Evolution for fundamentalists

Post Reply
User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 34135
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Svartalf » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:01 pm

Psssttt, you got packaging fiber clinging to your face.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:04 pm

Svartalf wrote:Psssttt, you got packaging fiber clinging to your face.
That's a side of bacon.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27527
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Tero » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:45 am

Creationists say the darnest things
http://www.icr.org/article/7086/

The confounded scientists
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 135320.htm

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27527
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Tero » Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:33 am

when scientists go outside their niche:
http://brianjford.com/CF7_Darwin.pdf
From Wiki (Dr. Brian J. Ford)

"Controversy
[edit]
2012 Aquatic Dinosaur "Hypothesis"

The April issue of 2012 of Laboratory News contained an article that has caused paleontologists and other geoscientists to question the scientific integrity of the publication.[34][35] The article by, written by Brian J. Ford puts forward the idea that all large dinosaurs were aquatic. Ford-a microbiologist-lacked any training in paleontology, and more importantly had not presented any quantitative evidence in support of his idea.[36] Nevertheless, the idea has been uncritically embraced by some elements of the popular press, including BBC 4, Daily Mail, Sky News Australia, Times of India, Telegraph, Top News, Cambridge News, Metro, and IB Times.[37][38] These publications have framed Dr. Ford's hypothesis as if it were a new idea and a subject of debate among paleontologists, when the idea of aquatic dinosaurs was considered nearly a century ago, and rejected after careful research forty years ago."
Darwin took these exams:
In the third week of January 1831 Charles sat his final exam. There were three days of written papers covering the Classics, the two Paley texts and John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, then mathematics and physics. At the end of the week when the results were posted he was dazed and proud to have come 10th out of a pass list of 178 doing the ordinary degree. Charles shone in theology and scraped through in the other subjects.
Ford claims he was not a scientist but a good amateur microscopist.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27527
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Tero » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:52 am

'splaining it:
"Where we find design, we can infer a designer."
No you can't. A tree falls across a river and makes a serviceable bridge. That doesn't mean the tree fell by design or that the tree was designed to be a bridge.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:03 pm

Tero wrote:'splaining it:
"Where we find design, we can infer a designer."
No you can't. A tree falls across a river and makes a serviceable bridge. That doesn't mean the tree fell by design or that the tree was designed to be a bridge.
But God put the tree there in the first place.

He also made the river impassable so we'd need a bridge.

THEN he put the tree there.

Well, first he put an acorn there.

Or some kind of tree seed.

Do trees have seed? Or is it shoots? I forget.

Anyway the tree seed hit the ground in just the right place because God made that happen.

Oh, wait! God made the ground before he made the tree seed land on it. That parts important later.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27527
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Tero » Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:00 pm

catch of the day
"A simple cell is made of billions of non-living parts. What makes the cell live? A Boeing 747 has over 4 million non-flying parts. What makes the jet fly. It is called design and organization. It gets better folks. DNA..."

What a mess.. "Non-living parts" is a meaningless statement. It's like claiming a plane is composed of "non-flying parts".
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:35 am

Tero wrote:catch of the day
"A simple cell is made of billions of non-living parts. What makes the cell live? A Boeing 747 has over 4 million non-flying parts. What makes the jet fly. It is called design and organization. It gets better folks. DNA..."

What a mess.. "Non-living parts" is a meaningless statement. It's like claiming a plane is composed of "non-flying parts".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositio ... human_body
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27527
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Tero » Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:24 pm

The links are so funky, I'll just copy and paste the claim and response.

Largo:
By Jerry Bergman, Ph.D:

A common claim by evolutionists is that the human body is poorly designed, which to them is evidence that it was not intelligently designed, but rather cobbled together by the unintelligent process of evolution. One of the most frequent examples of poor design cited by evolutionists today is the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), which controls the mammalian larynx (voice box) muscles.

Paleontologist Ronald Pothero wrote that examples of "poor or at least very puzzling design can be accumulated endlessly", thus proving evolution, with one of the best examples being "the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which connects the brain to the larynx and allows us to speak."

"In mammals,this nerve avoids the direct route between brain and throat and instead descends into the chest, loops around he aorta near the heart, then returns to the larynx. That makes it seven times longer than it needs to be." (Prothero, D. 2008, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, p.37-38)

Although the laryngenal nerve does not take the shortest route to the larynx, this is also true for many other nerves. The optic nerves do not take the shortest route to the occipital lobe of the brain (the lobe near the back of the head), but rather cross over at the optic chiasm (were the two tracts cross over in he form of an "X") for reasons now known to be based on good design.The nerves from the right side of the brain go to the left side of the body (except for the right and left frontal branches of a facial nerve, which are supplied by both sides of the brain) also for good reasons.

Likewise, the left RLN has a different anatomical trajectory than one would first expect, and for very good reasons. In contrast to Prothero's claim, the vagus nerve (the longest of the cranial nerves) travels from the neck down towards the heart, and then the recurrent laryngeal nerve branches off from the vagus just below the aorta (the largest artery in the body, originating from the left ventricle of the heart and extending down the abdomen).The RLN travels upward to serve several organs, some near where it branches off of the vagus nerve, and then travels back up to the larynx ( Sadler, T.W., 2010. Langman's Medical Embryology).

This is the reason it is called he left recurrent laryngenal nerve. In contrast, the right laryngenal nerve loops around the subclavian artery just below the collarbone, then travels up to the larynx. Of note is the fact that the longer left RLN works in perfect harmony with the right laryngenal nerve, disproving the faulty design claim.
Hey -- Largo has figured out that this nerve is in other animals besides the giraffe. Maybe he's capable of learning after all.

"Of note is the fact that the longer left RLN works in perfect harmony with the right laryngenal nerve, disproving the faulty design claim. "

Both left and right nerves have a circuitous root (quite unlike the case with the optic nerve, where there is no looping and the cross-over has known function) because they get trapped over the arteries that supply the pharyngeal pouches in the embryo, which are the arteries going to the gills in fishes. The difference in left and right side nerves is due to the fact that we retain the fourth aortic arch (now forming the aorta) on the left hand side only.

As you can see in this nice picture from the ICR,

http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles/af ... _nerve.jpg

there are other nerves coming off the vagus that take a direct route to structures in the neck and upper thorax (these all branch off before the laryngeal nerves). These are the auricular nerve, the pharyngeal nerve, the superior laryngeal nerve, the superior cervical cardiac nerve (several branches), and the inferior cervical cardiac nerve. Funnily enough, the creationist websites never mention these structures.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27527
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Tero » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:43 pm

http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27527
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Tero » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:28 pm

Me explaining the everyday aspects of science to Mr. Homeschooler:

One thing I can straighten out. A lot of science is not hypothesis and experiment. It's more like "let's try this." It's only the safety aspects of the experiment I have to know beforehand, not the results. We do a lot of trial and error. Many times the errors give important clues as to how to do it right.

User avatar
Calilasseia
Butterfly
Butterfly
Posts: 5242
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:31 pm
About me: Destroyer of canards, and merciless shredder of bad ideas. :twisted:
Location: 40,000 feet above you, dropping JDAMs
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Calilasseia » Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:02 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Image

http://www.harmsy.freeuk.com/uranus.html

Okay, that's one case. The "axis pointed at the Sun" is another, right? In that one the, say, Southern Hemisphere, is always pointed at the Sun, and the Northern Hemisphere is always pointed away. I wonder if that kind of planet could hold an atmosphere.
With respect to the orbit of Uranus, and axial tilts of planets ...

An axis of rotation does not undergo wholesale large scale changes in orientation. The reason for this is ultimately centred upon conservation of angular momentum, and since angular momentum has a vector like character (strictly speaking, it's a pseudovector, but the technical subtleties this involves don't affect an elementary analysis), changing the direction of the axis of rotation requires one to apply an external torque to the axis. If you want to see this principle in action, remove the front wheel from a bicycle, set the bicycle wheel spinning with the axle in a given orientation, then try to change to orientation of the axle. You'll find you need to exert a considerable force to do this, even if the wheel is spinning relatively slowly, and if the wheel is spinning quickly, a much greater force is needed.

As a consequence, planetary axes tend to point in a constant direction, when considered from an elementary standpoint. Of course, introducing some more advanced concepts results in the appearance of gyroscopic precession, but planetary axes only exhibit this phenomenon over periods of many thousands of years (in the case of the Earth, one revolution of gyroscopic precession takes 26,000 years), and the greater the mass of the rotating body (for a given value of angular velocity), the longer the period of precession. We can therefore ignore precession for the duration of one orbit of a planet, without introducing anything other than very small errors into the picture.

As a consequence of this, no planet would exer exist, whose axis of rotation always pointed toward the star it was orbiting, because this would require a significant change in direction for that axis, and would require a massive external torque to be applied to the axis in question. Consequently, in the case of a planet such as Uranus, the axis always points in a given direction, and so, as the planet continues on its 84 year orbit around the Sun, we have the following setup:
Uranus Orbit.jpg
At point 1 in its orbit, Uranus has its North pole pointing away from the Sun (and thus, in total darkness), whilst the South pole is pointing toward the Sun, and thus, experiencing perpetual daylight. After 21 years, Uranus has moved to point 2 in its orbit, where the axis is now pointing parallel to the orbital tangent, and consequently, North and South poles both experience equal day and night lengths. After another 21 years, Uranus has moved to point 3 in its orbit, where the North pole is now pointing toward the Sun (and expriencing perpetual daylight), whilst the South pole now experiences perpetual darkness. After another 21 years, Uranus has moved to point 4 in its orbit, and once again, both poles now experience equal day and night lengths. Finally, after another 21 years, Uranus returns to point 1, and the cycle begins all over again.

I think this should clear everything up.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27527
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Tero » Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:25 pm

Creationism reaearch journal

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27527
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Tero » Fri May 24, 2013 5:34 pm

I'm coining a new phrase: Lamarckian Dinosaurs. You saw it here first.

When the critters were in the Garden of Eden, they were all vegetarians. Jesus used to ride dinosaurs. (How did he get there?)

Then the apple event happened. All were banished. Some dinosaurs became carnivores, Lamarckian Dinosaurs! They had to grow their own teeth. A one day event.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27527
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution for fundamentalists

Post by Tero » Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:22 pm

Catch of the day
Indeed! We must match up all eggs and sperm, though that raises the question of what to do with all those extra sperm.

Response
Why does it take so many sperm to find one egg?
Because men don't ask for directions.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest