditions and what these organisms eat...etc. Passing changes onto the next generation (natural selection), then you are the one confusing the issues.

These changes are refered to as "evolutional history" of the species shown for study. All current presented evidences of these changes are observable, verifiable...etc. Im getting the impression, because adaptations or natural selection is considered an evolutionary process, and equating them to the evolution of mankinds origin, would be intellectually dishonest. Then you try and spice it all up with a hint of NUETRAL THEORY.(genetic drift) I understand the misinterpretations of this theory, suffice to say.

An adaptation is a feature produced by natural selection for its current function, opposite of genetic drift (Nuetral Theory) but not irrelevant to discussion.

Some biologists can get quite passionate about how much genetic variation is adaptive and is maintained by natural selection and how much is neutral and is maintained by genetic drift.

Feathers for example. The general form of feathers is an adaptation for insulation and an exaptation for flight. Neither are conclusive statements of their ORIGIN. Other than to say such adaptations are due to enviromental survival. Yet these changes have to meet certian standards. Are they heritable, functional, adaptive and what is the current function.

Ive noticed how circular your arguements are Marcus. I understand your plight (truelly laughable). I have studied this for along time, seen some impressive studies. I must say. You need to heed Fairway and myself and stop making judements about sciences that back up your confidence in scientific theories. (without enough evidences to be considered anything other than theory or a style of "circulus in probando"). Especially since they do not meet the criteria of study set forth by scientists.

!@!CHOP!@!

3:48 PM, November 14, 2008

Anything else you say about my position is BULLSHIT. But then again to you thats close enough...LMAO!!!!!

!@!CHOPO-CHOP-CHOPPY!@!

:D; Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 12:47:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Your question is vague and stupid, that is why it remains unanswered.

Is a dog more complex than a cat or a grain of rice? What is the criteria for this increase in complexity? How does one measure it? One could argue an increase in complexity in some forms while others haven't seemed to change much at all, both are supported by what evolution would predict we find (not to mention, makes the Noah flood a fanciful fairy tale). You are a fool, and seem to want to prove it every chance you get.

Marcus; Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 1:13:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: It does matter. You just dont want to answer it based on the unknown and how it will expose your perceived evolution theory. Doesnt bother me that you cant prove anything. It does bother you...LMAO!!!

Its a shame your 25 years of readiness went away in just a few posts...LMAO!!! Such a strong position you have...DOH!!! thats right its 'close enough'.

I think you brain needs a good flood, wash all the crap out and leave a few sediments of rational thought.

All this chopping is fun.

!@!CHOP!@!; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 6:23:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: I think I finally understand, I can't believe it's taken so long for me to get it! LilPuss and Jerry are satirizing christians! Man, it's so obvious, now. No one can possibly be as stupid as they portay themselves. It's an act! Wow, good stuff, you had me going.

Marcus; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 6:35:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus, I am just not feeling the love.
“I'm not a scientist. I could cut and paste and link you to the experiments (fruit flies have been used to show evolution in action) and observations (a much more expansive fossil record and DNA) but, LilPuss wouldn't read them and Fairway would deny them from a philosophical perspective.”
I haven’t denied the experiments you have presented from a philosophical perspective. I have explained from a philosophical perspective why the claims that you are presenting as scientific proof for evolution are fallacious. My weapons have been logic and epistemology (the study of how we know things and to what degree of certainty). You seem to have an aversion to both of these. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy from which comes the scientific method. Different disciplines (physical sciences, psychology, history, political science, archeology etc.) have different degrees of subjectivity and different kinds of and rules for evidence. Epistemologically the physical science and history are quite different. The physical sciences depend on the observation of real time natural processes, the measurement of the same and repetition to confirm previously repeated results and conclusions. Experiments can also be designed to counter previous results and conclusions. “Evolution, if it has occurred, can in a rather loose sense be called a historical process; and therefore to show that it has occurred historical evidence is required. History in the strict sense is dependent on human testimony. Since this is not available with respect to the development of the world of life we must be satisfied with something less satisfactory…” Even eye witness testimony presents problems as historians have to compare conflicting eye witness accounts. Then their peers and laymen have to have to compare contradictory interpretations of the contradictory eye witness accounts. The “less satisfactory” are often artifacts. This is the substance of archeology. Artifacts are in the strict sense are man-made objects however fossils, in a loose sense can be called artifacts. Fossils are even less reliable than eye witness testimony and human artifacts. Eye witness testimony purposes to communicate. Archeological artifacts are most often analyzed in the context of knowledge from other disciplines. Fossils are prehistoric artifacts which, because they are the products of random processes, cannot be interpreted in the context of known cultures or eye witness testimony. What the previous history of the fossil was or it legacy is the playground of much speculation. Fossils have no communicative skills.
Anticipating an objection, Darwin himself called the study of evolution natural history.
As for the experiments with fruit flies, vestigial wings (wings that were useless and not fully developed) were caused by induced mutations. Some male fruit flies had white eyes instead of the dominant red. Female fruit flies showed a mating preference for the red eyed male so the population of white eyed fruit flies quickly decreased. These and other mutations were never beneficial and never produced new structures or functions to carry the fruit fly to a new realm of existence. Fairway; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus, this has to be your greatest blunder yet. “Apparently these impressive studies for the flood and against evolution tell you that you didn't come from apes. It might surprise you to learn that we STILL ARE classified as apes.”
Granted that apes and humans share the same Order (Primata); the primate order includes humans, apes, lemurs, bush babies and monkeys. The Order Carnivora includes dogs, wolves, jackals, eared seals, cats etc. It might surprise you Marcus to learn that we STILL ARE classifying cats as dogs! Fairway; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: The claims I am presenting as proof for evolution are fallacious? So, 95% of the world's scientists got it all wrong? My claims aren't based on logic yet, here you are claiming, what? Intelligent design/ creationism, which says simply..."god did it". THAT, sir, is an argument without logic. If you want to know HOW god did it, you ask science. Evolution is a fact.

I find your comment "products of random processes" a bit misleading. How random is natural selection?

You also say, "Fossils have no communicative skills". I expect something like this from that faker, LilPuss, but for YOU (with a supposed degree) to make this statement is disturbing, at least.

You take issue with the fruit fly experiment because you say the mutations were not "beneficial" and "never produced new structures or functions to carry the fruit fly to a new realm of existence" (which, is not what evolution says, but you know that). That's a little different than what you originally wanted which was,"Any legitimate theory has to be based on what has been experimentally demonstrated". Either way, you choose two or three experiments to build a strawman argument with and ignore HUNDREDS of others that show your "beneficial" mutations. So far as, carrying them to "a new plane of existence", let's hope they accept Yahshua...or did you mean something else by your 'esoteric' comment?

Tell me your version of the history of the universe and what proof you have to support it or should I just go rent a hotel room and read whatever's in the night stand?

Marcus; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 11:26:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: No, we are not classifying cats as dogs, cats are cats and dogs are dogs and apes are apes. Your desperation is showing.; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 11:30:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Let me exploit this desperation a little and show how you are DELIBERATELY DECIETFUL. You call it "my biggest blunder" to call us apes, then you go on to say:

Granted that apes and humans share the same Order (Primata); the primate order includes humans, apes, lemurs, bush babies and monkeys. The Order Carnivora includes dogs, wolves, jackals, eared seals, cats etc. It might surprise you Marcus to learn that we STILL ARE classifying cats as dogs!

Humans not only share the same Order as chimps, we share the same Family. This obfuscation then allows you to say cats and dogs share the same Order and leave out the fact that the Canidae and Felis Families are quite different. This is what creationists do all day long. They take real science and LIE or manipulate it to make some false point. They are charlatans.; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 12:11:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus, bless your little blood pressure. “You also say, "Fossils have no communicative skills". I expect something like this from that faker, LilPuss, but for YOU (with a supposed degree) to make this statement is disturbing, at least.” First, neither my degree nor my major in microbiology are only supposed. Michael T. Justice has seen my college transcript and can confirm this. However in logic (something you seem to want to avoid at all costs) my academic credentials are irrelevant. My arguments must stand on their own. The fact that you find my statement disturbing may reveal something about your disturbed emotional state, but nothing about my statement. Certainly you do not believe fossils can communicate! The visual of you having a conversation with or simply listening to fossils is ‘disturbing at least’. If you cannot understand the evidentiary superiority of documentary evidence or oral testimony over physical evidence, I hope you are never called to serve on a jury. Fairway; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 10:13:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus, it is scary to know that you know what I know.
“You take issue with the fruit fly experiment because you say the mutations were not "beneficial" and "never produced new structures or functions to carry the fruit fly to a new realm of existence" (which, is not what evolution says, but you know that).”
Excuse me Marcus but I thought the theory of descent teaches that all life originated from one celled creatures. I apparently mistakenly thought that the journey from amoeba to man produced arms, legs, hearts, brains, nerve pathways etc. (structures) and respiratory, digestive, endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, etc. systems (functions); traits which were found beneficial and chosen to survive by artificial selection. Now that you have you have straightened out my thinking, I now know that beneficial mutations would not have been necessary to achieve the same. Wishful thinking plus a good bit of imagination would have been sufficient. Fairway; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 1:04:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus’ conversion: “I find your comment "products of random processes" a bit misleading. How random is natural selection?”
Def: random – lacking a definite plan, purpose or pattern (Webster’s)
The existence of a plan implies a planner and purpose a purposer. A pattern is what the SETI project is trying to discover in the emanations from space because this would signal that extra-terrestrial intelligence exists. . Are you rejecting randomness in favor of an intelligent designer? The mutations upon which natural selection operates are random therefore the process is random unless you believe that natural selection has a mind of its own. Fairway; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 6:51:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus the NABT pronouncement of a random process: The National Association of Biology Teachers [NABT] in their 1995 Official Statement on Teaching Evolution stated the following: "The diversity of life [all life] on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."
In response to intense public and professional pressure the words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" were deleted by action of the NABT Board on October 11, 1997.
Fairway; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 7:14:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus says, “Faith is a villain of science.”
Alfred North Whitehead (1861 - 1947) Professor of Philosophy at Harvard Web Amazon GBS In the first place, there can be no living science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the existence of an Order Of Things. And, in particular, of an Order Of Nature . . . The inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner . . . must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God . . . My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology. Science and the Modern World (1925) pp. 3-4, 12-13
Marcus says, “The claims I am presenting as proof for evolution are fallacious? So, 95% of the world's scientists got it all wrong? My claims aren't based on logic yet, here you are claiming, what? Intelligent design/ creationism, which says simply..."god did it". THAT, sir, is an argument without logic. If you want to know HOW god did it, you ask science. Evolution is a fact.”
To say anything is true because 95% of any group accepts it as true is another logical fallacy. At the time of Galileo not only to the Church oppose him but also the scientific community opposed him because of their acceptance of Aristotelian cosmology
Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering “For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all.” letter to the California State board of Education September 14, 1972 “My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?” letter to the California State board of Education September 14, 19 “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.” letter to the California State board of Education September 14, 1972 No Marcus, it is not as simplistic as ‘as God did it’.
Marcus says, “Is a dog more complex than a cat or a grain of rice? What is the criteria for this increase in complexity? How does one measure it? One could argue an increase in complexity in some forms while others haven't seemed to change much at all, both are supported by what evolution would predict we find (not to mention, makes the Noah flood a fanciful fairy tale). You are a fool, and seem to want to prove it every chance you get.”
You must be kidding Marcus. You really cannot see an increase in structural and functional complexity from amoeba to man? What do evolutionists mean when they claim that simpler life forms are found in the older geological layers? Let me try to awaken you from your stupor. The following is from the PBS Evolution Series from a few years ago:
Here is Steven Pinker of M.I.T. discussing the evolutionary development of the human brain in the “The Mind’s Big Bang” segment of the evolution series:
“Chances are there were lots and lots of mutations over a span of tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of years that fine tuned and sculpted the brain to give it the magnificent powers that it has today. The actual organization of behavior goes on at the level of the individual nerve cells and their connections.
We have a hundred billion nerve cells – probably a hundred trillion connections. It’s just mind boggling to think of all the different ways in which they are arranged, and a lot of our evolution consisted not in just getting more of this stuff, but in wiring it in precise ways to support intelligence.”
The first thing that jumped out at me were the words – fine tuned, sculpted, and precise. Why is it that evolutionists, while denying design, are forced to use a vocabulary normally used only in the context of design in every day parlance?
What really caught my attention was the “probably a hundred trillion connections” precisely made in hundreds of thousands of years. I am not confirming Mr. Pinker’s numbers – it is enough that he is comfortable with them. Using one million years, which is approximately 31.5 trillion seconds, one would have to believe that natural selection was able to achieve a rough average of 3.2 precise wirings per second.
Perhaps the devotees of Darwinism would argue that Steven Pinker’s numbers meant 100 trillion precise wiring minus those already made during previous ages. If we go back 7 million years to the time man and chimpanzee supposedly branched off from a common ancestor, it would have been necessary to average some 27.4 precise wirings per minute. Hopefully, evolutionists would not insist that we go back any further than the beginning of the Cambrian period at about 600 million years ago. In this case, averaging roughly 19.2 precise wirings per hour would get the job done.
However, none of this takes into account also providing the additional neurons, skeletal framework, organs, muscles, ligaments, enzymes, hormones etc. without which those 100 trillion wirings would have no reason to be. Natural selection has certainly had its hands full. In order for it to be up to the task, one might be tempted to ascribe to natural selection the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.
As Carl Sagan is known to have said, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.”
Marcus, if you do not think 100 trillion fine tuned nerve connections is an increase of complexity over the amoeba, you probably could not recognize the difference between smoke signals and satellite communication. Fairway; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 8:35:00 PM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: Wow I wonder how long this argument will go?; Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 2:02:00 AM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/the_soros_connection_in_the_mi.html; Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 3:31:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: I will give you an A for effort, Fairway, still a bit long winded. However, you are a master manipulator. What, exactly, do you think is our history? I will address four points you attempted to make.
1) The communicative skills of a fossil. Here are a few: relative age of rocks, the environment (underwater, on land), movement of the Earth's crust, and extinction events.
2) The fruit flies. First you only wanted proof that evolution had been shown with experimentation (check). Then you wanted "beneficial" mutations (check). The you wanted them to mutate to a "new realm of existence" (che...WTF?). You bring up the theory of common descent. Common descent is about where things come from, not predicting where they will go. Where is the "new realm of existence" you want to see them mutate to?
3) Random processes. While the mutations themselves are random, natural seletion weeds out the less successful variations in favor of greater reproductive success. Random would imply unpredictable yet, natural selection IS predictable.
4) Yes, organism can and do increase in complexity but, some not so much. I never said that they didn't, only to varying degrees.

What is the "intelligence" in intelligent design? God. Therefore, when it comes down to it, you say "god did it". That is not, nor ever will be, science.

You used a quote from the great Carl Sagan (a hero of mine, next to Feynman) but, you used it incorrectly. If you want to make the extraordinary claim that your god did it, show your extraordinary evidence. You have none. Your argument dwells in the gaps, yours is the God of the Gaps. Sorry, his home is being foreclosed.

Marcus; Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 6:18:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus says: “1) The communicative skills of a fossil. Here are a few: relative age of rocks, the environment (underwater, on land), movement of the Earth's crust, and extinction events.”
Fairway says: Okay Marcus, let us call a fossil to the witness stand to testify to those few questions. If that is not convenient for Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Fossil, we could have the same testify in writing. Please no spokesperson; the fossil has communicative skills and can speak for itself. Beyond that, in criminal trials I think we should forego the testimony of forensic experts. Let the physical evidence testify for itself.
Marcus says: “The fruit flies. First you only wanted proof that evolution had been shown with experimentation (check). Then you wanted "beneficial" mutations (check). The you wanted them to mutate to a "new realm of existence" (che...WTF?). You bring up the theory of common descent. Common descent is about where things come from, not predicting where they will go. Where is the "new realm of existence" you want to see them mutate to?”
Fairway says: My original question was when has anybody witnessed an increase in structural and functional complexity which occurred by chance, i.e. without design? Since evolutionism claims that this has happened millions of times in the past, it would be scientific courtesy to demonstrate that the same happens in the present. I would hope that the claims about gravity correspond to our real time experience. Marcus you gave a list of my supposed ‘wants’. What I wanted was a real time empirical demonstration of your claims.
Marcus says: “Random processes. While the mutations themselves are random, natural seletion weeds out the less successful variations in favor of greater reproductive success. Random would imply unpredictable yet, natural selection IS predictable.”
Fairway says: Natural selection has often been expressed as ‘survival of the fittest’. How does one know that an organism is the fittest? We know because it has survived. Then fittest = survivor? Yes, now we have survival of the fittest = survival of the survivor. In logic that is called a tautology or circular reasoning. Yes, circular reasoning is predictable.
“Yes, organism can and do increase in complexity but, some not so much. I never said that they didn't, only to varying degrees.
What is the "intelligence" in intelligent design? God. Therefore, when it comes down to it, you say "god did it". That is not, nor ever will be, science.”
Fairway says: Marcus, you seem to want to mix theological questions with scientific questions.

Antony Flew Abandons Atheism

Former Atheist Believes in God on Basis of Argument to Design
“…For years, Antony Flew has been a figurehead for atheists. Now, though, he has abandoned his atheism and accepted the existence of God. In a recent interview for Philosophia Christi with Gary Habermas, Flew explained his new beliefs. Though Flew has not embraced Christianity, he now accepts the existence of God, saying that he “had to go where the evidence leads”…
…For Flew, it is the argument from design that shows that the existence of God is probable. He has been impressed by recent scientific developments that suggest that the universe is the product of intelligent design. “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design,” explains Flew…
… Flew has not become a Christian; he has merely accepted the existence of God. He has described his new position as a form of deism. Deists accept that there is a God responsible for creating the universe, but reject claimed special revelation such as the Bible…”

Marcus, I reproduced this because you keep repeating your characterture of the idea of intelligent design; ‘god did it’. In the case of Antony Flew it was the scientific evidence which led him to see design. Scientific knowledge must be observable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable. In order for the position that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything to be scientific the position that there is not a naturalistic explanation (therefore by definition supernatural) has to be allowed to give their arguments.

Marcus says: “You used a quote from the great Carl Sagan (a hero of mine, next to Feynman) but, you used it incorrectly. If you want to make the extraordinary claim that your god did it, show your extraordinary evidence. You have none. Your argument dwells in the gaps, yours is the God of the Gaps. Sorry, his home is being foreclosed.”
Fairway says: Marcus, I have no obligation to be loyal to any of your heroes. Your problem lies in your religious bigotry which does not allow you to even understand the meaning of the word ‘extraordinary’. It simply means out of the ordinary. I have asked you to give me just one example of someone witnessing, as it is happening or reported as have been witnessed in human history, an increase in structural and functional complexity happening by chance. However to satisfy the requirement of it being ordinary experience you should see examples all around you, even where you sit. I see plenty of evidence of design creating structural and functional complexity all around me, (e.g. computer). You are the one who believes in millions of extraordinary events. Fairway; Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 9:21:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Natural selection is not "survival of the fittest"...yet, another, creationist manipulation.

What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994 The Book of the Finch).

If the environment changes, the fittest individuals from it will no longer be well adapted to any environment, and the less fit but more widely adapted organisms will survive.
Your comparison with the computer is stupid. Of course computers are designed. If you left a thousand computers alone in an office building for a millenia, you would return to find a thousand millenia old computers because they do not reproduce...a vital piece of evolution, don't you think? Each of your sentences is like a curly pubic hair that you want to see if I can straighten out (not the short ones from a properly groomed crotch, I mean 1972 queen of the jungle pubes). I know I never had a chance to change your view but, maybe someones' eyes have been opened by all this (there's some faith for you, faith in man).

Evolution has been witnessed in nature and in many experiments involving plants, drosophilia (our fruit flies), house flies, maggot flies, worms, beetles, bacteria, and viruses (and more). One need only look for themselves. What is the "intelligence" in Intelligent Design? The answer to this is also the answer to why it shouldn't be and isn't taught in science class. If there is a god, it MUST be supernatural, outside of our existence. Science is the study of the natural world, where we exist. Science should be taught in science class and intelligent design can be debated in the philosophy class.

Marcus; Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 4:23:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: BIGDOG asked politely and got ignored: "Can private schools teach creationism?

Without you blowing a head gasket.

How about it being a selective course, in public schools, where both are taught and studied?"

After all this bullshit you finally have answered atleast one of these two questions.

Marcus: "Science should be taught in science class and intelligent design can be debated in the philosophy class."

About damn time he faced some accountability and answered me. In advertently of course. When are you going to answer my others, on purpose....lol

BTW they both have plenty of room for debate because your so called science, isnt science. I noticed your wording how one can be taught and the other can be debated. I hope for the sake of science both can be done in the same class. Your science (philosphy at best), about evolution (origin of man)...well both should be debated as they stand. Seems you have more faith than i thought.

!@!CHOP!@!; Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 6:33:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081118/sc_nm/us_primate_indonesia

Marcus is right i am a lil'puss. Here is my origin of life for all to see...LMAO!!!; Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 6:37:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081118

/sc_nm/us_primate_indonesia

corrected link.; Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 6:38:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: That's funny as hell. Was that really you that posted that link?

Here is the 11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism/intelligent design, I think it about sums up what Fairway and I have been saying. This guy can squeeze an hour of information into ten minutes (and one breath), plus it comes with pictures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y

Marcus; Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 7:07:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus says: “Natural selection is not "survival of the fittest"...yet, another, creationist manipulation.
What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994 The Book of the Finch).
If the environment changes, the fittest individuals from it will no longer be well adapted to any environment, and the less fit but more widely adapted organisms will survive.
Fairway says: “If the environment changes, the fittest individuals from it will no longer be well adapted to any environment, and the less fit but more widely adapted organisms will survive” would indicate that the previously fittest individuals are no longer the fittest and that the less fit have become the more fit. By the way, survival of the fittest is an expression first touted by evolutionists
Survival of the fittest From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Herbert Spencer coined the phrase, "survival of the fittest."
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance. Originally applied by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, Spencer drew parallels to his ideas of economics with Charles Darwin's theories of evolution by what Darwin termed natural selection.
Although Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection",[1] it is a metaphor, not a scientific description.[2] It is not generally used by modern biologists, who use the phrase "natural selection" almost exclusively.
An interpretation of the phrase to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself on an ongoing basis will survive as a species, not just the "fittest" ones. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough", although this is sometimes regarded as a tautology.[3][4]
Your history is wrong Marcus. However I am willing to accept the new “survival of the fit enough”. One knows that an organism is fit enough because it survives; i.e. is a survivor, therefore fit enough organisms = survivors.
Once again the evolutionary concept is reduced to survival of the survivors (circular reasoning).

Marcus says: “Your comparison with the computer is stupid. Of course computers are designed. If you left a thousand computers alone in an office building for a millenia, you would return to find a thousand millenia old computers because they do not reproduce...a vital piece of evolution, don't you think?”
Fairway says: This might surprise you Marcus but organic and inorganic systems all are under the same laws of physics. Living systems are self-reproducing and computers depend on humans for reproduction. However both depend on information to do so. In living systems the information is internal; in computers the information is external. In both cases the information takes nature where it will not go on its own. Both depend on external sources for energy. There are parallels Marcus. In computers the source of information is human intelligence. In living organisms the source of information is what; a primordial soup?

Marcus says: “Evolution has been witnessed in nature and in many experiments involving plants, drosophilia (our fruit flies), house flies, maggot flies, worms, beetles, bacteria, and viruses (and more).” Fairway says: Please tell me when someone has witnessed fruit flies becoming something other than a fruit fly, bacteria becoming something other than a bacteria, a virus becoming something other than a virus, etc.

Marcus says: “Science is the study of the natural world, where we exist. Science should be taught in science class and intelligent design can be debated in the philosophy class.” Fairway says: If in studying science the evidence favors something other than a naturalistic explanation you believe this conclusion should be ignored and a naturalistic explanation wins by default? In other word Marcus, you believe that the evidence should be examined in light of a preordained conclusion and not the conclusion determined by the evidence. Fairway; Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 7:55:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Yes i posted the link. Thought you might get a chuckle...lol

!@!CHOP!@!; Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 1:13:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Fairway, it's only 10 minutes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y

Tell me what you think.

Marcus; Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 8:53:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: He summed up evolutional history just fine. He didnt however show anything that shows the origin of man.

BIGDOG; Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 11:10:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus, I have listened once and will listen again before commenting more. Some fallacies jump right out at an open mind.
Fairway; Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 4:57:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Marcus says: “Let me exploit this desperation a little and show how you are DELIBERATELY DECIETFUL. You call it "my biggest blunder" to call us apes, then you go on to say:
Granted that apes and humans share the same Order (Primata); the primate order includes humans, apes, lemurs, bush babies and monkeys. The Order Carnivora includes dogs, wolves, jackals, eared seals, cats etc. It might surprise you Marcus to learn that we STILL ARE classifying cats as dogs!
Humans not only share the same Order as chimps, we share the same Family. This obfuscation then allows you to say cats and dogs share the same Order and leave out the fact that the Canidae and Felis Families are quite different. This is what creationists do all day long. They take real science and LIE or manipulate it to make some false point. They are charlatans.

Fairway says: Who is being deceitful? You had said, “Apparently these impressive studies for the flood and against evolution tell you that you didn't come from apes. It might suprise you to learn that we STILL ARE classified as apes.” You did not say apes and humans are classified in the same family but that ‘we are still classified as apes’. If that were true it would be redundant. “Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo).” Do you want to say gorillas are classified as chimpanzees or that orangutans are classified as chimpanzees or bonobos as gorillas? The point I was illustrating is still valid, although I admit, less dramatic.
However even classifying the great apes and humans in the same family is suspect. “Formerly, humans alone (with their extinct forebears) were placed in the Family Hominidae, and the great apes were placed in a different family, Pongidae… Traditionally, taxonomy had little to do with how organisms were actually related (Linnaeus having preceded Darwin by a good century). Taxonomy was just a way of sorting specimens: these ones go in this box (a species), and the little box goes in this bigger box (a genus), and the bigger box goes in this even bigger box (a family), and so on.
It was in the 1960s that the Family classification of Primates was changed and at that time it was based on the similarity of serum proteins between the great apes and humans. Subsequently DNA and other molecular similarities were the criteria given for declaring a relationship. It should be obvious that similarities do not necessarily signify relationship. In front of me I have a pencil and a pen. They are very similar in structure and function, however they are not related. You can have two cars with very similar blueprints for manufacture and still lack kinship. When it was decided to change taxonomy to show relatedness, it had already been decided that Darwin had been right. Once again evolutionists, as they are fond of doing, interpreted and adjusted evidence to fit a preordained conclusion. What have you proved showing that great apes and humans have been put in the same family; evolutionists are evolutionists?
Fairway; Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 9:25:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...: Like i said Fairway.

'circulus in probando'; Friday, November 21, 2008 at 12:38:00 AM CST
Anonymous said...: Are you denying a common descent?

Dr. Kenneth Miller was the christian biologist whose testimony did the most to keep Intelligent Design out of science classes. Here he is giving a lecture about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

One of the most interesting points...chimps, gorillas, orangutans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs...humans cannot have a common ancestor with chimps because losing a pair of chromosomes would be fatal. Enter human chromosome 2. Proof we share a common ancestor (and thats leaving out a plethora of other confirmations like ERVs and the like).

Marcus; Friday, November 21, 2008 at 1:01:00 AM CST
Jerry's Blog said...: I got some new stuff up guyz. here is the link.

http://wwdefender.blogspot.com/; Friday, November 21, 2008 at 9:16:00 PM CST

The Justice Files

Pages

Thursday, October 09, 2008

US debt clock runs out of digits

169 comments:

Links

Followers

Blog Archive

The Justice Files

Pages

Thursday, October 09, 2008

US debt clock runs out of digits

169 comments:

Join The Justice League

Links

Followers

Blog Archive