Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ps418 · 10-08-2002, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zzang:

Well electromagnetic storms would be too severe and that would greatly affect life.

This is an assertion, not an argument. Greatly affect life in what way, and why? Be specific.

Quote:

Then theres all the organisms that depend on the magnetic field for mating, migration,...etc. They would be greatly affected as well.

That's right. Magnetotactic organisms would find their way even easier. Scigirl's asking for adverse affects.

Quote:

If you want sources try the journal of Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine.

Please be specific. Which papers did you have in mind? Which ones demonstrate that life is hindered by high geomagnetic field strength?

Neruda · 10-08-2002, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zzang:
I think I can safely assume you weren't sincere in the rest of your post.

you still haven't given me a reason to take you more seriously.

Quote:

Its no more arrogant than asserting the conclusions of ufo experts, psychic experts, or ghost experts as invalid.

well like you, zzang, they can't defend their positions either.

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:
That's right. Magnetotactic organisms would find their way even easier. Scigirl's asking for adverse affects.

LOL!!

10-08-2002, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:


How very convenient. Saves having to respond. Say, you’re not Vanderzyden are you?

Please show me where I accompanied my refutations with insults and fabrications. The worst I can see is ‘spouting creationist claptrap’ on 4 Oct (page 2). (Codswallop and gonads aren’t insults, they’re rather pertinent adjectives.) And since Nat posted similar points, you still owe us a response to his/her post at least. If you are honestly interested in the truth of these matters, then I’ll happily discuss things nicely if you do. If not, there’s a bridge that’s missing its troll...

Oolon

I meant "your" in the collective sense, not you personally but you still went ahead and brandished me as a "troll." Its easy to get on my case when I'm outnumbered.

Daggah · 10-08-2002, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zzang:


I meant "your" in the collective sense, not you personally but you still went ahead and brandished me as a "troll." Its easy to get on my case when I'm outnumbered.

It's also easy to get on your case when you're wrong.

10-08-2002, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nat:
"I don't have a better explanation, but I don't think evolution sufficiently explains the data. "

What data do you think it conflicts with or does not sufficiently explain - I'm really curious. Before you mentioned several bizarre snippets ("living fossils," "inaccurate dating methods," etc.) that looked to be sound bites from a Kent Hovind presentation, which you should know would create nothing more than laughter from people who have actually studied the material. When asked to back up these claims/sound bites, you changed the subject. Please, show us the data of human footprints in very old strata, or explain why the dating methodologies used are too inaccurate to be believed (obviously all methodologies will have some margin or error - none claim to be perfectly accurate).

What bizzare snippets are you talking about? Those items on my list are pretty well known and haven't been sufficiently explained (in my opinion). Living fossils, I'm sure you know I'm referring to coelacanths, hagfish, certain plants, bacteria....etc there are many and this is no secrets. Inaccurate dating methods? You may think its from a Kent Hovind tape but the main difference is that I assume uniformitarianism while he doesn't. I'm more worried about contaminations and such. I know the methods don't claim to be perfect but I think they're too imperfect to be reliable. And referring to human footprints, I don't mean those prints in Texas that are erroded dinosaur prints. I'm talking about shoe prints in old layers, and not just that there are plenty of annomolies found in old layers like metal spheres, coins, threads,...etc. Which casts doubt on the claims, enough doubt for me to withhold belief.

Ought Naught · 10-08-2002, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zzang:
Living fossils, I'm sure you know I'm referring to coelacanths, hagfish, certain plants, bacteria....etc

Hey, yeah! And if we're evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

10-08-2002, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud:

But given your admission that you have no answer to the qusetion of life's diversity, my question is simply this: How would you go about (or how are you going about) developing an explanation for the diversity of life? Is there any research that has gone before that you would accept and view as helpful towards realizing success in such an effort?

You're widely read, and have strong opinions on this topic, so I imagine that you have some ready answers to this query. I'm waiting in complete thrall. Enlighten me.

I don't know. I can only examine data and try to separate conclusions and inferences from the hard data. Then see if I come to the same conclusion based on the data. Ask myself if it seems reasonable or contrary to established knowledge. Frankly, I think historical knowledge is mostly conjecture based on very little information. And when your talking about things that happened before civilization, the margin for error greatly increases. I mean if we can't piece together a murder that took place a few weeks ago, how can you honestly think we can easily piece together something supposedly millions or billions of years old.

10-08-2002, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duvenoy:


Ah, but is the best explanation that we have thus far. And a damned good one, too.

Now, the universe being what it is, it may come to pass that a better explanation will be put forth. But I ain't gonna bet the morgage payment on it.

I agree its the best explanation but its not good enough in my opinion. Its like asking would you rather die by bullet to the stomach or drowning, one is better than the other but neither is really good.

Quote:

I must accept the studied and peer-reviewed, ad nausaum, facts. The people who do these studies are not part of some conspiricy, as some of the more rabid Creationists would have us believe. They are simply dedicated to increasing knowledge in their fields, and use all of the tools they have. And also develop more tools as they work, like a Clovis indian knapping a better point for the next mammoth hunt. These tools get the same, rigorious review as any of their findings.

I don't think they're part of some conspiracy, but people are very prone to mistakes and bias (myself included). If they can't get important things correct(where lives are at stake), do you really expect them to get something unimportant(origins) correct?

10-08-2002, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
Hmmm...
I guess the message just isn't getting through.
No, Zzang, you would NOT reach a point where life as we know it wouldn't be compatible with the magnetic field strength.
Why?
Because there is no problem with field strength. Creationist claims of a super-intense, rapidly-decaying field are false. Bogus. Baloney.
Why?
Because we know what the actual field strength WAS.
How?
Because we can measure it.
How?
In magnetized rocks laid down at the time.
Zzang, you desperately need to understand that all creationist claims are false. Not a single one of them has ever withstood scientific scrutiny.
You have been lied to.

You need to understand that people aren't perfect and my argument isn't the creationist argument. I'm not claiming that for sure 100% the magnetic field has only been decaying, I'm not saying that the field couldn't exist beyond 6000 years ago, next time read more carefully.

Neruda · 10-08-2002, 08:26 PM

regarding living fossils: living fossils don't disprove evolution in the slightest. Evolution occurs when an organism is pressured to change; if there is no pressure, the organism stays the same. Why? it's wuite simple: the organims that stays the same is more fit than an organism that changes. Primitive body forms can still be very effective, since they were clearly effective for organisms milions of years ago. As long as an animal isn't put into an arms race with a predator or anything, it doesn't need to evolve further. So your living fossil argument is no more. okay?

Regarding dating (much of this was taken from some talk.origins page, I forget which one): Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.) Do you really think that every single one of these dating methods was somehow fatally flawed? how do you back up such a claim?

regarding shoeprints (shoeprints? that one's new to me...): Show us some evidence that these things exist, please. Every example of such a thing is either a) a hoax, b) a creationist lie, or c) both.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-08-2002, 08:26 PM	#110
Neruda Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 80	regarding living fossils: living fossils don't disprove evolution in the slightest. Evolution occurs when an organism is pressured to change; if there is no pressure, the organism stays the same. Why? it's wuite simple: the organims that stays the same is more fit than an organism that changes. Primitive body forms can still be very effective, since they were clearly effective for organisms milions of years ago. As long as an animal isn't put into an arms race with a predator or anything, it doesn't need to evolve further. So your living fossil argument is no more. okay? Regarding dating (much of this was taken from some talk.origins page, I forget which one): Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.) Do you really think that every single one of these dating methods was somehow fatally flawed? how do you back up such a claim? regarding shoeprints (shoeprints? that one's new to me...): Show us some evidence that these things exist, please. Every example of such a thing is either a) a hoax, b) a creationist lie, or c) both.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.