Anti-evolution paper met with 'hysteria, name-calling'

[Anti-Multiculty]

[Ed. Evolution is the greatest hoax since man-made global warming....]

Anti-evolution paper met with 'hysteria, name-calling'
'Intelligent design' defense published in peer-reviewed science journal
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40302
September 4, 2004

The publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of an article
expounding and defending "Intelligent Design" was met with "hysteria,
name-calling and personal attack," according to the report's author.

According to a story in The Scientist, Dr. Steven Meyer's article, "The
origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,"
published online Aug. 28, was greeted with widespread criticism from members
of the society publishing the journal – the Biological Society of
Washington.

According to its website, The Scientist is "an international news magazine
published in print and on the Web. It reports on and analyzes the issues and
events that impact the world of life scientists."

Intelligent Design – which one critic calls "the old creationist arguments
in fancy clothes" – is the "idea that the origin of information is best
explained by an act of intelligence rather than a strictly materialistic
process," Meyer told The Scientist.

In his article, Meyer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, states:
"What natural selection lacks, intelligent selection – purposive or
goal-directed design – provides."

The Discovery Institute "supports research by scientists and other scholars
developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design."

Many scientists reportedly expressed shock and outrage that an article
questioning evolution would be published in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal. According to The Scientist:

Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science
Education, said, "many members of the society were stunned about the
article. … It's too bad the Proceedings published it," Scott added. "The
article doesn't fit the type of content of the journal. The bottom line is
that this article is substandard science."

The Panda's Thumb, a Web log dealing with evolutionary science, calls
Meyer's article "a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts,
selective quoting, bad analogies, and tendentious interpretations."
However, National Center for Biotechnology Information staff scientist
Richard Sternberg told The Scientist the three peer reviewers of Meyer's
paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent
universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one
at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research
institute."

All found the paper "meritorious, warranting publication," he said.

Moreover, Sternberg told the journal he and Meyer have falsely been labeled
creationists by the scientific community, noting: "It's fascinating how the
'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions
about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some
[anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and
well in the scientific community."

The Discovery Institute's communications director, Robert L. Crowther,
explained the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

"Dr. Meyer is a well-known proponent of intelligent design and that is what
his paper is about," Crowther told The Scientist. "To try and characterize
him as a creationist is just an attempt to stigmatize him and marginalize
his paper, all the while avoiding the scientific issues that it raises."

Meyer puts it even more bluntly: "I have received a number of private
communications from scientists expressing their agreement or intrigue with
the arguments that I develop in my article. Public reaction to the article,
however, has been mainly characterized by hysteria, name-calling and
personal attack."

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Peter Terry]

"Anti-Multiculty" <***@hotmaiil.com> wrote in message news:***@hotmaiil.com...
KKK---------------------------------->

[Ned Latham]

Post by Peter Terry
KKK---------------------------------->

You have no moral ground for accusing anyone of racism, you lying
little shit:

* "Peter Terry" wrote in <***@news.iprimus.com.au>:
* >
* > You Jews arent overly bright are you,

Ned

[fritz]

Anti-Multiculty <***@hotmaiil.com> wrote in message news:***@hotmaiil.com...
|
| [Ed. Evolution is the greatest hoax since man-made global warming....]

Psst. The theory of evolution has published roots dating back to 1858.
When did global warming get a guernsey ??

| Anti-evolution paper met with 'hysteria, name-calling'
| 'Intelligent design' defense published in peer-reviewed science journal

I'd be interested in how 'intelligent design' explains bubonic plague, malaria,
polio, ebola, AIDS, STDs, birth disorders, degenerative mutations,
genetic diseases, etc. etc. etc.
In short, all the things in this world designed to fuck up life for us humans.

'Intelligent design' doesn't address the broader issue of why if there is a 'designer'
it must be one mean mother fucking bastard.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Likewise, i'd be interested to know how you think evolution is supposedly
responsible for all that also.

Post by fritz
I'd be interested in how 'intelligent design' explains bubonic plague, malaria,
polio, ebola, AIDS, STDs, birth disorders, degenerative mutations,
genetic diseases, etc. etc. etc.
In short, all the things in this world designed to fuck up life for us humans.
'Intelligent design' doesn't address the broader issue of why if there is a 'designer'
it must be one mean mother fucking bastard.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Insider]

Indeed, Fritz for that matter.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Likewise, i'd be interested to know how you think evolution is supposedly
responsible for all that also.

Post by fritz
I'd be interested in how 'intelligent design' explains bubonic plague,

malaria,

Post by fritz
polio, ebola, AIDS, STDs, birth disorders, degenerative mutations,
genetic diseases, etc. etc. etc.
In short, all the things in this world designed to fuck up life for us

humans.

Post by fritz
'Intelligent design' doesn't address the broader issue of why if there

is

Post by Anti-Multiculty
a 'designer'

Post by fritz
it must be one mean mother fucking bastard.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty
"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[fritz]

Anti-Multiculty wrote ..
| Likewise, i'd be interested to know how you think evolution is supposedly
| responsible for all that also.

You have to get over the idea of a 'responsible' designer or god. That is
just a delusion that is clouding your thinking.
Evolution isn't 'responsible' for anything, it is just the best theory
we have at the moment to explain the way life is. It is way, way better
than anything the creationists have proposed, including 'intelligent design'.
The ability of science to analyse DNA has put the final nails in the coffins
of the fools who still believe in 'creation science'.
For a quick explanation of the evolution of diseases go to
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~jbwhammond/disevo.htm

Now A-M, perhaps you would like to explain why your 'intelligent
designer' is such a mean fucking cunt.
Or you might deny a creator and concede that evolution really is the best
scientific explanation we have at present for life as we observe it.


| >"fritz" <***@address.com> wrote in message;
| > I'd be interested in how 'intelligent design' explains bubonic plague,
| malaria,
| > polio, ebola, AIDS, STDs, birth disorders, degenerative mutations,
| > genetic diseases, etc. etc. etc.
| > In short, all the things in this world designed to fuck up life for us
| humans.
| >
| > 'Intelligent design' doesn't address the broader issue of why if there is
| a 'designer'
| > it must be one mean mother fucking bastard.
|
| --
| JimB
| http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
| Union Against Multi-Culty
|
| "Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
|
|

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by fritz
You have to get over the idea of a 'responsible' designer or god. That is
just a delusion that is clouding your thinking.
Evolution isn't 'responsible' for anything, it is just the best theory
we have at the moment to explain the way life is. It is way, way better
than anything the creationists have proposed, including 'intelligent design'.

Evolution isn't responsible for anything because it is a complete
fabrication. There has been *no* conclusive evidence put forward by any
scientists as to the origin of life on earth, or anywhere else, indeed the
whole theory is scientifically unsound. People like you are the ones who
have clouded judgement because you are so keen for an alternative, any
alternative, that you don't wait for science to prove it.

Post by fritz
The ability of science to analyse DNA has put the final nails in the coffins
of the fools who still believe in 'creation science'.
For a quick explanation of the evolution of diseases go to
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~jbwhammond/disevo.htm

On this website, the claim is made that; "..In Escherichia coli a synonymous
site (where no amino acid change is caused by a base-changing mutation) is
estimated to mutate once in approximately 1010 years..."

Excherichia Coli is a 5000 gene per chromosome colon bacteria which has been
studied for over a century, and hasn't yet changed into anything else other
than more Escherichia Coli. The same goes for every other species out there
you want to throw up as an example, no change into a different species has
ever taken place.

Consider these words by an evolutionary scientist....

"...The usual answer to this question is that there was plenty of time to
try everything. I could never accept this answer. Random shuttling of bricks
will never build a castle or a Greek temple, however long the available
time. A random process can build meaningful structures only if there is some
kind of selection between meaningful and nonsense mutations...."-*A.
Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Evolutionary Paradox and Biological Stability," in
Molecular Evolution, p. 111.

Post by fritz
Now A-M, perhaps you would like to explain why your 'intelligent
designer' is such a mean fucking cunt.

Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,
we have seen the problems of mutation in the countless experiments on the
fruit fly. All forced mutations on that little critter failed each and every
time to produce a new species.

Post by fritz
Or you might deny a creator and concede that evolution really is the best
scientific explanation we have at present for life as we observe it.

It isn't though, even evolutionary scientists have a hard enough time
joining the dots.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Evolution isn't responsible for anything because it is a complete
fabrication. There has been *no* conclusive evidence put forward by any
scientists as to the origin of life on earth, or anywhere else, indeed the
whole theory is scientifically unsound.

Scientifically unsound? In what way, pray tell?

Post by Anti-Multiculty
"...The usual answer to this question is that there was plenty of time to
try everything. I could never accept this answer. Random shuttling of bricks
will never build a castle or a Greek temple, however long the available
time. A random process can build meaningful structures only if there is some
kind of selection between meaningful and nonsense mutations...."-*A.
Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Evolutionary Paradox and Biological Stability," in
Molecular Evolution, p. 111.

Of course there is a selection process between meaningful and nonsense
mutations. Nonsense mutations are normally unstable and detrimental to
life. The mutated organism dies normally before reaching sexual maturity so
does not reproduce. The mutation, therefore, is not carried through to the
next generation.

Compare to a meaningful mutation that provides an organism with an
advantage. It may be bigger horns, keener hearing, colour vision, whatever.
Since it gives the organism an advantage over its rivals, it allows the
organism to survive to sexual maturity and make an attractive mate. The
organism's DNA, including the mutation, is therefore copied down to the next
generation. Over several thousand years, these mutations multiply to the
extent we have species divergence.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,

Well that, I'm afraid, is a complete untruth. Try here for examples of
positive mutations in humans:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

Don

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Donald McCaskey
Scientifically unsound? In what way, pray tell?

In every way.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Of course there is a selection process between meaningful and nonsense
mutations. Nonsense mutations are normally unstable and detrimental to
life. The mutated organism dies normally before reaching sexual maturity so
does not reproduce. The mutation, therefore, is not carried through to the
next generation.
Compare to a meaningful mutation that provides an organism with an
advantage. It may be bigger horns, keener hearing, colour vision, whatever.
Since it gives the organism an advantage over its rivals, it allows the
organism to survive to sexual maturity and make an attractive mate. The
organism's DNA, including the mutation, is therefore copied down to the next
generation. Over several thousand years, these mutations multiply to the
extent we have species divergence.

Give me an example where this has happened.

Post by Donald McCaskey

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,

Well that, I'm afraid, is a complete untruth. Try here for examples of
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

In your own words, explain what is occurring in that website you presented.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Donald McCaskey
Scientifically unsound? In what way, pray tell?

In every way.

Well I'm just blown away by the depth and insight of your argument.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Donald McCaskey
Of course there is a selection process between meaningful and nonsense
mutations. Nonsense mutations are normally unstable and detrimental to
life. The mutated organism dies normally before reaching sexual maturity

so

Post by Donald McCaskey
does not reproduce. The mutation, therefore, is not carried through to

the

Post by Donald McCaskey
next generation.
Compare to a meaningful mutation that provides an organism with an
advantage. It may be bigger horns, keener hearing, colour vision,

whatever.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Since it gives the organism an advantage over its rivals, it allows the
organism to survive to sexual maturity and make an attractive mate. The
organism's DNA, including the mutation, is therefore copied down to the

next

Post by Donald McCaskey
generation. Over several thousand years, these mutations multiply to the
extent we have species divergence.

Give me an example where this has happened.

Man - chimpanzee. Horse - zebra. Lion - tiger. Do you want more?

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Donald McCaskey

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,

Well that, I'm afraid, is a complete untruth. Try here for examples of
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

In your own words, explain what is occurring in that website you presented.

The website is giving evidence for evolution so what is occurring in that
website is a series of articles supporting the theory of evolution. (This
is quite basic stuff, btw).

Here's a very basic example of beneficial mutations. Asians, especially
those of Chinese descent, are generally less tolerant of alcohol than West
Europeans. This is because the genes responsible for dealing with alcohol
in the body are different in Chinese and West European people. Now either
this is because Chinese and West European people are different species or
it's because they are one species where a gene level mutation has taken
place, a mutation that is stable and not detrimental to human life. You
choose.

Don

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Donald McCaskey
Well I'm just blown away by the depth and insight of your argument.

Thank you.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Man - chimpanzee. Horse - zebra. Lion - tiger. Do you want more?

Man - Chimpanzee???? Horse, Zebras and Donkey's all belong to the equine
family, none of them are different species (ie all can still breed with each
other) and none of them were Lizards previously. Same with Lions and Tigers.

Post by Donald McCaskey
The website is giving evidence for evolution so what is occurring in that
website is a series of articles supporting the theory of evolution. (This
is quite basic stuff, btw).

Great, shouldn't be too difficult for you to explain some specifics on that
website then.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Here's a very basic example of beneficial mutations. Asians, especially
those of Chinese descent, are generally less tolerant of alcohol than West
Europeans. This is because the genes responsible for dealing with alcohol
in the body are different in Chinese and West European people. Now either
this is because Chinese and West European people are different species or
it's because they are one species where a gene level mutation has taken
place, a mutation that is stable and not detrimental to human life. You
choose.

Neither, as you say it is a "general" statement, in fact some Asians love
Alcohol and some Europeans do not, nothing to do with genetics at all. What
evidence do you have to support the view that it is a genetic
predisposition?

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Donald McCaskey
Well I'm just blown away by the depth and insight of your argument.

Thank you.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Man - chimpanzee. Horse - zebra. Lion - tiger. Do you want more?

Man - Chimpanzee???? Horse, Zebras and Donkey's all belong to the equine
family, none of them are different species (ie all can still breed with each
other) and none of them were Lizards previously. Same with Lions and Tigers.

Why then are mules and other equine crosses are almost alway barren. The
same goes with ligers and tigons - almost always barren. If they are
exactly the same species, as you claim, their offspring should be as fertile
as the cross between two horses or two lions.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Donald McCaskey
Here's a very basic example of beneficial mutations. Asians, especially
those of Chinese descent, are generally less tolerant of alcohol than West
Europeans. This is because the genes responsible for dealing with alcohol
in the body are different in Chinese and West European people. Now either
this is because Chinese and West European people are different species or
it's because they are one species where a gene level mutation has taken
place, a mutation that is stable and not detrimental to human life. You
choose.

Neither, as you say it is a "general" statement, in fact some Asians love
Alcohol and some Europeans do not, nothing to do with genetics at all. What
evidence do you have to support the view that it is a genetic
predisposition?

How about studies by Bosron WF and Li TK on genetic polymorphysim of human
liver alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases, and their relationship to alcohol
metabolism and alcoholism. Hepatology 6:502-10, 1986, or the research by
Wall TL, Peterson CM, Peterson KP, et al on alcohol metabolism in
Asian-American men with genetic polymorphisms of aldehyde dehydrogenase as
appeared in Ann Intern Med 1997;127(5):376-9.

Here's an extract from one of these studies, quoted verbatim, for your
perusal:
"After ingestion of ethanol (the kind of alcohol most beverages contain),
the body metabolizes it by first converting it to a substance called
acetaldehyde in the liver by an enzyme called "alcohol dehydrogenase". The
acetaldehyde is then broken down to acetate by a second enzyme called
aldehyde dehydrogenase. This second enzyme has important clinical
manifestations, particularly for people of Asian ancestry. 50% of Asians
(including Native Americans who apparently share genetic ancestry with
Asians) have a mutation in the gene for aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) which
causes the enzyme to have decreased activity (either from lower levels to
start with, or because the enzyme deteriorates in the body faster). This
causes a rapid build up of the acetaldehyde which causes the flushing
(redness), increased pulse and decreased blood pressure. These unpleasant
symptoms supposedly are related to a decreased rate of alcoholism among
those with the mutant gene -- though I am not so sure about that from what I
have observed among the Japanese. (The last statement is just my own empiric
observations.)

Among Asian and Asian American medical circles, people seem to frequently
ask one another (socially) if they "have the enzyme" -- implying ALDH, of
course. I have noticed that my Chinese colleagues "without the enzyme"
refrain from drinking because they are embarassed by the flushing and really
dislike the side effects. When in Japan, however, I seem to notice many
"sarari man" turning beet red in izakaya without much concern, and go right
on drinking. Perhaps because the genetic mutation is so common, turning red
after some drinks is not considered unusual there? Perhaps because of the
high stress, social drinking and flushing is considered acceptable? When my
family attended Nikkei/Nihonjin parties, I noticed that the Japanese
nationals were the ones who freely consumed, but the Nikkei of my parents
generation did not. Maybe this has to do with their growing up during the
Prohibition and Internment (alcohol was apparently not allowed in the
camps) -- as well as their growing up in Western culture where turning red
was not considered normal?

I think moderation is key. I personally do have some "enzyme" though alcohol
will sometimes make my asthma act up or cause my cheeks to become blotchy if
I have too much. But the key here is to know one's limit and stay within it.
I noticed that I could drink some Japanese men under the table
(embarassing), but am a lightweight compared to most of my non-Asian
friends. This seems to be a source of surprise and amusement for other
Asians, who have been shocked that I can consume a glass of wine and not be
affected. Or sake -- yes, I like chilled sake, but heated sake always tastes
like gasoline to me."

The general gist is that oriental asians tend to lack the gene required make
the enzyme needed to process ethanol quickly. Other research confirms that
West Europeans have an abundance of the enzyme and the gene required to
create the enzyme is switched on. This research points to environmental
factors for the difference between West Europeans and oriental asians - West
Europeans used fermentation techniques to remove impurities and disease from
water.

Don

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Donald McCaskey
Why then are mules and other equine crosses are almost alway barren. The
same goes with ligers and tigons - almost always barren. If they are
exactly the same species, as you claim, their offspring should be as fertile
as the cross between two horses or two lions.

The very fact they were capable of having offspring should give you a good
indication they are closely related, surely? I mean, you cannot cross-breed
an elephant with a Horse can you?? And how does that prove that evolution
has occurred?

Post by Donald McCaskey
"After ingestion of ethanol (the kind of alcohol most beverages contain),
the body metabolizes it by first converting it to a substance called
acetaldehyde in the liver by an enzyme called "alcohol dehydrogenase". The
acetaldehyde is then broken down to acetate by a second enzyme called
aldehyde dehydrogenase. This second enzyme has important clinical
manifestations, particularly for people of Asian ancestry. 50% of Asians
(including Native Americans who apparently share genetic ancestry with
Asians) have a mutation in the gene for aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) which
causes the enzyme to have decreased activity (either from lower levels to
start with, or because the enzyme deteriorates in the body faster). This
causes a rapid build up of the acetaldehyde which causes the flushing
(redness), increased pulse and decreased blood pressure. These unpleasant
symptoms supposedly are related to a decreased rate of alcoholism among
those with the mutant gene -- though I am not so sure about that from what I
have observed among the Japanese. (The last statement is just my own empiric
observations.)
Among Asian and Asian American medical circles, people seem to frequently
ask one another (socially) if they "have the enzyme" -- implying ALDH, of
course. I have noticed that my Chinese colleagues "without the enzyme"
refrain from drinking because they are embarassed by the flushing and really
dislike the side effects. When in Japan, however, I seem to notice many
"sarari man" turning beet red in izakaya without much concern, and go right
on drinking. Perhaps because the genetic mutation is so common, turning red
after some drinks is not considered unusual there? Perhaps because of the
high stress, social drinking and flushing is considered acceptable? When my
family attended Nikkei/Nihonjin parties, I noticed that the Japanese
nationals were the ones who freely consumed, but the Nikkei of my parents
generation did not. Maybe this has to do with their growing up during the
Prohibition and Internment (alcohol was apparently not allowed in the
camps) -- as well as their growing up in Western culture where turning red
was not considered normal?
I think moderation is key. I personally do have some "enzyme" though alcohol
will sometimes make my asthma act up or cause my cheeks to become blotchy if
I have too much. But the key here is to know one's limit and stay within it.
I noticed that I could drink some Japanese men under the table
(embarassing), but am a lightweight compared to most of my non-Asian
friends. This seems to be a source of surprise and amusement for other
Asians, who have been shocked that I can consume a glass of wine and not be
affected. Or sake -- yes, I like chilled sake, but heated sake always tastes
like gasoline to me."
The general gist is that oriental asians tend to lack the gene required make
the enzyme needed to process ethanol quickly. Other research confirms that
West Europeans have an abundance of the enzyme and the gene required to
create the enzyme is switched on. This research points to environmental
factors for the difference between West Europeans and oriental asians - West
Europeans used fermentation techniques to remove impurities and disease from
water.

In four paragraphs you destroyed your whole argument about genetic mutations
being beneficial, because if you what you print is true, then obviously the
genetic mutations in Asians and North American Indians has caused them not
to be able to absorb Alcohol properly, as opposed to their European
counterparts. So what exactly are you trying to say about mutations having a
positive effect?

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
In four paragraphs you destroyed your whole argument about genetic mutations
being beneficial, because if you what you print is true, then obviously the
genetic mutations in Asians and North American Indians has caused them not
to be able to absorb Alcohol properly, as opposed to their European
counterparts. So what exactly are you trying to say about mutations having a
positive effect?
--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty
"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

Except, and this is the important part, it is generally accepted, even by
intelligent design advocats / creationists, that Asian races came before
West Europeans and that the ancestors of West Europeans came from the Middle
East. This means that a mutation in West Europeans led to the beneficial
ability to handle ethanol, not that all humans had it and then lost the
ability through a negative mutation.

Don

[Anti-Multiculty]

You haven't thought through the logic of that statement Donald. Asian races
went east, while Western European races went west. One developed a genetic
mutation which impaired their ability to absorb alcohol - from their
middle-eastern forebears, the other did not. For a positive genetic mutation
to have taken place, amongst Europeans Middle-Eastern peoples would have to
have had a negative genetic makeup with regards to alcohol. Again, you have
no evidence of this ever taking place.

Frankly, I would be staggered to believe creationists could support your
woolly-headed views Donald, but you have an open invite to name any of them.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Except, and this is the important part, it is generally accepted, even by
intelligent design advocats / creationists, that Asian races came before
West Europeans and that the ancestors of West Europeans came from the Middle
East. This means that a mutation in West Europeans led to the beneficial
ability to handle ethanol, not that all humans had it and then lost the
ability through a negative mutation.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
You haven't thought through the logic of that statement Donald. Asian races
went east, while Western European races went west. One developed a genetic
mutation which impaired their ability to absorb alcohol - from their
middle-eastern forebears, the other did not. For a positive genetic mutation
to have taken place, amongst Europeans Middle-Eastern peoples would have to
have had a negative genetic makeup with regards to alcohol. Again, you have
no evidence of this ever taking place.

Middle Easter peoples display a mixture of the enzyme producing gene, easily
explained by cross-race breeding. The reason to concentrate on the Eastern
asians is that lack of gene is more exaggerated.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Frankly, I would be staggered to believe creationists could support your
woolly-headed views Donald, but you have an open invite to name any of them.

Eh, the creationist theory puts the Garden of Eden in the middle east, Moses
in Egypt, etc. Or are you claiming the Israelites actually came from
down-town Soho in London?

Don

[Paolo Pizzi]

Post by Donald McCaskey
Eh, the creationist theory puts the Garden of Eden in
the middle east, Moses in Egypt, etc.

The creationist theory has been debunked by SCIENCE
a million times over.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Donald McCaskey
Middle Easter peoples display a mixture of the enzyme producing gene, easily
explained by cross-race breeding. The reason to concentrate on the Eastern
asians is that lack of gene is more exaggerated.

Still doesn't advance your theory because if Middle-Eastern people display a
mixture of the gene then it is conceivable that the western European
offspring kept the genes showing a positive adherence to alcohol, while the
Asians did not (and it was by admission a generalised statement anyway).
Which is a far cry from your earlier suggestion that Western Europeans
developed, by random, improbable mutation the positive enzyme producing gene
necessary to adapt to alcohol.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Eh, the creationist theory puts the Garden of Eden in the middle east, Moses
in Egypt, etc. Or are you claiming the Israelites actually came from
down-town Soho in London?

Eh? What has this got to do with Asians and their lack of ability to process
alcohol like Western Europeans?

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Mark Addinall

Post by Donald McCaskey
Middle Easter peoples display a mixture of the enzyme producing gene,

easily

Post by Donald McCaskey
explained by cross-race breeding. The reason to concentrate on the

Eastern

Post by Donald McCaskey
asians is that lack of gene is more exaggerated.

Still doesn't advance your theory because if Middle-Eastern people display a
mixture of the gene then it is conceivable that the western European
offspring kept the genes showing a positive adherence to alcohol, while the
Asians did not (and it was by admission a generalised statement anyway).
Which is a far cry from your earlier suggestion that Western Europeans
developed, by random, improbable mutation the positive enzyme producing gene
necessary to adapt to alcohol.

Well how about Native Americans - not descended from eastern Asians yet like
the eastern asians lack the capacity to make the enzyme required to process
alcohol. No wait, don't tell me - they also suffered from the exact same
mutation as the Eastern Asians - in fact it's only descendants from Western
Europeans who have the superior genetic structure to resist the mutation.

Post by Mark Addinall

Post by Donald McCaskey
Eh, the creationist theory puts the Garden of Eden in the middle east,

Moses

Post by Donald McCaskey
in Egypt, etc. Or are you claiming the Israelites actually came from
down-town Soho in London?

Eh? What has this got to do with Asians and their lack of ability to process
alcohol like Western Europeans?
--
JimB

You claimed creationists did not think Western Europeans came after the
people from the Middle East. I'm simply showing you that they do.

Don

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Donald McCaskey
Well how about Native Americans - not descended from eastern Asians yet like
the eastern asians lack the capacity to make the enzyme required to process
alcohol. No wait, don't tell me - they also suffered from the exact same
mutation as the Eastern Asians - in fact it's only descendants from Western
Europeans who have the superior genetic structure to resist the mutation.

What about the Native Americans? It really makes no difference where they
came from, because if they ended up with a defective gene then obviously it
cannot be cited as an example of a "positive mutation" or are you going to
tell me otherwise?

Post by Donald McCaskey
You claimed creationists did not think Western Europeans came after the
people from the Middle East. I'm simply showing you that they do.

I didn't claim any such thing, have a read of this statement as proof.
"...Asian races went east, while Western European races went west. One
developed a genetic mutation which impaired their ability to absorb
alcohol - from their middle-eastern forebears, the other did not..."

Now I'd like you to clarify exactly which creationists "generally accepted
that Asian races came before West Europeans..."

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Donald McCaskey
Well how about Native Americans - not descended from eastern Asians yet

like

Post by Donald McCaskey
the eastern asians lack the capacity to make the enzyme required to

process

Post by Donald McCaskey
alcohol. No wait, don't tell me - they also suffered from the exact same
mutation as the Eastern Asians - in fact it's only descendants from

Western

Post by Donald McCaskey
Europeans who have the superior genetic structure to resist the mutation.

What about the Native Americans? It really makes no difference where they
came from, because if they ended up with a defective gene then obviously it
cannot be cited as an example of a "positive mutation" or are you going to
tell me otherwise?

It makes a world of difference. If the Native Americans descended from
Eastern Asians, it would be perfectly feasible to deduce that the Eastern
Asians suffered a mutation that was passed on to their descendants, i.e. the
Native Americans. Unfortunately, Native Americans don't descend from
Eastern Asians.

So, we have three groups of peoples, all descended from a common ancestor
(the peoples of the middle east) but not each other. They are sufficiently
seperated by distance to reduce the likelyhood of coming into contact with
each other.

One group's genetic structure means that they can produce an enzyme that
aids the body's ability to absorb and process alcohol through the production
of the necessary enzymes while the other two groups, as a rule, do not.

Your contention is that we start with all three groups having the enzyme
producing capability and then the two groups that lack the enzyme producing
gene(s) both independantly suffered from the exact same genetic mutation
that affected both groups in exactly the same way and that, somehow, in both
groups this genetic characteristic became dominant throughout the group,
even though there is no rhyme nor reason for this genetic flaw to become
dominant.

My contention, on the other hand, is that we start with none of the groups
having the enzyme producing capability but, through environmental factors
(i.e. the way Western Europeans produced disease-free water led to an
increase in their alcohol intake), one group's genetic structure mutated and
led to the increased ability for the body to process alcohol. This
mutation, being advantageous, spread throughout the group, since those
lacking the enzyme either died from drinking diseased water or were
constantly impaired by alcohol poisoning.

Don

[fritz]

Anti-Multiculty wrote ...
|
| >"fritz" <***@address.com> wrote in message;
| > You have to get over the idea of a 'responsible' designer or god. That is
| > just a delusion that is clouding your thinking.
| > Evolution isn't 'responsible' for anything, it is just the best theory
| > we have at the moment to explain the way life is. It is way, way better
| > than anything the creationists have proposed, including 'intelligent
| design'.
|
| Evolution isn't responsible for anything because it is a complete
| fabrication. There has been *no* conclusive evidence put forward by any
| scientists as to the origin of life on earth, or anywhere else, indeed the
| whole theory is scientifically unsound. People like you are the ones who
| have clouded judgement because you are so keen for an alternative, any
| alternative, that you don't wait for science to prove it.

Evolution is the state-of-the-art. FACT !!!
Are you a creationist ?
Admit it or deny it !

| > The ability of science to analyse DNA has put the final nails in the
| coffins
| > of the fools who still believe in 'creation science'.
| > For a quick explanation of the evolution of diseases go to
| > http://web.onetel.net.uk/~jbwhammond/disevo.htm
|
| On this website, the claim is made that; "..In Escherichia coli a synonymous
| site (where no amino acid change is caused by a base-changing mutation) is
| estimated to mutate once in approximately 1010 years..."

That is 10 to the power 10, a fucking long time.
Yet E-Coli has apparently recently picked up a gene from another bacteria in the
recent past forming the O157 sequence. Go figure.

| Excherichia Coli is a 5000 gene per chromosome colon bacteria which has been
| studied for over a century, and hasn't yet changed into anything else other
| than more Escherichia Coli. The same goes for every other species out there
| you want to throw up as an example, no change into a different species has
| ever taken place.

The process of evolution has certainly taken place.
Witness the diversity of species and the fossil record.
We have not directly observed the emergence of a new species because that takes
a very long time, but we have observed enough supporting scienctific evidence
that clearly indicates evolution is the best theory so far.
Such as the fossil record.
Such as the selective breeding of animals.
Such as the selective cultivation and improvement of crops.

| Consider these words by an evolutionary scientist....
|
| "...The usual answer to this question is that there was plenty of time to
| try everything. I could never accept this answer. Random shuttling of bricks
| will never build a castle or a Greek temple, however long the available
| time. A random process can build meaningful structures only if there is some
| kind of selection between meaningful and nonsense mutations...."-*A.
| Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Evolutionary Paradox and Biological Stability," in
| Molecular Evolution, p. 111.

The fallacy in that quote is that evolution only requires a minor advantage
to be passed on in order to produce a more successful biological system.
The incremental improvements all add up.


| > Now A-M, perhaps you would like to explain why your 'intelligent
| > designer' is such a mean fucking cunt.
|
| Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,
| we have seen the problems of mutation in the countless experiments on the
| fruit fly. All forced mutations on that little critter failed each and every
| time to produce a new species.

Do you really believe in an 'intelligent designer' or not ?
YES OR NO ?

Why are you so obsessed with fruit-flys ? They are at an evolutionary
dead-end, why would you expect them to mutate into a new species ????
Face the facts sonny.
The modern theory of evolution is accepted by all but a few crack-pots.

| > Or you might deny a creator and concede that evolution really is the best
| > scientific explanation we have at present for life as we observe it.
|
| It isn't though, even evolutionary scientists have a hard enough time
| joining the dots.

Put up or shut up.
What theory do YOU propose instead of evolution ?
We are waiting...........

Fritz




| JimB

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by fritz
Evolution is the state-of-the-art. FACT !!!
Are you a creationist ?
Admit it or deny it !

Evolution is nothing of the sort, it is a fable perpetuated by big mouths
like you.

Post by fritz
That is 10 to the power 10, a fucking long time.
Yet E-Coli has apparently recently picked up a gene from another bacteria in the
recent past forming the O157 sequence. Go figure.

Has it turned into a new species of its own accord? Hmm?

Post by fritz
The process of evolution has certainly taken place.

LOL!

Post by fritz
Witness the diversity of species and the fossil record.

Witness what exactly?

Post by fritz
We have not directly observed the emergence of a new species because that takes
a very long time, but we have observed enough supporting scienctific evidence
that clearly indicates evolution is the best theory so far.

How long is a long time, and if it takes a long time, then how do species
survive the change whilst they are "changing"?

Post by fritz
Such as the fossil record.

Fossil records show what exactly?

Post by fritz
Such as the selective breeding of animals.

You mean cross-breeding? LOL!

Post by fritz
Such as the selective cultivation and improvement of crops.

Nothing to do with evolution.

Post by fritz
The fallacy in that quote is that evolution only requires a minor advantage
to be passed on in order to produce a more successful biological system.
The incremental improvements all add up.

It has yet to happen though.

Post by fritz
Why are you so obsessed with fruit-flys ? They are at an evolutionary
dead-end, why would you expect them to mutate into a new species ????

Because they have been studied extensively and were put up as proof of
evolution. Have you done any reading on this issue at all?

Post by fritz
Face the facts sonny. The modern theory of evolution is accepted by all

but a few crack-pots.

Actually it isn't.

Post by fritz
Put up or shut up.
What theory do YOU propose instead of evolution ?
We are waiting...........

Let's not play that game, let's play "I have solid evidence to back up my
theory of evolution and will present it". C'mon, the group is waiting to
hear it......

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Paolo Pizzi]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Evolution is nothing of the sort, it is a fable perpetuated
by big mouths like you.

...while the truth is, OF COURSE, that the universe is only
6,000 years old and was created in six days. Only stupid
idiots like Einstein, Sagan and Hawking would dare to
question that...

[Anti-Multiculty]

Geologists are quite keen on that theory too. What evidence do you have to
the contrary?

Post by Paolo Pizzi
...while the truth is, OF COURSE, that the universe is only
6,000 years old and was created in six days. Only stupid
idiots like Einstein, Sagan and Hawking would dare to
question that...

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Paolo Pizzi]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Geologists are quite keen on that theory too.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Post by Anti-Multiculty
What evidence do you have to the contrary?

What evidence you have that ANY geologist
thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Ever heard of carbon-dating? I guess not.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Paolo Pizzi
...while the truth is, OF COURSE, that the universe is only
6,000 years old and was created in six days. Only stupid
idiots like Einstein, Sagan and Hawking would dare to
question that...

[Arthur Brain]

Carbon-Dating is a flawed method for measuring time.

Yep, I prefer to use the bible, myself, it is much more accurate.

[Andrealphus]

Post by Arthur Brain

Carbon-Dating is a flawed method for measuring time.

Yep, I prefer to use the bible, myself, it is much more accurate.

LOL! I was thinking the same thing. Let's see... A mythos, versus a
scientific approach to dating... I guess I'll have to go with the mythos!
HAHAHAHA!
--
__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."

[Arthur Brain]

Post by Andrealphus

Post by Arthur Brain

Carbon-Dating is a flawed method for measuring time.

Yep, I prefer to use the bible, myself, it is much more accurate.

LOL! I was thinking the same thing. Let's see... A mythos, versus a
scientific approach to dating... I guess I'll have to go with the mythos!
HAHAHAHA!

Yep, it's called Occam's razor : "Always prefer the simplest
explanation" - seeing as the Bible is clearly the preferred text for
simpletons, then it must be accurate.

Logic.

[Mark Addinall]

"Anti-Multiculty" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<DRA1d.166$***@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...

[usual pseudo-scientific babble]

Radiocarbon dating is based on the rate of decay of the unstable
carbon-14 which is produced by cosmic radiation of neutrons in the
upper atmosphere acting on Nitrogen:

14N + n => 14 C + p (p is a proton)

Since plants and animals intake carbon throughout their lives, the
amount of 14C in their bodies remains in equilibrium with the
atmospheric levels of 14C throughout their lifetime. When a plant or
animal dies, it stops intaking carbon dioxide and the amount of 14C
present in their body is reduced as the 14C decays and no additional
14C is incorporated to replace it. This unstable carbon-14 decays by
the following process:

14C => 14 N + b (b is a beta particle, an electron)

The amount of time it takes for half of all the radioactive carbon to
decay is referred to as the half-life. If one knows the atmospheric
level of 14C and measures the amount of 14C in an organic sample,
one can calculate the number of half lifes that have elapsed since
the organism died and estimate the how long ago the organism died.
Since the half-life of carbon is approximately 5730 years, this method
is best used to date objects under 60,000 years old because after 10
or
so half-lives there is just not enough 14C left to be measured
accurately.

There are other radioactive elements with longer half-lives that can
be used to measure older samples.

Radioactive decay is a quantum mechanical process governed by
probability waves. In a short period of time, each radioactive
nucleus has a certain probability of decaying, but whether it actually
does is determined by a random selection. There is some irregularity
introduced into half-life calculations by the quantum randomness.

Good enough however to dispel the silly nonsense that the Earth
and everything else was conjured up on a Wednesday arvo some 6000
years ago.

One thing we can measure with a degree of accuracy not questioned
is the constant ticks of radioactive decay. Molecular clocks
aren't very accurate and carbon dating is limited to a mere
60,000 years, but this sequence of events is a fact:


Element Half life
-----------------------------------
Uranium 238 4,500,000,000,000 years ->
Thorium 234 24 days ->
Protactinum 234 1 minute ->
Uranium 234 245,000 years ->
Thorium 230 76,000 years ->
Radium 226 1,600 years ->
Radon 222 4 days ->
Polonium 218 3 minutes ->
Lead 214 27 minutes ->
Bismuth 214 20 minutes ->
Polonium 214 160 micro seconds ->
Lead 210 22 years ->
Bismuth 210 5 days ->
Polonium 210 138 days ->
Lead 206 Stable

Unless of course you have a "Flood Theory" of Nuclear
and Atomic physics that can be measured by experiment
then I suggest that the lead fishing weight dangling
from my UglyStik appears to be over 4 billion years old
and it was dug out of the ground (by me BTW) at
Mt. Isa.

Current age of the Earth would seem to be 2^30 years, age
of the Universe 2^34 years. Time 'till the end of the
Universe 10^10^76 years, and until our Sun goes ***BOOM***,
another 2^30 years.

Now, beggars the question, what does your gross ignorance
of any modern science have in common with the good that
is a multicultured society? And why is it posted
to aus.politics?

"Men occasionally stumble on the truth,
but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off
as if nothing had happened. -WC"

Mark Addinall

[Anti-Multiculty]

Mark, you're plagiarism falls apart because of the fact that rate of decay
for
uranium is not known. This is because the decaying uranium lacks the
necessary
closed system necessary to keep decay consistent.

Here is another interesting part.

"...this method is best used to date objects under 60,000 years old because
after 10
or so half-lives there is just not enough 14C left to be measured
accurately..."

Err...so how do we get figures of over five billion out of that?

Obviously it should be apparent, even to you, that these circumstances make
carbon-dating useless as a measuring device and they certainly don't do
anything to substantiate the bizarre hoax of evolution.

[start usual pseudo-scientific babble]
Radiocarbon dating is based on the rate of decay of the unstable
carbon-14 which is produced by cosmic radiation of neutrons in the
14N + n => 14 C + p (p is a proton)
Since plants and animals intake carbon throughout their lives, the
amount of 14C in their bodies remains in equilibrium with the
atmospheric levels of 14C throughout their lifetime. When a plant or
animal dies, it stops intaking carbon dioxide and the amount of 14C
present in their body is reduced as the 14C decays and no additional
14C is incorporated to replace it. This unstable carbon-14 decays by
14C => 14 N + b (b is a beta particle, an electron)
The amount of time it takes for half of all the radioactive carbon to
decay is referred to as the half-life. If one knows the atmospheric
level of 14C and measures the amount of 14C in an organic sample,
one can calculate the number of half lifes that have elapsed since
the organism died and estimate the how long ago the organism died.
Since the half-life of carbon is approximately 5730 years, this method
is best used to date objects under 60,000 years old because after 10
or
so half-lives there is just not enough 14C left to be measured
accurately.
There are other radioactive elements with longer half-lives that can
be used to measure older samples.
Radioactive decay is a quantum mechanical process governed by
probability waves. In a short period of time, each radioactive
nucleus has a certain probability of decaying, but whether it actually
does is determined by a random selection. There is some irregularity
introduced into half-life calculations by the quantum randomness.
Good enough however to dispel the silly nonsense that the Earth
and everything else was conjured up on a Wednesday arvo some 6000
years ago.
One thing we can measure with a degree of accuracy not questioned
is the constant ticks of radioactive decay. Molecular clocks
aren't very accurate and carbon dating is limited to a mere
Element Half life
-----------------------------------
Uranium 238 4,500,000,000,000 years ->
Thorium 234 24 days ->
Protactinum 234 1 minute ->
Uranium 234 245,000 years ->
Thorium 230 76,000 years ->
Radium 226 1,600 years ->
Radon 222 4 days ->
Polonium 218 3 minutes ->
Lead 214 27 minutes ->
Bismuth 214 20 minutes ->
Polonium 214 160 micro seconds ->
Lead 210 22 years ->
Bismuth 210 5 days ->
Polonium 210 138 days ->
Lead 206 Stable
Unless of course you have a "Flood Theory" of Nuclear
and Atomic physics that can be measured by experiment
then I suggest that the lead fishing weight dangling
from my UglyStik appears to be over 4 billion years old
and it was dug out of the ground (by me BTW) at
Mt. Isa.
Current age of the Earth would seem to be 2^30 years, age
of the Universe 2^34 years. Time 'till the end of the
Universe 10^10^76 years, and until our Sun goes ***BOOM***,
another 2^30 years.
Now, beggars the question, what does your gross ignorance
of any modern science have in common with the good that
is a multicultured society? And why is it posted
to aus.politics?

Tsk, Tsk....why didn't you credit the persons work Mark?

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Geologists are quite keen on that theory too. What evidence do you have to
the contrary?

If the universe were only 6000 years old, and events unfolded as described
in Genesis, we run into a number of problems. Many of the evens described,
most notable the Flood and the Tower of Babel, occur at a time when there
are record-keeping civilisations in the same region these events are
supposed to take place.

Using the geneology provided in Genesis chapter 5, for example, it's fairly
east to work out the date of the Flood (2348 BC - 2347 BC). Unfortunately,
the Egypians had had a civilisation for approx 572 years by this time and
were in the middle of their 5th Dynasty. Their records make no mention of a
universal flood at this time.

Further on in the Book of Genesis, there is the story of the Tower of Babel:
"and the whole Earth was of one language and of one speech (Genesis 11:1).
The King James Bible places this story around 2218 BC (again based on the
notion that the universe is a mere 6000 years old). Again, we have
problems, the least of which is that several languages were not only spoken
at this time but several competing written languages also existed (evidence
points to writing having been invented nearly a millennium earlier).
Historical records from the Egyptian 6th Dynasty and the business records
from Mesopotamia date from this time (and even earlier).

Leaving aside the book of Genesis, lets look at the big picture.

Astronomy gives us several independent types of measurements. One is the
simple observation of the large Magellanic Cloud - the measurement of which
gives an age of the Earth as being around 4.5 billion years old (and the
universe even older) [Cole, Andrew A., 2000. The distance to the Large
Magellanic Cloud. Science 289: 1149-1150.] This is based on the idea that
light takes a finite time to reach earth. If we can work out the distance
of a far away object, then we know how long light from the object will take
to reach earth. Since some objects are more than 6000 light years away, the
earth can't be only 6000 years old. QED.

Now you claimed that geologists supported your view. You can't name them or
provide links to their testimony but you made the claim anyway. Now, the
geologists that I've researched say completely different things:

James Hutton, Father of Geology (Scotland), 1726-1797, published Theory of
the Earth in 1785. He had observed Hadrian's Wall, build by the Romans 1500
years previously and found that the rocks had not changed, leading him to
believe the Earth must by much, much older than Hadrian's Wall since his
research concolded that slow processes shape earth, mountains arise
continuously as a balance against erosion and weathering. He created the
Doctrine of Uniformitarianism: "Present is Key to the Past", along with the
discovering that the physical and chemical laws that govern nature are
uniform.

In 1887, Lord Kelvin assumed that the Earth was originally molten and
calculated a date based on cooling through conduction and radiation, making
the Age of Earth to be about 24-40 million years. The problem was that
Earth has an internal heat source (radioactive decay) and this timeline did
not take that into account.

In 1899-1901, John Joly or Ireland calculated the rate of delivery of salt
to the ocean. River water has only a small concentration of salts. Rivers
flow to the sea. Evaporative concentration of salts.

Age of Ocean = Total salt in oceans (in grams) divided by rate of salt added
(grams per year)

Age of Earth was calculated to be 90-100 million years.

Problems: no way to account for recycled salt, salt incorporated into clay
minerals, salt deposits.

Thickness of total sedimentary record divided by average sedimentation rates
(in mm/yr). In 1860, calculated to be about 3 million years old. In 1910,
calculated to be about 1.6 billion years old.

Early measurements of maximum thickness of sediment ranged from 25,000 m to
112,000 m. With more recent mapping, thickness of fossiliferous rocks is at
least 150,000 m.

Sedimentation rates average about 0.3 m/1000 years.

At this rate, the age of the first fossiliferous rocks is about 500 million
years.

Problems: did not account for past erosion or differences in sedimentation
rates; also ancient sedimentary rocks are metamorphosed or melted.

Charles Lyell 1800's compared amount of evolution shown by marine mollusks
in the various series of the Tertiary System with the amount that had
occurred since the beginning of the Pleistocene. Estimated 80 million years
for the Cenozoic alone.

Discovery of radioactivity by Henri Becquerel in 1896. In 1905, Rutherford
and Boltwood used radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks and
minerals. Uranium decay produces He, leading to a date of 500 million years.

In 1907, Boltwood suspected that lead was the stable end product of the
decay of uranium. Published the age of a sample of urananite based on
Uranium-Lead dating. Date was 1.64 billion years.

So far, oldest dated Earth rocks are 3.96 billion years.
Older rocks include meteorites and moon rocks with dates on the order of 4.6
billion years.
Moon rocks, highland ~ 4.5 by, mare basalt ~ 3.2 - 3.8 by
Meteorites - older than 4.5 by

So far from agreeing on 6000 years old, the history of geology is one where
the age of the Earth keeps being estimated upwards.

Now, you have demanded evidence, I, along with others, have shown you mine,
time for you to show us yours.

Don

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Donald McCaskey
Leaving aside the book of Genesis, lets look at the big picture.

Yes, it has nothing to do with proving evolution to be fact as you have been
challenged.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Astronomy gives us several independent types of measurements. One is the
simple observation of the large Magellanic Cloud - the measurement of which
gives an age of the Earth as being around 4.5 billion years old (and the
universe even older) [Cole, Andrew A., 2000. The distance to the Large
Magellanic Cloud. Science 289: 1149-1150.] This is based on the idea that
light takes a finite time to reach earth. If we can work out the distance
of a far away object, then we know how long light from the object will take
to reach earth. Since some objects are more than 6000 light years away, the
earth can't be only 6000 years old. QED.
Now you claimed that geologists supported your view. You can't name them or
provide links to their testimony but you made the claim anyway. Now, the

As we know, long ages do not prove evolution, but without them theories like
evolution could not succeed, bearing this in mind this is the sort of
variation we get with regards to measuring the age of the earth....

"...In 1862, Thompson said the earth was 20 million years old. In 1897, he
doubled it to 40 million. Two years later, J. Joly said it was 90 million.
Rayleigh, in 1921, upped it to 1 billion. Eleven years later, W.O. Hotchkiss
moved the figure up to 1.6 billion. A Holmes in 1947, decided it was 3.35
billion; and, in 1956, raised it to 4.5 billion. Just now, it stands at 5
billion...."

Even with all this "evidence" they can't come up with a definite number as
to the age of the earth.

Post by Donald McCaskey
James Hutton, Father of Geology (Scotland), 1726-1797, published Theory of
the Earth in 1785. He had observed Hadrian's Wall, build by the Romans 1500
years previously and found that the rocks had not changed, leading him to
believe the Earth must by much, much older than Hadrian's Wall since his
research concolded that slow processes shape earth, mountains arise
continuously as a balance against erosion and weathering. He created the
Doctrine of Uniformitarianism: "Present is Key to the Past", along with the
discovering that the physical and chemical laws that govern nature are
uniform.

He can observe what he likes, and come up with any conclusion or doctrine he
likes. It doesn't make it fact, neither does it prove the theory of
evolution to be correct.

Post by Donald McCaskey
In 1887, Lord Kelvin assumed that the Earth was originally molten and
calculated a date based on cooling through conduction and radiation, making
the Age of Earth to be about 24-40 million years. The problem was that
Earth has an internal heat source (radioactive decay) and this timeline did
not take that into account.

Evidently.......

Post by Donald McCaskey
In 1899-1901, John Joly or Ireland calculated the rate of delivery of salt
to the ocean. River water has only a small concentration of salts. Rivers
flow to the sea. Evaporative concentration of salts.
Age of Ocean = Total salt in oceans (in grams) divided by rate of salt added
(grams per year)
Age of Earth was calculated to be 90-100 million years.
Problems: no way to account for recycled salt, salt incorporated into clay
minerals, salt deposits.

90-100 million years now? ... anyways, seems he missed out vital parts of
the natural salt cycle before arriving at his guesstimate.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Thickness of total sedimentary record divided by average sedimentation rates
(in mm/yr). In 1860, calculated to be about 3 million years old. In 1910,
calculated to be about 1.6 billion years old.
Early measurements of maximum thickness of sediment ranged from 25,000 m to
112,000 m. With more recent mapping, thickness of fossiliferous rocks is at
least 150,000 m.
Sedimentation rates average about 0.3 m/1000 years.
At this rate, the age of the first fossiliferous rocks is about 500 million
years.
Problems: did not account for past erosion or differences in sedimentation
rates; also ancient sedimentary rocks are metamorphosed or melted.

LOL!!! Oh dear.......

Post by Donald McCaskey
Charles Lyell 1800's compared amount of evolution shown by marine mollusks
in the various series of the Tertiary System with the amount that had
occurred since the beginning of the Pleistocene. Estimated 80 million years
for the Cenozoic alone.

How did he arrive at 80 million years when there was no evidence of marine
mollusks evolution? Remember what A.H Clarke said?

"...All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to
each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic
column] . . Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have
always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is
not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint."-*A.H. Clark,
The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114...."

Post by Donald McCaskey
Discovery of radioactivity by Henri Becquerel in 1896. In 1905, Rutherford
and Boltwood used radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks and
minerals. Uranium decay produces He, leading to a date of 500 million years.
In 1907, Boltwood suspected that lead was the stable end product of the
decay of uranium. Published the age of a sample of urananite based on
Uranium-Lead dating. Date was 1.64 billion years.

Uranium-Lead dating is flawed as it can never be proven to have come from a
closed-source. The date given therefore is irrelevant.

Post by Donald McCaskey
So far, oldest dated Earth rocks are 3.96 billion years.
Older rocks include meteorites and moon rocks with dates on the order of 4.6
billion years.
Moon rocks, highland ~ 4.5 by, mare basalt ~ 3.2 - 3.8 by
Meteorites - older than 4.5 by

What exactly does this bit mean and err....prove?

Post by Donald McCaskey
So far from agreeing on 6000 years old, the history of geology is one where
the age of the Earth keeps being estimated upwards.
Now, you have demanded evidence, I, along with others, have shown you mine,
time for you to show us yours.

I want to know where you copied and pasted all ths gibberish from though.
Seems to me you were hoping a quite bit of plagerism which you haven't
pre-read would win the day for you. How about we start getting serious with
some proof of the existence of evolution? hmm?

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
How about we start getting serious with
some proof of the existence of evolution? hmm?

Is it possible, even in principle, to prove it to you?

Anything we produce could be explained by the existence of Go... er,
sorry, I mean an intelligent designer. Even the mamalian eye, provided
the designer isn't that intelligent (it's not a very good design for an
eye).

Sylvia.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Go on.....what about it?

Post by Sylvia Else
Is it possible, even in principle, to prove it to you?
Anything we produce could be explained by the existence of Go... er,
sorry, I mean an intelligent designer. Even the mamalian eye, provided
the designer isn't that intelligent (it's not a very good design for an
eye).
Sylvia.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Go on.....what about it?

Post by Sylvia Else
Is it possible, even in principle, to prove it to you?
Anything we produce could be explained by the existence of Go... er,
sorry, I mean an intelligent designer. Even the mamalian eye, provided
the designer isn't that intelligent (it's not a very good design for an
eye).
Sylvia.

What about what?

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Go on.....what about it?

Post by Sylvia Else
Is it possible, even in principle, to prove it to you?
Anything we produce could be explained by the existence of Go... er,
sorry, I mean an intelligent designer. Even the mamalian eye, provided
the designer isn't that intelligent (it's not a very good design for an
eye).

You mean what about the mamalian eye?

Are you seriously telling us that you've entered a debate about
evolution v intelligent design without being aware of the issues with
the eye?

I don't believe you.

Sylvia.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Nor should you, given your earlier plea that I not automatically jump to a
conclusion about a persons position based on a few words or thoughts, I
thought I would wait for you to explain your position in this instance
fully. Please continue, what is your argument pertaining to the "Mammalian
eye"?

Post by Sylvia Else
Are you seriously telling us that you've entered a debate about
evolution v intelligent design without being aware of the issues with
the eye?
I don't believe you.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Nor should you, given your earlier plea that I not automatically jump to a
conclusion about a persons position based on a few words or thoughts, I
thought I would wait for you to explain your position in this instance
fully. Please continue, what is your argument pertaining to the "Mammalian
eye"?

<sigh> These things are well documented. Oh well...

1. The retinal surface is back to front, with the nerves leading out
into the front of the retina, thus partly obscuring the arriving light.
They also have to converge on a spot in the retina (the blind spot)
where they pass through it. The fact that they traverse the front of the
retina is futher detrimental to the function of the eye, because they
limit the acquity. Finally the blind spot is an area that the eye cannot
see at all. Although it is in the periphery of the eye, it still
represents a location at which a possible indication of a threat can be
missed.

2. The retina lies on the rear of the eyeball, but is not attached to
it. It is just held there by the pressure of the liquid in the eye. This
makes it more vulnerable to damage, where it can pull away from the rear
of the eyeball, and lose its function.

These defects do not look like the consequence of intelligent design, or
at least, not competent design. This structure is not present in certain
non-mamals animals that have simple eyes, which raises the question of
why we have two (at least) different designs for simple eyes.

Indeed, why do all mammals have this same flawed design?

But you knew all this already, right?

So what's the counter argument? That the designer built these flaws in
as a test?

Sylvia.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Sylvia Else
These defects do not look like the consequence of intelligent design, or
at least, not competent design.

Very arrogant position to take - considering that the eye has served every
creature well for centuries upon centuries and you yourself would be
severely handicapped without the set you have on your face.

Post by Sylvia Else
This structure is not present in certain non-mamals animals that have

simple

Post by Sylvia Else
eyes, which raises the question of why we have two (at least) different

designs

Post by Sylvia Else
for simple eyes.

There are many different types of eyes, depending on the creature in
question, all work well for their own needs.

Post by Sylvia Else
Indeed, why do all mammals have this same flawed design?
But you knew all this already, right?

I have heard these arguments before, yes.

Post by Sylvia Else
So what's the counter argument? That the designer built these flaws in
as a test?

No, it is a simple matter of genetics, all copies we make (breed) of
whatever creature carries genetic deficiencies down to the next generation,
some deficiencies are more acute than others. But answer me this, obviously
you believe that evolution created the eye. This being the case why do you
cling to the belief that evolution produces positive changes when by your
own admission the eye as we know it today is "a flawed design"? Why hasn't
evolution developed the means necessary to produce something better than
this "incompetent design"?

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Sylvia Else
These defects do not look like the consequence of intelligent design, or
at least, not competent design.

Very arrogant position to take - considering that the eye has served every
creature well for centuries upon centuries and you yourself would be
severely handicapped without the set you have on your face.

The mamalian eye is adequate. In same way that Microsoft Windows XP is
adequate. Neither is perfect, and both could have been done better.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Sylvia Else
This structure is not present in certain non-mamals animals that have

simple

Post by Sylvia Else
eyes, which raises the question of why we have two (at least) different

designs

Post by Sylvia Else
for simple eyes.

There are many different types of eyes, depending on the creature in
question, all work well for their own needs.

Post by Sylvia Else
Indeed, why do all mammals have this same flawed design?
But you knew all this already, right?

I have heard these arguments before, yes.

Post by Sylvia Else
So what's the counter argument? That the designer built these flaws in
as a test?

No, it is a simple matter of genetics, all copies we make (breed) of
whatever creature carries genetic deficiencies down to the next generation,
some deficiencies are more acute than others.

That's an odd argument. If there was an intelligent design why are these
deficiencies there in the first place?

Post by Anti-Multiculty
But answer me this, obviously
you believe that evolution created the eye. This being the case why do you
cling to the belief that evolution produces positive changes when by your
own admission the eye as we know it today is "a flawed design"? Why hasn't
evolution developed the means necessary to produce something better than
this "incompetent design"?

Evolution is not a process that moves towards some notion of perfection,
nor that 'produces' positive changes. Indeed, it is arguably not a
process at all. It is merely an outcome. The creatures alive at any
point in time are those whose ancestors have living descendants.

Each mutation is purely random. When a mutation occurs, it tends to
spread if it provides its owners with a benefit compared with those that
lack the mutation. Again, there is no mechanism here, it's simply an
outcome. The creatures with the beneficial mutation are more likely to
survive long enough to reproduce, or are able to produce more surviving
offspring (which is really just another way of saying the same thing).
Given that there can only be so many of a given creature, due to
resource limitations, the long downstream population consists entirely
of individuals with the mutation.

Sometimes the result is a dead end. The creature is so tuned to its
environment that it is devastated when something unexpected happens, and
an entire species becomes extinct. It's happened over and over.

As for the eye, there is no plausible path involving a series of
mutations that leads from the current mamalian structure to a better
design that reverses the light sensors and puts the nerves on the back
of the retina, but which - and this is the important bit - does not
involve intermediate steps (such as being blind) that would be
detrimental. So it doesn't happen, no matter how desirable it might seem.

On the attachment of the retina, or lack thereof, the problem does not
seem to arise in relatively young (ie reproductive) individuals, so
having an attached retina would not provide a survival benefit. The
extra tissue would have an energy cost, so on balance, from an
evolutionary perspective, having an attached retina may very well
produce a negative effect.

Sylvia.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Sylvia Else
The mamalian eye is adequate. In same way that Microsoft Windows XP is
adequate. Neither is perfect, and both could have been done better.

Again, your opinion and an arrogant one at that. Too busy picking out its
failings you fail to see what benefit it has given you in your life. Besides
with no evolution on the horizon to make 'em better, you are just going to
have to get used to its "inadequecies" as they are.

Post by Sylvia Else
That's an odd argument. If there was an intelligent design why are these
deficiencies there in the first place?

How do you know there were any in the first place?

Post by Sylvia Else
Evolution is not a process that moves towards some notion of perfection,
nor that 'produces' positive changes. Indeed, it is arguably not a
process at all. It is merely an outcome. The creatures alive at any
point in time are those whose ancestors have living descendants.

Positive change is exactly what evolution hinges on, it says "fish wanted to
go on land, therefore they grew legs to accomodate it."

Post by Sylvia Else
Each mutation is purely random. When a mutation occurs, it tends to
spread if it provides its owners with a benefit compared with those that
lack the mutation. Again, there is no mechanism here, it's simply an
outcome. The creatures with the beneficial mutation are more likely to
survive long enough to reproduce, or are able to produce more surviving
offspring (which is really just another way of saying the same thing).
Given that there can only be so many of a given creature, due to
resource limitations, the long downstream population consists entirely
of individuals with the mutation.

Funny I had another guy in another thread go to great pains to tell me that
environmental evolution is not "random", can you clarify?

Post by Sylvia Else
Sometimes the result is a dead end. The creature is so tuned to its
environment that it is devastated when something unexpected happens, and
an entire species becomes extinct. It's happened over and over.

Sorry you lost me, you attribute a perceived lack of positive change on a
animal with
its extinction? Give me some examples.

Post by Sylvia Else
As for the eye, there is no plausible path involving a series of
mutations that leads from the current mamalian structure to a better
design that reverses the light sensors and puts the nerves on the back
of the retina, but which - and this is the important bit - does not
involve intermediate steps (such as being blind) that would be
detrimental. So it doesn't happen, no matter how desirable it might seem.
On the attachment of the retina, or lack thereof, the problem does not
seem to arise in relatively young (ie reproductive) individuals, so
having an attached retina would not provide a survival benefit. The
extra tissue would have an energy cost, so on balance, from an
evolutionary perspective, having an attached retina may very well
produce a negative effect.

Stop pontificating about it, design a better one.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Arthur Brain]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Positive change is exactly what evolution hinges on, it says "fish wanted to
go on land, therefore they grew legs to accomodate it."

Absolute rubbish. Evolution occurs when a mutation provides an
individual with access to resources in a way that gives that
individual some sort of advantage over the rest of its species in a
way that improves its chances of passing on its genes to further
individuals that will likewise profit.

That's the theory, anyway, and it fits in nicely with what we can
observe.

If you have a look at some fish, which are living in particularly dry
environments, you will see that some of them exhibit the ability
1/ survive for a long time out of water
2/ walk on their fins

The mutations which make either of these possible would go unnoticed
in a population which does not live in an environment where such
mutations would be of any use.

Such mutations can, however, give individuals of a species the ability
to consume resources that are outside of the range of the normal
habitat for its species.

I nice example of this is the long necks of some Tortoises and
mammals.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Arthur Brain
Absolute rubbish. Evolution occurs when a mutation provides an
individual with access to resources in a way that gives that
individual some sort of advantage over the rest of its species in a
way that improves its chances of passing on its genes to further
individuals that will likewise profit.

Although in Biology, a mutation is defined as "a complete divergence from
type which
may ultimately give rise to a new species..." Which species have we seen do
change type and create a whole new species, hmm?

Post by Arthur Brain
That's the theory, anyway, and it fits in nicely with what we can
observe.
If you have a look at some fish, which are living in particularly dry
environments, you will see that some of them exhibit the ability
1/ survive for a long time out of water
2/ walk on their fins

Which fish would these be?

Post by Arthur Brain
The mutations which make either of these possible would go unnoticed
in a population which does not live in an environment where such
mutations would be of any use.
Such mutations can, however, give individuals of a species the ability
to consume resources that are outside of the range of the normal
habitat for its species.
I nice example of this is the long necks of some Tortoises and
mammals.

Oh dear....thought you were going to give me an example as to the origin of
species there for a second, not point out variations of the same. LOL!

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Sylvia Else
The mamalian eye is adequate. In same way that Microsoft Windows XP is
adequate. Neither is perfect, and both could have been done better.

Again, your opinion and an arrogant one at that. Too busy picking out its
failings you fail to see what benefit it has given you in your life. Besides
with no evolution on the horizon to make 'em better, you are just going to
have to get used to its "inadequecies" as they are.

The point at issue here, lest you've already forgotten, is whether the
mamalian eye represents the best design for an eye, and if not, what
that says about the hypothesis that the eye is the result of intelligent
design. The fact that the eye functions is not in dispute.

I have outlined some of its defects that certainly result in lower
sensitivity, must have some impact on resolution, and compromise vision
in two part of the visual space.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Sylvia Else
That's an odd argument. If there was an intelligent design why are these
deficiencies there in the first place?

How do you know there were any in the first place?

Post by Sylvia Else
Evolution is not a process that moves towards some notion of perfection,
nor that 'produces' positive changes. Indeed, it is arguably not a
process at all. It is merely an outcome. The creatures alive at any
point in time are those whose ancestors have living descendants.

Positive change is exactly what evolution hinges on, it says "fish wanted to
go on land, therefore they grew legs to accomodate it."

I don't believe even you think that's what the theory says. That's a
most dishonest strawman.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Sylvia Else
Each mutation is purely random. When a mutation occurs, it tends to
spread if it provides its owners with a benefit compared with those that
lack the mutation. Again, there is no mechanism here, it's simply an
outcome. The creatures with the beneficial mutation are more likely to
survive long enough to reproduce, or are able to produce more surviving
offspring (which is really just another way of saying the same thing).
Given that there can only be so many of a given creature, due to
resource limitations, the long downstream population consists entirely
of individuals with the mutation.

Funny I had another guy in another thread go to great pains to tell me that
environmental evolution is not "random", can you clarify?

I am not responsible for what other people say, and in any case, such a
statement out of context is not usefully meaningful. The events that
change genes are random. One DNA base gets damaged, or the copying
process gets disrupted, so that when the DNA gets copied, the copy
contains a different base pair. The effect this has on a individual
inheriting that gene can vary from none at all to hugely beneficial to
immediately fatal.

One the other hand, because detrimental mutations have the effect of
eliminating themselves from the gene pool (this being the effective
definition of 'detrimental'), only the beneficial, or positive, changes
get retained. From this perspective (ie, after some reproductive cycles)
only the positive changes are seen, so mutations are not conserved
randomly - only the positive ones are conserved. In this sense mutations
are not random.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Sylvia Else
Sometimes the result is a dead end. The creature is so tuned to its
environment that it is devastated when something unexpected happens, and
an entire species becomes extinct. It's happened over and over.

Sorry you lost me, you attribute a perceived lack of positive change on a
animal with
its extinction? Give me some examples.

That's not what I meant (nor even what I said). For example, evolution
might adapt you to be very sucessful, but dependent on a single type of
food. When that food is readily available, specialising in it makes your
more efficient. But then you're very vulnerable as a species if that
food becomes unavailable for any reason. Prior to that event, the
mutuations are beneficial, but subsequently they must be seen as
detrimental. Benefit and detriment are contextual. Consider Giant Pandas
and their dependence on Bamboo.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Sylvia Else
As for the eye, there is no plausible path involving a series of
mutations that leads from the current mamalian structure to a better
design that reverses the light sensors and puts the nerves on the back
of the retina, but which - and this is the important bit - does not
involve intermediate steps (such as being blind) that would be
detrimental. So it doesn't happen, no matter how desirable it might seem.
On the attachment of the retina, or lack thereof, the problem does not
seem to arise in relatively young (ie reproductive) individuals, so
having an attached retina would not provide a survival benefit. The
extra tissue would have an energy cost, so on balance, from an
evolutionary perspective, having an attached retina may very well
produce a negative effect.

Stop pontificating about it, design a better one.

Take the existing one, reverse the retina putting the light sensors at
the front, and eliminating the blind spots. There, easy, and some
invertebrate eyes are like that. I'd also attach the retina to the back
of the eye. So what was your intelligent designer doing when he produced
the existing kuldge? Had a bad night?

Sylvia.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Sylvia Else
The point at issue here, lest you've already forgotten, is whether the
mamalian eye represents the best design for an eye, and if not, what
that says about the hypothesis that the eye is the result of intelligent
design. The fact that the eye functions is not in dispute.

It is all a bit post-modern and deconstructionist in all honesty Sylvia.
Something that is so marvelously complex, able and without comparison
reduced to a sort of negative agnostic/atheist colourless pulp. But, as the
saying goes, "any old donkey can knock down a barn..."

Post by Sylvia Else
I have outlined some of its defects that certainly result in lower
sensitivity, must have some impact on resolution, and compromise vision
in two part of the visual space.

Good for you. Now give me a list of benefits which the eye gives us.

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Sylvia Else
That's an odd argument. If there was an intelligent design why are these
deficiencies there in the first place?

How do you know there were any in the first place?

Ah...you missed this one.

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Positive change is exactly what evolution hinges on, it says "fish wanted to
go on land, therefore they grew legs to accomodate it."

I don't believe even you think that's what the theory says. That's a
most dishonest strawman.

So it was an involuntary decision to grow legs and go on land?

Post by Sylvia Else
I am not responsible for what other people say, and in any case, such a
statement out of context is not usefully meaningful.

LOL! Predictable response.

Post by Sylvia Else
The events that change genes are random. One DNA base gets damaged,
or the copying process gets disrupted, so that when the DNA gets copied,

the copy

Post by Sylvia Else
contains a different base pair. The effect this has on a individual
inheriting that gene can vary from none at all to hugely beneficial to
immediately fatal.

And where has it been seen to produce beneficial results?

Post by Sylvia Else
One the other hand, because detrimental mutations have the effect of
eliminating themselves from the gene pool (this being the effective
definition of 'detrimental'), only the beneficial, or positive, changes
get retained. From this perspective (ie, after some reproductive cycles)
only the positive changes are seen, so mutations are not conserved
randomly - only the positive ones are conserved. In this sense mutations
are not random.

All sounds rather text-book perfect really. So, only beneficial changes
remain and negative changes get discarded....which brings us back to the
same question, why do we have such "inadequate eyes" if all negative effects
are discarded?

Post by Sylvia Else
That's not what I meant (nor even what I said). For example, evolution
might adapt you to be very sucessful, but dependent on a single type of
food. When that food is readily available, specialising in it makes your
more efficient. But then you're very vulnerable as a species if that
food becomes unavailable for any reason. Prior to that event, the
mutuations are beneficial, but subsequently they must be seen as
detrimental. Benefit and detriment are contextual. Consider Giant Pandas
and their dependence on Bamboo.

Panda's like Bamboos and I like steak and chips.....and this is supposed to
be evolution in action?

Post by Sylvia Else
Take the existing one, reverse the retina putting the light sensors at
the front, and eliminating the blind spots. There, easy, and some
invertebrate eyes are like that. I'd also attach the retina to the back
of the eye. So what was your intelligent designer doing when he produced
the existing kuldge? Had a bad night?

Easy as that eh? Why don't you go and do it? Your talents as an eye
specialist are wasted on newsgroups like these.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Ned Latham]

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Sylvia Else
The mamalian eye is adequate. In same way that Microsoft Windows
XP is adequate. Neither is perfect, and both could have been done
better.

Again, your opinion

No. Simple fact.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
and an arrogant one at that.

No. Just solid thinking.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Too busy picking out its
failings

With "its failings", you're agreeing that it's not perfect.

----snip----

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Positive change is exactly what evolution hinges on, it says "fish
wanted to go on land, therefore they grew legs to accomodate it."

False. That's a teleological statement. The theory of evolution does
not postulate purpose.

----snip----

Ned

[Ned Latham]

Sylvia Else wrote in <4148c7dd$0$1926$***@news.optusnet.com.au>:

----snip----

Post by Sylvia Else
Each mutation is purely random.

In the sense that we can't predict it, yes.

Post by Sylvia Else
When a mutation occurs, it tends to
spread if it provides its owners with a benefit compared with those
that lack the mutation.

There's more to it than that. It tends to spread if it doesn't reduce
its bearers' reproductive potential.

Post by Sylvia Else
Again, there is no mechanism here, it's simply
an outcome.

Yes.

----snip----

Ned

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Donald McCaskey
Leaving aside the book of Genesis, lets look at the big picture.

Yes, it has nothing to do with proving evolution to be fact as you have been
challenged.

No, you made the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old and that this
date is accepted by geologists. Since the 6000 year old figure comes
initially from the bible, I started my argument there. The fact you choose
to ignore that tells its own story.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Donald McCaskey
Astronomy gives us several independent types of measurements. One is the
simple observation of the large Magellanic Cloud - the measurement of

which

Post by Donald McCaskey
gives an age of the Earth as being around 4.5 billion years old (and the
universe even older) [Cole, Andrew A., 2000. The distance to the Large
Magellanic Cloud. Science 289: 1149-1150.] This is based on the idea that
light takes a finite time to reach earth. If we can work out the distance
of a far away object, then we know how long light from the object will

take

Post by Donald McCaskey
to reach earth. Since some objects are more than 6000 light years away,

the

Post by Donald McCaskey
earth can't be only 6000 years old. QED.
Now you claimed that geologists supported your view. You can't name them

or

Post by Donald McCaskey
provide links to their testimony but you made the claim anyway. Now, the

As we know, long ages do not prove evolution, but without them theories like
evolution could not succeed, bearing this in mind this is the sort of
variation we get with regards to measuring the age of the earth....

Well at the moment we are dealing with the age of the earth, which you claim
(without offering any sort of proof) to be 6000 years old. The astronomy
evidence alone basically blows this figure out of the water so it's telling
that you choose not to tackle that evidence and try to throw up a smoke
screen instead.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
"...In 1862, Thompson said the earth was 20 million years old. In 1897, he
doubled it to 40 million. Two years later, J. Joly said it was 90 million.
Rayleigh, in 1921, upped it to 1 billion. Eleven years later, W.O. Hotchkiss
moved the figure up to 1.6 billion. A Holmes in 1947, decided it was 3.35
billion; and, in 1956, raised it to 4.5 billion. Just now, it stands at 5
billion...."
Even with all this "evidence" they can't come up with a definite number as
to the age of the earth.

True, they can't but what is equally true is that not one geologist of
repute said the earth is 6000 years old (unless you have evidence to the
contrary [don't laugh, readers, it's perfectly plausible that JimB would
actually use evidence to support his argument]).

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Donald McCaskey
James Hutton, Father of Geology (Scotland), 1726-1797, published Theory of
the Earth in 1785. He had observed Hadrian's Wall, build by the Romans

1500

Post by Donald McCaskey
years previously and found that the rocks had not changed, leading him to
believe the Earth must by much, much older than Hadrian's Wall since his
research concolded that slow processes shape earth, mountains arise
continuously as a balance against erosion and weathering. He created the
Doctrine of Uniformitarianism: "Present is Key to the Past", along with

the

Post by Donald McCaskey
discovering that the physical and chemical laws that govern nature are
uniform.

He can observe what he likes, and come up with any conclusion or doctrine he
likes. It doesn't make it fact, neither does it prove the theory of
evolution to be correct.

Post by Donald McCaskey
In 1887, Lord Kelvin assumed that the Earth was originally molten and
calculated a date based on cooling through conduction and radiation,

making

Post by Donald McCaskey
the Age of Earth to be about 24-40 million years. The problem was that
Earth has an internal heat source (radioactive decay) and this timeline

did

Post by Donald McCaskey
not take that into account.

Evidently.......

And do you know what the effect of taking into account the internal heat
source? It would take even longer for the molten rock to cool and harden,
so instead of taking 24-40 million years, we are into the realms of hundreds
of millions of years.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Donald McCaskey
In 1899-1901, John Joly or Ireland calculated the rate of delivery of salt
to the ocean. River water has only a small concentration of salts. Rivers
flow to the sea. Evaporative concentration of salts.
Age of Ocean = Total salt in oceans (in grams) divided by rate of salt

added

Post by Donald McCaskey
(grams per year)
Age of Earth was calculated to be 90-100 million years.
Problems: no way to account for recycled salt, salt incorporated into clay
minerals, salt deposits.

90-100 million years now? ... anyways, seems he missed out vital parts of
the natural salt cycle before arriving at his guesstimate.

Yes he did. And what happens if we facter that in? Why we see the earth
must be a lot older than 90-100 million years.

We'll skip the rest of the evidence I presented since it's obvious you're
from the "ny-ah, ny-ah, I'm no listening" school of debating.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
I want to know where you copied and pasted all ths gibberish from though.
Seems to me you were hoping a quite bit of plagerism which you haven't
pre-read would win the day for you. How about we start getting serious with
some proof of the existence of evolution? hmm?
--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty
"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

How about we start with you presenting some evidence from your assertion
that the earth is 6000 years old? How about some paper from the geologists
you claim support that figure?

Yes, thought not.

Don

[Jacques Guy]

Post by Donald McCaskey
How about we start with you presenting some evidence from your assertion
that the earth is 6000 years old? How about some paper from the geologists
you claim support that figure?

Well, we all know, don't we? It's all there in the Bible: the world, the
universe and everything were created in six day. Add one day for God
to rest. Now take the genealogy of Jesus, add up the lives of his
ancestors, and there we are: the world, the universe and everything
were created in 4004 BC. I think it was in October too, but I
forgot which day. Ask Bishop Usher. He is the one who did the
calculations.

Ah, I just asked Google on behalf of the good, but dead, bishop.

http://www.lifelinearp.org/genealogies.asp
http://www.jimloy.com/math/accuracy.htm

22 October 4004 BC, actually. About tea time.

Isn't Creationist Science great!

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Donald McCaskey
No, you made the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old and that this
date is accepted by geologists. Since the 6000 year old figure comes
initially from the bible, I started my argument there. The fact you choose
to ignore that tells its own story.

But you made the claim that evolution is fact, but you have yet to provide
two figures which concur with regards to the "real" age of the earth - in
other words, if it isn't 6,000 then what is it? Jumping around and hoping I
go on the defensive is not a basis of establishing your view as fact. In
fact, it shows the weakness of your argument in bright light.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Well at the moment we are dealing with the age of the earth, which you claim
(without offering any sort of proof) to be 6000 years old. The astronomy
evidence alone basically blows this figure out of the water so it's telling
that you choose not to tackle that evidence and try to throw up a smoke
screen instead.

Some person measures light from a star and comes up with a figure which
contradicts three or four other claims made in the same post by different
scientists, and I am supposed to tackle this piece of "evidence", or even
take it seriously? You are having a laugh... LOL!

Post by Donald McCaskey
True, they can't but what is equally true is that not one geologist of
repute said the earth is 6000 years old (unless you have evidence to the
contrary [don't laugh, readers, it's perfectly plausible that JimB would
actually use evidence to support his argument]).

I notice you used the word "repute". That gives you an out when it doesn't
tally up to your inconsistent beliefs about the age of the earth, it also
tells me you aren't serious about trying to uncover the truth, wherever it
may lead you on the issue of evolution.

Post by Donald McCaskey
And do you know what the effect of taking into account the internal heat
source? It would take even longer for the molten rock to cool and harden,
so instead of taking 24-40 million years, we are into the realms of hundreds
of millions of years.

Geologist Robert V. Gentry, disputes this claim. In his research he found
that basement rocks, like Granite did not gradually cool and harden, neither
did it take 24-40 million years. Once more, there is no scientific basis for
the assertion that a) basement rocks like Granite cool and harden or that
the
arbitrary figure of 24-40 million years has any substance to it. Sorry to
burst the bubble.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Yes he did. And what happens if we facter that in? Why we see the earth
must be a lot older than 90-100 million years.

But it isn't.

Post by Donald McCaskey
We'll skip the rest of the evidence I presented since it's obvious you're
from the "ny-ah, ny-ah, I'm no listening" school of debating.

LOL! What a hypocrite.

Post by Donald McCaskey
How about we start with you presenting some evidence from your assertion
that the earth is 6000 years old? How about some paper from the geologists
you claim support that figure?

How about you support your idea of evolution first with evidence that
actually tallies up twice in a row?

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Donald McCaskey

Post by Donald McCaskey
No, you made the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old and that this
date is accepted by geologists. Since the 6000 year old figure comes
initially from the bible, I started my argument there. The fact you

choose

Post by Donald McCaskey
to ignore that tells its own story.

But you made the claim that evolution is fact, but you have yet to provide
two figures which concur with regards to the "real" age of the earth - in
other words, if it isn't 6,000 then what is it? Jumping around and hoping I
go on the defensive is not a basis of establishing your view as fact. In
fact, it shows the weakness of your argument in bright light.

Not at all - you are the one claiming 6000 years old. I'm provided evidence
that only you and other loony creationists put the age of the earth at 6000
years old. Different branches of science, whilst perhaps not agreeing on a
definitive figure, all agree on one thing. The earth is nowhere near 6000
years old, it's easily a thousand times older than that.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Some person measures light from a star and comes up with a figure which
contradicts three or four other claims made in the same post by different
scientists, and I am supposed to tackle this piece of "evidence", or even
take it seriously? You are having a laugh... LOL!

No, I'm showing that different branches of science agree on one thing, the
earth is a lot older than 6000 years.

Post by Donald McCaskey

Post by Donald McCaskey
True, they can't but what is equally true is that not one geologist of
repute said the earth is 6000 years old (unless you have evidence to the
contrary [don't laugh, readers, it's perfectly plausible that JimB would
actually use evidence to support his argument]).

I notice you used the word "repute". That gives you an out when it doesn't
tally up to your inconsistent beliefs about the age of the earth, it also
tells me you aren't serious about trying to uncover the truth, wherever it
may lead you on the issue of evolution.

Inconsistent beliefs? Why don't you actually try to read my last posting
before you try to criticise it (or is that too much to ask(? There's
nothing inconsistent in it. You claimed that geologists agree with the idea
of the earth being 6000 years old. I took you on a brief history of geology
where theories were tested and evolved, each stage putting the earth older
and older as more information became available and the knowledge of the
geologist community increased. Nothing inconsistent in that, it's just good
science (not that you would know anything about that).

Post by Donald McCaskey

Post by Donald McCaskey
And do you know what the effect of taking into account the internal heat
source? It would take even longer for the molten rock to cool and harden,
so instead of taking 24-40 million years, we are into the realms of

hundreds

Post by Donald McCaskey
of millions of years.

Geologist Robert V. Gentry, disputes this claim. In his research he found
that basement rocks, like Granite did not gradually cool and harden, neither
did it take 24-40 million years. Once more, there is no scientific basis for
the assertion that a) basement rocks like Granite cool and harden or that
the
arbitrary figure of 24-40 million years has any substance to it. Sorry to
burst the bubble.

Well for a start, Robert V Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist. His
hobbies include geology and he is a self-confessed creationist (so he is a
bit biased). His "Polonium Haloes" thesis has been reviewed by several
professional geologists and they conclude that his research techniques and
his findings were flawed. For example, the samples he used for his research
were sent to him by amatuer enthusiasts from around the world, meaning
Gentry could not say how the samples fit with the local geological
conditions from which they came.

It is generally accepted by the geological community that Gentry had an
agenda (as a self-confessed creationist) and this agenda influenced his
findings.

Post by Donald McCaskey

Post by Donald McCaskey
Yes he did. And what happens if we facter that in? Why we see the earth
must be a lot older than 90-100 million years.

But it isn't.

Post by Donald McCaskey
We'll skip the rest of the evidence I presented since it's obvious you're
from the "ny-ah, ny-ah, I'm no listening" school of debating.

LOL! What a hypocrite.

Do you think so? Yet you offer no proof of your own, other than the flawed
research of a self-confessed creationist who strayed outwith his field of
knowledge, adding 2 to 2 and getting the answer 5.

Don

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Donald McCaskey
Not at all - you are the one claiming 6000 years old. I'm provided evidence
that only you and other loony creationists put the age of the earth at 6000
years old. Different branches of science, whilst perhaps not agreeing on a
definitive figure, all agree on one thing. The earth is nowhere near 6000
years old, it's easily a thousand times older than that.
No, I'm showing that different branches of science agree on one thing, the
earth is a lot older than 6000 years.

Except it is hardly science to come up with ever changing numbers on a
particular position as a means of proving something true.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Inconsistent beliefs? Why don't you actually try to read my last posting
before you try to criticise it (or is that too much to ask(? There's
nothing inconsistent in it. You claimed that geologists agree with the idea
of the earth being 6000 years old. I took you on a brief history of geology
where theories were tested and evolved, each stage putting the earth older
and older as more information became available and the knowledge of the
geologist community increased. Nothing inconsistent in that, it's just good
science (not that you would know anything about that).

Explain how it is good science to have an inconsistent date, when
evolutionists place so much credence in being able to pin-point the age of
the earth through methods like Carbon-dating? Explain how it is good science
to prescribe this unknown and inconsistent date as a means of explaining
the history of evolution?

Post by Donald McCaskey
Well for a start, Robert V Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist. His
hobbies include geology and he is a self-confessed creationist
(so he is a bit biased).

So are you, does that mean we should ignore what you say on the subject?

Post by Donald McCaskey
His "Polonium Haloes" thesis has been reviewed by several
professional geologists and they conclude that his research techniques and
his findings were flawed.

Here are three examples of the appraisal of Gentry's work.......

"..The very careful and time taking examinations of Dr. Gentry are indeed
very interesting and extremely difficult to explain. But I think there is no
need to doubt `currently accepted cosmological models of Earth formation' .
. Anyhow, there is a very interesting and essential question and you could
discuss it, perhaps with cautious restrictions against so weighty statements
like the one above in quotes. It would be interesting and good if more
scientists would have more knowledge of the problems."-*Paul Ramdohr,
Emeritus Professor of Mineralogy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, quoted
in CTM, p. 236.

"We are indebted to you and your colleagues for your painstaking
observation, the careful wording of your paper, and the courage you have
manifested in presenting evidence that contravenes the conventional wisdom
of the geological profession."-*Raphael G. Kazmann, Professor of Civil
Engineering, Louisiana State University, 1977 letter to R.V. Gentry, quoted
in CTM, p. 60.

"Robert V. Gentry writes lucidly of his meticulous experimentation with
radioactive halos in ancient minerals. Many scientists with international
reputations, such as Truman P. Kohman, Edward Anders, Emilio Segre, G.N.
Flerov, Paul Ramdohr, Eugene Wigner, E.H. Taylor, etc., have commented
favorably in regard to Gentry's integrity and the professional quality of
his data."-*W. Scott Morrow, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry,
Woofford College, quoted in Creation's Tiny Mystery [CTM], p. xi.

Evolutionists all.....

Post by Donald McCaskey
For example, the samples he used for his research
were sent to him by amatuer enthusiasts from around the world, meaning
Gentry could not say how the samples fit with the local geological
conditions from which they came.

That's pathetic, let us hear from a real scientist on the matter....

-"I can attest to the thoroughness, care and effort which Gentry puts into
his work . . In a general way these puzzling pieces of information might
result from unsuspected species or phenomena in nuclear physics, from
unusual geological or geochemical processes, or even from cosmological
phenomena. Or they (or one of them) might arise from some unsuspected,
trivial and uninteresting cause. All that one can say is that they do
present a puzzle (or several puzzles) and that there is some reasonable
probability that the answer will be scientifically interesting."-*E.H.
Taylor, Chemistry Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, quoted
in CTM, p. 236.

Post by Donald McCaskey
It is generally accepted by the geological community that Gentry had an
agenda (as a self-confessed creationist) and this agenda influenced his
findings.

What about self-confessed evolutionists who allow their agendas to influence
their findings?

Post by Donald McCaskey
Do you think so? Yet you offer no proof of your own, other than the flawed
research of a self-confessed creationist who strayed outwith his field of
knowledge, adding 2 to 2 and getting the answer 5.

Which leaves only one question. If creationism is not the answer, then show
some evidence that evolution has taken place.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Donald McCaskey]

Post by Donald McCaskey

Post by Donald McCaskey
Inconsistent beliefs? Why don't you actually try to read my last posting
before you try to criticise it (or is that too much to ask(? There's
nothing inconsistent in it. You claimed that geologists agree with the

idea

Post by Donald McCaskey
of the earth being 6000 years old. I took you on a brief history of

geology

Post by Donald McCaskey
where theories were tested and evolved, each stage putting the earth older
and older as more information became available and the knowledge of the
geologist community increased. Nothing inconsistent in that, it's just

good

Post by Donald McCaskey
science (not that you would know anything about that).

Explain how it is good science to have an inconsistent date, when
evolutionists place so much credence in being able to pin-point the age of
the earth through methods like Carbon-dating? Explain how it is good science
to prescribe this unknown and inconsistent date as a means of explaining
the history of evolution?

Scientists tend to keep an open mind about their research and findings and
do not have a preset agenda. One scientist does some research and reaches a
conclusion. As new evidence comes to light in further research, this
conclusion is tested again and again. If the new evidence fits in with the
existing conclusion, fair and well. If it doesn't, a new theory and
conclusion are reached. Closed mindsets, like your own and those of other
loons, would do the opposite, i.e. reach a conclusion based on a pre-set
agenda and then proceed to ignore any and all evidence, no matter how
inconsistent it was with the biased conclusion.

Post by Donald McCaskey

Post by Donald McCaskey
Well for a start, Robert V Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist. His
hobbies include geology and he is a self-confessed creationist
(so he is a bit biased).

So are you, does that mean we should ignore what you say on the subject?

No, but we have to take his background into account when we evaluate his
views. The fact he is not a professional geologist means that his views
don't carry any more weight than my views (or your views, for that matter).
After all, would you be impressed if I posted "evidence" from Wee Shuggy
doon the street, or t'man in t'pub if their backgrounds were unrelated to
the field of geology?

Post by Donald McCaskey

Post by Donald McCaskey
His "Polonium Haloes" thesis has been reviewed by several
professional geologists and they conclude that his research techniques and
his findings were flawed.

Here are three examples of the appraisal of Gentry's work.......
*Paul Ramdohr,
Emeritus Professor of Mineralogy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, quoted
in CTM, p. 236.

Post by Donald McCaskey
*Raphael G. Kazmann, Professor of Civil

Engineering, Louisiana State University, 1977 letter to R.V. Gentry, quoted
in CTM, p. 60.
"-*W. Scott Morrow, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry,
Woofford College, quoted in Creation's Tiny Mystery [CTM], p. xi.
Evolutionists all.....

Guffaw - these quotes are lifted directly from a creationist website:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/04earth5.htm

Do you know that these professors considered themselves to be evolutionists?
Some evidence of that, if you please. The fact they've allowed themselves
to be quoted on a creationist website points to the conclusion that they
don't.

Post by Donald McCaskey

Post by Donald McCaskey
For example, the samples he used for his research
were sent to him by amatuer enthusiasts from around the world, meaning
Gentry could not say how the samples fit with the local geological
conditions from which they came.

That's pathetic, let us hear from a real scientist on the matter....

With yet another quote from the same creationist website you quoted from
before? Yet you called for a real scientist, how about this:

"Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails all tests.
Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is
unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by
alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples
are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from
rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot
accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great
age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his
hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine
interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and
processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As
with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond
the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific
usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into
some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to
argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory?
This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt
the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise
is itself an act of faith, not science.
In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring
discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the
Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century
proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according
to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately,
because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable
scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books
still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of
polonium decay." - Thomas A. Baillieul

References:

Brawley, John, 1992, "Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery: An
Amateur Scientist Examines Pegmatitic Biotite Mica", Talk.Origins Archive,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html

Collins, Lorence G., 1997, "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and
Granite," www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm, 9 pgs.

Collins, Lorence G., 1999, "Equal Time for the Origin of Granite - a
Miracle," Reports of the National Center for Science Education, Volume 19,
No. 2, pp. 20-28.

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991, The Age of the Earth, Stanford University press.

Gentry, Robert V., 1968, "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant
Radioactive halos" Science, Vol. 160, p. 1228-1230.

Gentry, Robert V., 1970, "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown
Radioactivity," Science, Vol. 169, pp. 670-673

Gentry, Robert V., 1971, "Radiohalos: Some Unique Lead Isotope Ratios and
Unknown Alpha Radioactivity," Science, Vol. 173, p. 727-731.

Gentry, Robert V., S.S. Christy, J.F. McLaughlin, J. A. McHugh, 1973,
Nature, Vol. 244, p. 282.

Gentry, Robert V., 1974, "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and
Cosmological Perspective", Science, Vol. 184, pp. 62-66.

Gentry, Robert V., Warner H. Christie, David H. Smith, J.F. Emery, S.A.
Reynolds, and Raymond Walker, 1976, "Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New
Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification,"
Science, Vol. 194, pp.315-318

Gentry, Robert V., T.J. Sworski, H.S. McKown, D.H. Smith, R.E. Eby, W.H.
Christie, 1982, "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for
Nuclear Waste Containment,"Science, Vol. 216, p. 296-298.

Gentry, Robert V., 1992, Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates,
Knowville, TN, 3rd Edition.

Henderson, G.H., 1939, A quantitatve study of pleochroic halos, V. the
genesis of halos, Royal Society of London, Proceedings, Series A, v. 173, p.
250-264.

Hyndman, Donald W., 1985, Petrology of Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks, 2nd
Edition, McGraw-Hill, N.Y., p. 75.

ICRP, 1983, Radionuclide Transformations, International Commission on
Radiological Protection, Publication 38, Pergamon Press, New York, NY,
1250p.

Joly, J., 1917, The genesis of pleochroic halos, Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London, Series A, v. 217, p. 51.

Knoll, Glenn F., 1979, Radiation Detection and Measurement, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, NY

Lee, James K, Ian S. Williams, and David J. Ellis, 1997, "Pb, U, and Th
diffusion in natural zircon", Nature, Vol. 390, pp. 159-162.

Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium
Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.

Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in
Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.

Parrington, Josef R., Harold D. Knox, Susan L. Breneman, Edward M. Baum,
Frank Feiner, 1996, Nuclides and Isotopes: Chart of the Nuclides, 15th
Edition, General Electric Co. and KAPL, Inc.

Taylor, S. Ross, and McLennan, Scott, 1996, "The Evolution of the
Continental Crust," Scientific American, January, 1996.

Wakefield, J. Richard , 1988, Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", Journal of
Geological Education, May, 1988.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Which leaves only one question. If creationism is not the answer, then show
some evidence that evolution has taken place.
--
JimB

Well let's cross one bridge at a time - your claim that evolution did not
happen has two parts:

1 - Mutations are *always* detrimental - that's been shown not to be the
case (hint: never deal in absolutes - you might be right a million times but
you only need to be wrong once for your argument to fall).

2- the earth is 6000 years old - too young for evolution to take place.

Now while Gentry's findings do raise some interesting questions, I've shown
that his methods were flawed - thus raising doubt about them. Can you offer
any other evidence for the 6000 year age or are both parts of your argument
sufficiently demolished (even if only for all but you to see)?

Don

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Donald McCaskey
Scientists tend to keep an open mind about their research and findings and
do not have a preset agenda.

You mean scientists are free from outside pressures or personal
beliefs/agendas?

Post by Donald McCaskey
One scientist does some research and reaches a
conclusion. As new evidence comes to light in further research, this
conclusion is tested again and again.

And when exactly has evolution been tested "again and again" Donald?

Post by Donald McCaskey
If the new evidence fits in with the existing conclusion, fair and well.

If it doesn't, a new theory and

Post by Donald McCaskey
conclusion are reached.

We don't want new theories or wild conclusions, we want facts.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Closed mindsets, like your own and those of other
loons, would do the opposite, i.e. reach a conclusion based on a pre-set
agenda and then proceed to ignore any and all evidence, no matter how
inconsistent it was with the biased conclusion.

But being inconsistent with something *you* believe doesn't automatically
make it wrong, especially when those things *you* believe in continually and
heavily rely on "new theories", unsupported by any established fact.

Post by Donald McCaskey
No, but we have to take his background into account when we evaluate his
views. The fact he is not a professional geologist means that his views
don't carry any more weight than my views (or your views, for that matter).
After all, would you be impressed if I posted "evidence" from Wee Shuggy
doon the street, or t'man in t'pub if their backgrounds were unrelated to
the field of geology?

What a juvenile comparison.

Post by Donald McCaskey
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/04earth5.htm
Do you know that these professors considered themselves to be

evolutionists?

Post by Donald McCaskey
Some evidence of that, if you please. The fact they've allowed themselves
to be quoted on a creationist website points to the conclusion that they
don't.

You draw a false conclusion then. W. Scott Morrow produced an "open letter
to the readers of Creation's Tiny Mystery" which he explains in the first
sentence his position supporting evolution and most notably the work of
Gentry. http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-fwd.htm. With that in mind, why is it
inconcievable that other evolutionary scientists like Kazmann and Ramdohr
(to name but two) also appraised Gentry's work favourable?

Post by Donald McCaskey
"Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails all tests.
Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is
unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by
alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples
are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from
rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot
accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great
age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his
hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine
interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and
processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As
with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond
the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific
usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into
some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to
argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory?
This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt
the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise
is itself an act of faith, not science.
In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring
discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the
Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century
proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according
to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately,
because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable
scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books
still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of
polonium decay." - Thomas A. Baillieul

Errmm...why did you include the references? (Eight of which being references
to Gentry's books did you know?) Could it be you were trying to make your
copy and paste seem substantial and researched when it is painfully obvious
you couldn't do better than a single voice against (copied from a
evolutionist website too lol), compared to my ten scientists? C'mon!

Post by Donald McCaskey
Well let's cross one bridge at a time - your claim that evolution did not
1 - Mutations are *always* detrimental - that's been shown not to be the
case (hint: never deal in absolutes - you might be right a million times but
you only need to be wrong once for your argument to fall).

Give me an example of a positive mutation taking place, and cite some
evidence to support this view.

Post by Donald McCaskey
2- the earth is 6000 years old - too young for evolution to take place.

As I said earlier, evolution needs long time frames, but long time frames
don't prove evolution.

Post by Donald McCaskey
Now while Gentry's findings do raise some interesting questions, I've shown
that his methods were flawed - thus raising doubt about them. Can you offer
any other evidence for the 6000 year age or are both parts of your argument
sufficiently demolished (even if only for all but you to see)?

But, you have yet to establish a) how old the earth actually is and b) what
link there is between the changes of species.

As you say, one bridge at a time Donald......

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[fritz]

Anti-Multiculty wrote ...
|
| >"fritz" <***@address.com> wrote in message;
| > Evolution is the state-of-the-art. FACT !!!
| > Are you a creationist ?
| > Admit it or deny it !
|
| Evolution is nothing of the sort, it is a fable perpetuated by big mouths
| like you.

Hey, are you a bit thick or what ? Answer the fucking question !
Are you a creationist or not ? Admit it or deny it !


| > That is 10 to the power 10, a fucking long time.
| > Yet E-Coli has apparently recently picked up a gene from another bacteria
| in the
| > recent past forming the O157 sequence. Go figure.
|
| Has it turned into a new species of its own accord? Hmm?

Why are so obsessed with new species ?
Evolution does not require a new species to appear in your lifetime.
Evolution is occuring, nevertheless. Get over it.


| > The process of evolution has certainly taken place.
|
| LOL!

|
| > Witness the diversity of species and the fossil record.
|
| Witness what exactly?

Evolution and the fossil record.

| > We have not directly observed the emergence of a new species because that
| takes
| > a very long time, but we have observed enough supporting scienctific
| evidence
| > that clearly indicates evolution is the best theory so far.
|
| How long is a long time, and if it takes a long time, then how do species
| survive the change whilst they are "changing"?

Simple. You really should do some research.
Transitional forms have an advantage that leads to their survival over
forms without the advantage. A small advantage is better than no advantage.

| > Such as the fossil record.
|
| Fossil records show what exactly?

Evolution, dumbarse.
Read The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.

| > Such as the selective breeding of animals.
|
| You mean cross-breeding? LOL!
|
| > Such as the selective cultivation and improvement of crops.
|
| Nothing to do with evolution.

Sigh.
Read Chapter One - Variation Under Domestication,
The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

| > The fallacy in that quote is that evolution only requires a minor
| advantage
| > to be passed on in order to produce a more successful biological system.
| > The incremental improvements all add up.
|
| It has yet to happen though.

It is happening.
Evolution at work:
The tale of a tail - New gene found in fruit flies could impact human medicine
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/02.08/01-evolutionatwork.html
Wow, evolution demonstrated in a fruit fly.
Now, what was that you were saying about fruit-flys not evolving ?

| > Why are you so obsessed with fruit-flys ? They are at an evolutionary
| > dead-end, why would you expect them to mutate into a new species ????
|
| Because they have been studied extensively and were put up as proof of
| evolution. Have you done any reading on this issue at all?

Of course.

| > Face the facts sonny. The modern theory of evolution is accepted by all
| but a few crack-pots.
|
| Actually it isn't.

Yes it is. The vast majority of scientists agree evolution is the best explanation.
Only a few lunatic creationist nutters disagree.
These fruitcakes are the same ones who say the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
The same ones who say the speed of light is changing to fit in with their
6,000 year old Earth fantasies. What a fucking joke they are !!!!!
Are you one of them too, A-M ?


| > Put up or shut up.
| > What theory do YOU propose instead of evolution ?
| > We are waiting...........
|
| Let's not play that game, let's play "I have solid evidence to back up my
| theory of evolution and will present it". C'mon, the group is waiting to
| hear it......

There is plenty of solid evidence for evolution. If you have trouble finding it,
just type 'evolution + science' into your search engine. Watch out for any sites
that have 'creation' in their URL, they are sure to be full of junk science.
I note that you are too embarrassed to confess that you are a creationist.
Not surprising, really. They have no credibility whatsoever.


|
| --
| JimB

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by fritz
Hey, are you a bit thick or what ? Answer the fucking question !
Are you a creationist or not ? Admit it or deny it !

You are so see-through lol.

Post by fritz
| > That is 10 to the power 10, a fucking long time.
| > Yet E-Coli has apparently recently picked up a gene from another bacteria
| in the
| > recent past forming the O157 sequence. Go figure.
|
| Has it turned into a new species of its own accord? Hmm?
Why are so obsessed with new species ?

Errr..Cause it forms the basis of evolution?

Post by fritz
Evolution does not require a new species to appear in your lifetime.
Evolution is occuring, nevertheless. Get over it.

Of course it does. Should it be occuring then logically the examples would
be visible all the time, even in my lifetime.

Post by fritz
Evolution and the fossil record.

What about them fossils?

Post by fritz
| > We have not directly observed the emergence of a new species because that
| takes
| > a very long time, but we have observed enough supporting scienctific
| evidence
| > that clearly indicates evolution is the best theory so far.
|
| How long is a long time, and if it takes a long time, then how do species
| survive the change whilst they are "changing"?
Simple. You really should do some research.
Transitional forms have an advantage that leads to their survival over
forms without the advantage. A small advantage is better than no advantage.

But it takes a long time to develop this "advantage" so how do they survive
in the meantime?

Post by fritz
| > Such as the fossil record.
| Fossil records show what exactly?
Evolution, dumbarse.
Read The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.

Was this the same Darwin, in the same Origin of Species, which said of
Fossil records.....

". . Intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious
objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."-*Charles
Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between
Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979.

Post by fritz
Sigh.
Read Chapter One - Variation Under Domestication,
The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

Breeding is not evolution though.

Post by fritz
It is happening.
The tale of a tail - New gene found in fruit flies could impact human medicine
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/02.08/01-evolutionatwork.html
Wow, evolution demonstrated in a fruit fly.
Now, what was that you were saying about fruit-flys not evolving ?

Species do not change, they produce different varieties, but they do not
evolve.

BTW I thought this quote was good.....

"...Malaria kills about 1 million children per year. Most of these deaths
are due to Plasmodium falciparum, which, like other strains, is transmitted
by the bite of anopheles mosquitoes. Another comparatively new mutation
conveys resistance to P. falciparum, but at a high price. It causes sickle
cell anemia, a painful inherited blood disease that occurs mainly in blacks.
Sickle cell anemia, however, is not usually fatal...."

Sounds good eh? But, did you know that the Sickle Cell Anemia might prevent
Malaria, but it actually prevents the carrier from absorbing food and
oxygen?

Post by fritz
| > Why are you so obsessed with fruit-flys ? They are at an evolutionary
| > dead-end, why would you expect them to mutate into a new species ????
|
| Because they have been studied extensively and were put up as proof of
| evolution. Have you done any reading on this issue at all?
Of course.

Doesn't really seem like it....

Post by fritz
Yes it is. The vast majority of scientists agree evolution is the best explanation.
Only a few lunatic creationist nutters disagree.
These fruitcakes are the same ones who say the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Based on scientific fact.

Post by fritz
The same ones who say the speed of light is changing to fit in with their
6,000 year old Earth fantasies. What a fucking joke they are !!!!!
Are you one of them too, A-M ?

This coming from a proposal which has inconsistent dating methods...LOL!!

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[fritz]

Anti-Multiculty wrote ..
|
| >"fritz" <***@address.com> wrote in message;
| > Hey, are you a bit thick or what ? Answer the fucking question !
| > Are you a creationist or not ? Admit it or deny it !
|
| You are so see-through lol.

Why are you SO SO ashamed to confess that you are a creationist ?

| > | > That is 10 to the power 10, a fucking long time.
| > | > Yet E-Coli has apparently recently picked up a gene from another
| bacteria
| > | in the
| > | > recent past forming the O157 sequence. Go figure.
| > |
| > | Has it turned into a new species of its own accord? Hmm?
|
| > Why are so obsessed with new species ?
|
| Errr..Cause it forms the basis of evolution?


Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

| > Evolution does not require a new species to appear in your lifetime.
| > Evolution is occuring, nevertheless. Get over it.
|
| Of course it does. Should it be occuring then logically the examples would
| be visible all the time, even in my lifetime.
|
| > Evolution and the fossil record.
|
| What about them fossils?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4


| > | > We have not directly observed the emergence of a new species because
| that
| > | takes
| > | > a very long time, but we have observed enough supporting scienctific
| > | evidence
| > | > that clearly indicates evolution is the best theory so far.
| > |
| > | How long is a long time, and if it takes a long time, then how do
| species
| > | survive the change whilst they are "changing"?
|
| > Simple. You really should do some research.
| > Transitional forms have an advantage that leads to their survival over
| > forms without the advantage. A small advantage is better than no
| advantage.
|
| But it takes a long time to develop this "advantage" so how do they survive
| in the meantime?

Very well, obviously !

| > | > Such as the fossil record.
| > | Fossil records show what exactly?
| > Evolution, dumbarse.
| > Read The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.
|
| Was this the same Darwin, in the same Origin of Species, which said of
| Fossil records.....
|
| ". . Intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
| graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious
| objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."-*Charles
| Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between
| Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979.

Darwin was his own harshest critic.
Nevertheless, he was essentially correct. Creationists are completely wrong.

| > Sigh.
| > Read Chapter One - Variation Under Domestication,
| > The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
|
| Breeding is not evolution though.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

| > It is happening.
| > Evolution at work:
| > The tale of a tail - New gene found in fruit flies could impact human
| medicine
| > http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/02.08/01-evolutionatwork.html
| > Wow, evolution demonstrated in a fruit fly.
| > Now, what was that you were saying about fruit-flys not evolving ?
|
| Species do not change, they produce different varieties, but they do not
| evolve.
|
| BTW I thought this quote was good.....
|
| "...Malaria kills about 1 million children per year. Most of these deaths
| are due to Plasmodium falciparum, which, like other strains, is transmitted
| by the bite of anopheles mosquitoes. Another comparatively new mutation
| conveys resistance to P. falciparum, but at a high price. It causes sickle
| cell anemia, a painful inherited blood disease that occurs mainly in blacks.
| Sickle cell anemia, however, is not usually fatal...."
|
| Sounds good eh? But, did you know that the Sickle Cell Anemia might prevent
| Malaria, but it actually prevents the carrier from absorbing food and
| oxygen?

Is this supposed to be an example of intelligent design ?


| > | > Why are you so obsessed with fruit-flys ? They are at an evolutionary
| > | > dead-end, why would you expect them to mutate into a new species ????
| > |
| > | Because they have been studied extensively and were put up as proof of
| > | evolution. Have you done any reading on this issue at all?
| >
| > Of course.
|
| Doesn't really seem like it....

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html


| > Yes it is. The vast majority of scientists agree evolution is the best
| explanation.
| > Only a few lunatic creationist nutters disagree.
| > These fruitcakes are the same ones who say the Earth is only 6,000 years
| old.
|
| Based on scientific fact.

ROTFLMFHO !!!!!!!!
What scientific facts are you talking about, fruitcake ?
Are you seriously claiming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old ?
Why are you so ashamed to admit you are a creationist ?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

| > The same ones who say the speed of light is changing to fit in with their
| > 6,000 year old Earth fantasies. What a fucking joke they are !!!!!
| > Are you one of them too, A-M ?
|
| This coming from a proposal which has inconsistent dating methods...LOL!!

Come on, get real, this 6,000 year old Earth crap is so fucking stupid that anyone
who entertains the idea would be laughed out of any university.
It is yet another example of religious lunacy.

| --
| JimB

The essential difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution
can be tested, and it passes the test. Creationism cannot be tested scientifically
because it 'creates' no testable hypotheses. It is just rubbish promoted by fruitcakes.
'Creation science' is an oxymoron, it is not science at all.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by fritz
Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Why then did you say "We have not directly observed the emergence of a new
species because that takes a very long time..." I mean, which is it, have we
observed new species or not?

What about them fossils?

Post by fritz
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

No, how about you give me the reasons of your own instead of copying and
pasting the same URL three times?

Post by fritz
| But it takes a long time to develop this "advantage" so how do they survive
| in the meantime?
Very well, obviously !

Did they? You have yet to put a definite timescale on how long it took for
then to change (they can't even guess how old the earth is), but you are
convinced that this unverifiable creature survived the unknown and
unobserved journey. Why?

Post by fritz
Darwin was his own harshest critic.
Nevertheless, he was essentially correct. Creationists are completely wrong.

LOL! That is one way to get out of it. Darwin also famously said

" . .The distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together
by
innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty."-*Charles
Darwin, The Origin of Species, (6th ed., 1927), p. 322.

Post by fritz
| > Sigh.
| > Read Chapter One - Variation Under Domestication,
| > The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
|
| Breeding is not evolution though.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

Explain it in your own words Fritz...

Post by fritz
| Sounds good eh? But, did you know that the Sickle Cell Anemia might prevent
| Malaria, but it actually prevents the carrier from absorbing food and
| oxygen?
Is this supposed to be an example of intelligent design ?

No it is an example that mutations aren't beneficial as per the previous
discussion.

Post by fritz
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

So, you can copy and paste weblinks? Am I supposed to be impressed? How
about coming up with some thoughts of your own?

Post by fritz
ROTFLMFHO !!!!!!!!
What scientific facts are you talking about, fruitcake ?
Are you seriously claiming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old ?
Why are you so ashamed to admit you are a creationist ?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Come on, get real, this 6,000 year old Earth crap is so fucking stupid that anyone
who entertains the idea would be laughed out of any university.
It is yet another example of religious lunacy.

Not at all. Scientific fact.

Post by fritz
The essential difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution
can be tested, and it passes the test. Creationism cannot be tested scientifically
because it 'creates' no testable hypotheses. It is just rubbish promoted by fruitcakes.
'Creation science' is an oxymoron, it is not science at all.

Your having a laugh! This is science vs evolution.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[fritz]

Anti-Multiculty wrote ...
|
| >"fritz" <***@address.com> wrote in message;
......
| > ROTFLMFHO !!!!!!!!
| > What scientific facts are you talking about, fruitcake ?
| > Are you seriously claiming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old ?
| > Why are you so ashamed to admit you are a creationist ?
| > http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
| > Come on, get real, this 6,000 year old Earth crap is so fucking stupid
| that anyone
| > who entertains the idea would be laughed out of any university.
| > It is yet another example of religious lunacy.
|
| Not at all. Scientific fact.

Scientific fact !!!!!!
What utter and complete bullshit !!!!!!
You really should do some research on cosmology !!!!!
A-M is in denial, he is ashamed to admit he is a creationist.
Not surprising, it is the most idiotic stance to take.

A-M says the Earth is only 6,000 years old !!
ROTFLMFHO!!!!!!
Your ignorance of science knows no bounds, fruitcake.

The creationist delusions are easily destroyed at this site....
http://www.talkorigins.org

[Anti-Multiculty]

Least you only printed that URL once this time, but what about some
specifics from that website? Pick something.

Post by fritz
The creationist delusions are easily destroyed at this site....
http://www.talkorigins.org

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[fritz]

Anti-Multiculty <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:UXV1d.154$***@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
| Least you only printed that URL once this time, but what about some
| specifics from that website? Pick something.

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html



|
| >"fritz" <***@address.com> wrote in message;
| > The creationist delusions are easily destroyed at this site....
| > http://www.talkorigins.org
|
| --
| JimB

[Anti-Multiculty]

Thought this was interesting...

"...This magic bullet mentality, the tendency to rely on a single, isolated
argument to win all the chips, has gotten creationists into more trouble
than possibly anything else. Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not give
little, gold ribbons to certify the accuracy of our proofs! Indeed, nothing
in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of
knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof. One can always
dream up possible scenarios that will contradict even the best scientific
models. (The better the model, the more farfetched the loopholes are.) If
you crave the certainty of a real "proof," the final word as it were, then
you had better stick to mathematics or logic! Those are the only arenas
where absolute proof plays any serious role..."

So, you are not 100% sure, with a lack of evidence to support your arguments
you aren't sure at all, but somehow you can still manage to claim evolution
to be "fact"? Go dream up another scenario to say it aint so.....

Post by fritz
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[fritz]

Anti-Multiculty <***@hotmail.com> wrote ...
| Thought this was interesting...

Hey A-M, YOU said pick something specific from www.talkorigins.org
to debate, or have you forgotten ?
So I did. I chose Young Earth fallacies.

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

You have claimed that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
I say that is complete rubbish, and only fruitcakes believe such bullshit.

Perhaps you have read some of the ramblings of a fruitcake Ozzie
engineer called Barry Setterfield ? He came up with a crazy theory that
the speed of light was changing, it turns out his 'theory' was inspired
purely by his creationist belief that the Earth was only 6,000 years old
and his light speed theory has been discredited.


| "...This magic bullet mentality, the tendency to rely on a single, isolated
| argument to win all the chips, has gotten creationists into more trouble
| than possibly anything else. Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not give
| little, gold ribbons to certify the accuracy of our proofs! Indeed, nothing
| in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of
| knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof. One can always
| dream up possible scenarios that will contradict even the best scientific
| models. (The better the model, the more farfetched the loopholes are.) If
| you crave the certainty of a real "proof," the final word as it were, then
| you had better stick to mathematics or logic! Those are the only arenas
| where absolute proof plays any serious role..."

That is the way science works.
It is based on the balance of probabilities and the test of the experiment.

| So, you are not 100% sure, with a lack of evidence to support your arguments
| you aren't sure at all, but somehow you can still manage to claim evolution
| to be "fact"? Go dream up another scenario to say it aint so.....

Look at it this way...based on the available evidence and our current
scientific knowledge, creation fails the test badly and evolution passes the
test easily. There may be minor problems with evolution theory but they are
a thousandfold less than the problems with 'creation science'.

Anyway, you were the one who wanted to debate something specific.
There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is MUCH OLDER than
the 6,000 odd years that you and your creationist fruitcakes claim.
Come on A-M, YOU wanted to debate something specific, the subject
is How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
Explain why the Earth is only 6,000 years old or concede you are yet another
creationist fruitcake without any real understanding of science.


| >"fritz" <***@address.com> wrote in message;
| > How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
| > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html
|
| --
| JimB

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by fritz
Hey A-M, YOU said pick something specific from www.talkorigins.org
to debate, or have you forgotten ?
So I did. I chose Young Earth fallacies.
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

The website that claimed it wasn't certain about evolution but decided to
call it "science" anyway? Oh please.....

Post by fritz
You have claimed that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
I say that is complete rubbish, and only fruitcakes believe such bullshit.

Except you haven't proven this to be untrue at all. All you have done is
thrown unsupportable numbers around, then come back and said "see, see!"
Going to have to work a bit harder than that my friend. How about showing us
how they arrived at their conclusion? Thus far we have a range of numbers
given as the age of the earth, using a multitude of methods (including
the present day Carbon-Dating)

"...In 1862, Thompson said the earth was 20 million years old. In 1897, he
doubled it to 40 million. Two years later, J. Joly said it was 90 million.
Rayleigh, in 1921, upped it to 1 billion. Eleven years later, W.O. Hotchkiss
moved the figure up to 1.6 billion. A Holmes in 1947, decided it was 3.35
billion; and, in 1956, raised it to 4.5 billion. Just now, it stands at 5
billion...."

Post by fritz
Perhaps you have read some of the ramblings of a fruitcake Ozzie
engineer called Barry Setterfield ? He came up with a crazy theory that
the speed of light was changing, it turns out his 'theory' was inspired
purely by his creationist belief that the Earth was only 6,000 years old
and his light speed theory has been discredited.

And, what do you know about c-decay to indicate otherwise?

Post by fritz
That is the way science works.
It is based on the balance of probabilities and the test of the experiment.

Exactly, something evolution doesn't take into account, therefore how can it
be called science?

Post by fritz
| So, you are not 100% sure, with a lack of evidence to support your arguments
| you aren't sure at all, but somehow you can still manage to claim evolution
| to be "fact"? Go dream up another scenario to say it aint so.....
Look at it this way...based on the available evidence and our current
scientific knowledge, creation fails the test badly and evolution passes the
test easily. There may be minor problems with evolution theory but they are
a thousandfold less than the problems with 'creation science'.

What "available evidence"? What "tests" has evolution passed? Or do you
believe just saying phrases like "passed the test easily" is actually a good
substitute for actually providing evidence of it?

Post by fritz
Anyway, you were the one who wanted to debate something specific.
There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is MUCH OLDER than
the 6,000 odd years that you and your creationist fruitcakes claim.
Come on A-M, YOU wanted to debate something specific, the subject
is How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
Explain why the Earth is only 6,000 years old or concede you are yet another
creationist fruitcake without any real understanding of science.

Indeed I do want to debate specifics and am still waiting for you to provide
specifics to debate with....come now, don't be shy.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Mark Addinall]

"Anti-Multiculty" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<zbh1d.312$***@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
[...]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
BTW I thought this quote was good.....
"...Malaria kills about 1 million children per year. Most of these deaths
are due to Plasmodium falciparum, which, like other strains, is transmitted
by the bite of anopheles mosquitoes. Another comparatively new mutation
conveys resistance to P. falciparum, but at a high price. It causes sickle
cell anemia, a painful inherited blood disease that occurs mainly in blacks.

"Mainly in blacks" is a bit of a stupid statement. "Mainly in peoples
who inhabit areas where malaria is endemic" is closer to the truth
by a long shot.

Red cell defences against Pasmodium f. include:

Membrane Duffy antigen null Africa
Melanesian Elliptocytosis Melanesia
Hemoglobin Hemoglobin S Africa,
Middle East,
India
Hemoglobin C Africa
Hemoglobin E S.E. Asia
ß-thalassemia Africa,
Mediterranean,
India,
S.E. Asia,
Melanesia,
Australia
a-thalassemia Africa,
India,
S.E. Asia,
(Australia?)
Red cell enzymes G-6-PD deficiency Africa,
Mediterranean,
India, S.E.
Asia

Sickle trait provides a survival advantage over people with normal
hemoglobin in regions where malaria is endemic. Sickle cell trait
provides neither absolute protection nor invulnerability to the
disease. Rather, people (and particularly children) infected with P.
falciparum are more likely to survive the acute illness if they have
sickle cell trait. When these people with sickle cell trait procreate,
both the gene for normal hemoglobin and that for sickle hemoglobin are
transmitted into the next generation.

Of course, evolution works both ways. As our red cells mutate
to become less susceptable to infestation, the bugs evolve as
well, and so:

The rise to high frequency of alleles that produce red cells deficient
in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity is one of the most
dramatic examples of the selective pressure of malaria on humankind
(Ruwende, et al., 1995; Tishkoff, et al., 2001). Reactive oxygen
species are formed continually as erythrocytes take up oxygen from the
lungs and release it to the preriperal tissues. As noted above,
malaria parasites are easily damaged by these reactive oxygen species
(Friedman, 1979). Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase prevents oxidation
of the heme group. In its absence, hemichromes and other species that
generate reactive oxygen species accumulate in erythrocytes (Janney,
et al., 1986). P. falciparum grow poorly in erythrocytes that are
deficient in G-6-PD (Roth JR, et al., 1983). Malaria continues to
battle back in this struggle, however. The advent of P. falciparum
parasites that produce their own G-6-PD provides ample evidence of the
continuing moves and counter-moves in the battle between man and
malaria (Usanga, et al, 1985).

Evolution is all around you. You just need to take your head out of
your arsehole for but a moment.

Mark Addinall.

[Anti-Multiculty]

As I said, Sickle Cell Anemia provides protection against Malaria, the
difficulty is, it also prevents people from absorbing oxygen and food. Your
little copy and paste explaining Sickle Cell Anemia and how it prevents
Malaria doesn't change that fact.

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable piece of
scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim. Feel free to provide
it though.

Post by Mark Addinall
Evolution is all around you. You just need to take your head out of
your arsehole for but a moment.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Mark Addinall]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
As I said, Sickle Cell Anemia provides protection against Malaria, the
difficulty is, it also prevents people from absorbing oxygen and food. Your
little copy and paste explaining Sickle Cell Anemia and how it prevents
Malaria doesn't change that fact.

WTF are you going on about?

Post by Anti-Multiculty
As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable piece of
scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim. Feel free to provide
it though.

I'll trim some of the hatd bits for you.

Of course, evolution works both ways. As our red cells mutate
to become less susceptable to infestation, the bugs evolve as
well, and so:

The rise to high frequency of alleles that produce red cells deficient
in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity is one of the most
dramatic examples of the selective pressure of malaria on humankind
(Ruwende, et al., 1995; Tishkoff, et al., 2001).

[...]

This is the point, ready?
The advent of P. falciparum
parasites that produce their own G-6-PD provides ample evidence of the
continuing moves and counter-moves in the battle between man and
malaria (Usanga, et al, 1985).

Evolution is all around you. You just need to take your head out of
your arsehole for but a moment.

Retard.

Mark Addinall.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Mark Addinall
Evolution is all around you. You just need to take your head out of
your arsehole for but a moment.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Mark Addinall
I'll trim some of the hatd bits for you.
Of course, evolution works both ways. As our red cells mutate
to become less susceptable to infestation, the bugs evolve as

The whole argument rests on the belief that red blood cells are positive
mutations, unfortunatly this is simply not true. Sickle Cell Anemia is not
an example of a positive mutation purely because it is scientifically proven
to be a genetic defect, one which inhibits the ability of a person to absorb
food and oxygen. Also when talking about positive cell/dna mutations and
evolution you have to consider the mathematical probabiliy of such "random"
events occuring, let alone producing something of value.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84
nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the
probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would
read:
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000..."

Further....

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has,
statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the
benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest
single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100
or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides,
aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no
mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the
product of a random occurrence-random mutations (to use the evolutionist's
favorite expression)."-I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205

Post by Mark Addinall
Evolution is all around you. You just need to take your head out of
your arsehole for but a moment.

Your pathetic attempts at browbeating, in lieu of solid evidence and
adequate debating skills is getting very boring.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Theodore A. Kaldis]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84
nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the
probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would

That should properly be "1 in 4.8 x 10^50" (i.e., "4.8 times 10 raised to the
power of 50", or 48 followed by forty-nine zeros).

Post by Anti-Multiculty
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000..."

In fact it would be:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (no
ellipsis).

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Further....
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond

[10 raised to the power of 50]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives
it the benefit of the doubt!). [...]

[Theodore A. Kaldis]

Oh, by the way, "Anti-Multiculty", please set the time zone in your system
clock. You currently have it set to the U.S. Pacific time zone (the default
when you install Windoze), which is now GMT-7 (with Daylight Savings time in
effect). There are entries for "Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney", and also for
Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, and Darwin.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84
nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the
probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000..."

I've never understood why this argument persists.

OK, I propose the throw a coin so that it comes down heads twenty times
in succession. The odds of me doing this are slightly worse than one in
a million. So I've got buckley's chance.

Never mind, I'll start with 20 coins. What are my chances now? Actually,
not hugely better, the odds are still only 20 in a million.

So I'll change the rules a bit.

I throw the 20 coins. Each one that comes down tails gets thrown away,
and I clone the ones that come down heads until I have twenty coins again.

Now I do this 20 times. Do I have a coin at the end that has come down
heads twenty times? The only way I can not do so is if at one of my
throws ALL the coins came down tails. There's only a 20 in a million
chance that that happens somewhere in my 20 throws, so I'm virtually
guaranteeed to have a coin at the end that has come down heads twenty times.

Yet what I've described is an evolutionary process. The failures (the
tails) get discarded, and the successes (the heads) get reproduced.

Well, that was easy.

Sylvia.

[Mark Addinall]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Anti-Multiculty
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84
nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the
probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000..."

I've never understood why this argument persists.
OK, I propose the throw a coin so that it comes down heads twenty times
in succession. The odds of me doing this are slightly worse than one in
a million. So I've got buckley's chance.
Never mind, I'll start with 20 coins. What are my chances now? Actually,
not hugely better, the odds are still only 20 in a million.
So I'll change the rules a bit.
I throw the 20 coins. Each one that comes down tails gets thrown away,
and I clone the ones that come down heads until I have twenty coins again.
Now I do this 20 times. Do I have a coin at the end that has come down
heads twenty times? The only way I can not do so is if at one of my
throws ALL the coins came down tails. There's only a 20 in a million
chance that that happens somewhere in my 20 throws, so I'm virtually
guaranteeed to have a coin at the end that has come down heads twenty times.
Yet what I've described is an evolutionary process. The failures (the
tails) get discarded, and the successes (the heads) get reproduced.
Well, that was easy.
Sylvia.

Well done Sylvia!

Mark Addinall.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Post by Sylvia Else
I've never understood why this argument persists.
OK, I propose the throw a coin so that it comes down heads twenty times
in succession. The odds of me doing this are slightly worse than one in
a million. So I've got buckley's chance.

Correct.

Post by Sylvia Else
Never mind, I'll start with 20 coins. What are my chances now? Actually,
not hugely better, the odds are still only 20 in a million.
So I'll change the rules a bit.

Evolutionists do that all the time, what's new?

Post by Sylvia Else
I throw the 20 coins. Each one that comes down tails gets thrown away,
and I clone the ones that come down heads until I have twenty coins again.
Now I do this 20 times. Do I have a coin at the end that has come down
heads twenty times? The only way I can not do so is if at one of my
throws ALL the coins came down tails. There's only a 20 in a million
chance that that happens somewhere in my 20 throws, so I'm virtually
guaranteeed to have a coin at the end that has come down heads twenty times.

The problem with this hypothesis is that it relies on outside intervention
by an "intelligence" to determine which coins get thrown away and which
don't
dependent on a desired outcome. According to you though "Each mutation is
purely random..." and "The events that change genes are random..."
therefore, how can you attribute a controlled two-sided coin toss to
something as statistically complex and well, random as "evolution"?

Post by Sylvia Else
Yet what I've described is an evolutionary process. The failures (the
tails) get discarded, and the successes (the heads) get reproduced.

If that were the case then you would only be left with positive changes,
which is in direct contradiction to your earlier statement which
said...."Evolution is not a process that moves towards some notion of
perfection, nor that 'produces' positive changes..."

Then again, you have difficulty even believing it is a process at
all..."Indeed, it is arguably not a process at all. It is merely an
outcome..."

Post by Sylvia Else
Well, that was easy.

Only if you are arrogant enough to believe it to be so, now have a go at
producing a random positive outcome with your evolutionary "process" with an
84 nucleotide DNA strand ;-)

"Rather than accept that fantastically small probability of life having
arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that
the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act. By `better' I mean
less likely to be wrong."-*Fred Hoyle "The Universe: Past and Present
Reflections, in Engineering and Science, November 1981, pp. 8, 12..."

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Mark Addinall]

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Mark Addinall
I'll trim some of the hatd bits for you.
Of course, evolution works both ways. As our red cells mutate
to become less susceptable to infestation, the bugs evolve as

The whole argument rests on the belief that red blood cells are positive
mutations, unfortunatly this is simply not true.

You're an idiot. Who states that evolution ALWAYS produces
positive mutations? Clearly the reverse is opposite. Many
more species HAVE existed than DO exist.

Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disorder when fully expressed
in a persons genome.

It has a basis in the environmental surrounds that a population
has inhabited for thousands, or tens of thousands of years.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Sickle Cell Anemia is not
an example of a positive mutation purely because it is scientifically proven
to be a genetic defect, one which inhibits the ability of a person to absorb
food and oxygen.

Food?

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Also when talking about positive cell/dna mutations and
evolution you have to consider the mathematical probabiliy of such "random"
events occuring, let alone producing something of value.

If mutations to a genome is based on environmental conditions then
the mutation is hardly "random" is it?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.
A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for
many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species
or population.

OK with that?

Post by Anti-Multiculty
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84
nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the
probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000..."
Further....
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has,
statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the
benefit of the doubt!).

What nonsense is this?

I am afraid you may have just blown it for God.

But let's have a squiz at the number hey?

given complexity theory the classes of algorithms are described
as:

Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Cubic
Exponential

the complexity and number of operations for a calculation of
n = 10^6

Constant O(1) 1
Linear O(n) 10^6
Quadratic O(n^2) 10^12
Cubic O(n^3) 10^18
Exponential O(2^n) 10^301,030

That last one is a pretty big number.

Given a fast computer can gurgle along at 10,240,000,000,000
MIPS (about 40 TFLOPs), the numbers to crunch seem pretty
impossible at first glance don't they?

In perspective, the current age of Earth is around 10^9 (2^30)
years old (a little older than your 6000).

But if we look at some current "brute-force" attacks on key
lengths with a computer that can be built for a mere 100 million
or so, we could probably knock off 2^56 in a few minutes,
2^64 in a working shift, 2^80 in about 18 years and 2^112 in
around 10^10 years.

And that's with one humble computer, made by man, in the
image of vN, Babbage and the good lady Ada.

DSD and NSA eat 2^64 bit calculations.

Experimental Quantum computers exist, so bigger and better number
crunching is only a matter (sic) of time.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Any species known to us, including the smallest
single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100
or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides,
aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no
mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the
product of a random occurrence-random mutations (to use the evolutionist's
favorite expression)."-I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205

It's a strawman argument. Only you are suggesting that people were
created out of bugger all in a couple of days. Scientists (like me)
opt for the slightly longer view.

Now, when you are breaking a key, you may not have to try all the
combinations remember. You may get it on the 10th iteration. Now that
WOULD look like a miracle.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by Mark Addinall
Evolution is all around you. You just need to take your head out of
your arsehole for but a moment.

Your pathetic attempts at browbeating, in lieu of solid evidence and
adequate debating skills is getting very boring.

"are" getting... dear child. If you are going to try "pompous" as a
theme, you need to get it right.

[Anti-Multiculty]

You're an idiot. Who states that evolution ALWAYS produces
positive mutations? Clearly the reverse is opposite. Many
more species HAVE existed than DO exist.

The reverse is opposite, in study upon study of mutations we have yet to see
a mutation which has had a positive effect - even the one evolutionists use
as a positive mutation, ie the sickle cell anemia, is really a negative
mutation as you've admitted. Given the need for positive mutations to take
place (obviously, for the continuation of life) I would say that it has to
happen far more often than not, if not *ALWAYS*. Now, it is one thing to say
species which have exhibited this trait have and do exist, quite another to
prove it....

Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disorder when fully expressed
in a persons genome.
It has a basis in the environmental surrounds that a population
has inhabited for thousands, or tens of thousands of years.

Partly right, it also depends on who inhabits the environment, blacks tend
to show greater propensity toward developing sickle cell anemia than other
groups, irrespective of location, in other words it is in their genetic
makeup.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Sickle Cell Anemia is not
an example of a positive mutation purely because it is scientifically proven
to be a genetic defect, one which inhibits the ability of a person to absorb
food and oxygen.

Food?

Yeah....specifically, vitamin B-12 and irons necessary for a healthy
condition. Surprised I have to explain it to a "scientist" such as yourself.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Also when talking about positive cell/dna mutations and
evolution you have to consider the mathematical probability of such

"random"

Post by Anti-Multiculty
events occuring, let alone producing something of value.

If mutations to a genome is based on environmental conditions then
the mutation is hardly "random" is it?

Very much so, considering that "environmental conditions" can never be
completely controlled by that subject to change. This brings us back to the
probability of a mutation of cell/dna actually being positive, let alone
producing something of value.

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.
A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for
many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species
or population.
OK with that?

A very broad definition of evolution at best, and given what we already know
about the improbability of mutations having a positive effect, let alone
constructing something of value it does very little to substantiate the
principle of evolution which you espouse.

But let's have a squiz at the number hey?
Experimental Quantum computers exist, so bigger and better number
crunching is only a matter (sic) of time.

Speaking of computer tests, an evolutionist named Schutzenberger from the
Wistar Institute conducted his own experiments on the process and found that
mathematically it was totally impossible for evolution to occur. And even
without the help of computers, no matter how big, evolution has not been
proven to have occurred in practical application.

It's a strawman argument. Only you are suggesting that people were
created out of bugger all in a couple of days. Scientists (like me)
opt for the slightly longer view.

But you aren't a scientist at all, for starters you are still trying to work
out what Sickle Cell Anemia is.

Now, when you are breaking a key, you may not have to try all the
combinations remember. You may get it on the 10th iteration. Now that
WOULD look like a miracle.

Breaking a key is not quite the same thing as a random mutation producing
something of value - like life with all its components, clearly.

"are" getting... dear child. If you are going to try "pompous" as a
theme, you need to get it right.

Well, you are pompous so you should know. Or is it just a front for your
insecurity?

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Sylvia Else]

You're an idiot. Who states that evolution ALWAYS produces
positive mutations? Clearly the reverse is opposite. Many
more species HAVE existed than DO exist.

So you can reply to that, but quietly ignore my posting. Too hard to refute?

Sylvia.

[Anti-Multiculty]

Hold your genetically, and positively modified horses Sylvia.....

Post by Sylvia Else
So you can reply to that, but quietly ignore my posting. Too hard to refute?

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Anti-Multiculty
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84
nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the
probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000..."
Further....
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has,
statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the
benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest
single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100
or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides,
aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no
mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the
product of a random occurrence-random mutations (to use the evolutionist's
favorite expression)."-I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205

I've totally demolished that position in my other response to your posting.

Are you going to do what bible bashers always do when faced with an
incontrovertible argument, which is to ignore it?

Sylvia.

[Patriot]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Anti-Multiculty
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84
nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the
probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000..."
Further....

cc

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Anti-Multiculty
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has,
statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the
benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest
single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100
or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides,
aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no
mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the
product of a random occurrence-random mutations (to use the
evolutionist's
favorite expression)."-I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205

I've totally demolished that position in my other response to your posting.
Are you going to do what bible bashers always do when faced with an
incontrovertible argument, which is to ignore it?
Sylvia.

[Theodore A. Kaldis]

Post by Mark Addinall

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable piece of
scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim. Feel free to
provide it though.

A challenge that shall never be met.

Post by Mark Addinall
I'll trim some of the hatd bits for you.

Mark, you are the one who is facing "hard bits".

Post by Mark Addinall
Of course, evolution works both ways.

No, in a universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics, "evolution" (more
properly termed "devolution") works only ONE way: ordered systems tend to a
state of greater DISorder. Universally.

Post by Mark Addinall
As our red cells

"Our"? As a member of the caucausoid race, I'm not afflicted with sickle-
cell anemia.

Post by Mark Addinall
mutate to become less susceptable to infestation, the bugs evolve as well,

And the general action of the "bugs" is what, exactly? To TEAR DOWN an
ordered system, not to build it up.

Post by Mark Addinall
[...]
Evolution is all around you. You just need to take your head out of your
arsehole for but a moment.

Rather, YOU should. Bluster is not going to win this argument for you.

Post by Mark Addinall
Retard.

That's you, Mark, despite your vaunted IQ. (Because IQ doesn't measure
common sense.)

[Courageous]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable piece of
scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim. Feel free to
provide it though.

A challenge that shall never be met.

You guys are posting to the wrong groups. If you'd like to tangle with
people who actually know what they are talking about, enter talk.origins.

C//

[Theodore A. Kaldis]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable piece
of scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim. Feel free to
provide it though.

A challenge that shall never be met.

You guys are posting to the wrong groups. If you'd like to tangle with
people who actually know what they are talking about, enter talk.origins.

Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested in
deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.

[Andrealphus]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable
piece of scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim.
Feel free to provide it though.

A challenge that shall never be met.

You guys are posting to the wrong groups. If you'd like to tangle
with people who actually know what they are talking about, enter
talk.origins.

Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested in
deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.

In other words, they kicked your ass.
--
__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."

[Theodore A. Kaldis]

Post by Andrealphus

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable
piece of scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim. Feel
free to provide it though.

A challenge that shall never be met.

You guys are posting to the wrong groups. If you'd like to tangle with
people who actually know what they are talking about, enter talk.origins.

Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested in
deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.

In other words, they kicked your ass.

Nope. Rather, I kicked theirs. But they are without honour, and will never
admit it.

[Andrealphus]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

Post by Andrealphus

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one
verifiable piece of scientific evidence exists to substantiate
your claim. Feel free to provide it though.

A challenge that shall never be met.

You guys are posting to the wrong groups. If you'd like to tangle
with people who actually know what they are talking about, enter
talk.origins.

Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested
in deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.

In other words, they kicked your ass.

Nope. Rather, I kicked theirs.

Surrre you did. LOL!
--
__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."

[Theodore A. Kaldis]

Post by Andrealphus

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

Post by Andrealphus

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable
piece of scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim.
Feel free to provide it though.

A challenge that shall never be met.

You guys are posting to the wrong groups. If you'd like to tangle
with people who actually know what they are talking about, enter
talk.origins.

Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested in
deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.

In other words, they kicked your ass.

Nope. Rather, I kicked theirs.

Surrre you did. LOL!

Bluster's not going to get you through this one. You notice above, an
earlier writer notes that "not one verifiable piece of scientific evidence
exists to substantiate" evolution. But as he said, feel free to provide it.

And I note that you, as everyone else, shall be unable to answer such a
challenge as well.

But let's get a little deeper into this. This might be a little simplistic,
but evolutionists assert that evolution is the result of time plus energy
plus chance. They assert that the organic compounds (which compose the
building blocks of living systems) were formed by bursts of energy (as
perhaps lightning or cosmic rays) into the "primordial soup". The only
problem is, such energy (and indeed, ANY energy, even solar energy) would be
much more likely -- BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE -- to cause the DESTRUCTION of
such compounds, rather than their formation. So then where did life come
from?

I await your answer with breathless anticipation.

[Richard]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

Post by Andrealphus

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

Post by Andrealphus

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable
piece of scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim.
Feel free to provide it though.

A challenge that shall never be met.

You guys are posting to the wrong groups. If you'd like to tangle
with people who actually know what they are talking about, enter
talk.origins.

Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested in
deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.

In other words, they kicked your ass.

Nope. Rather, I kicked theirs.

Surrre you did. LOL!

Bluster's not going to get you through this one.

Fortunately, however, in place of Bluster there is Google. And
Google shows that they kicked your ass. Repeatedly. Consistently.
Irrefutably.

Your documented megalomania blinds you to this.

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis
You notice above, an
earlier writer notes that "not one verifiable piece of scientific evidence
exists to substantiate" evolution. But as he said, feel free to provide it.
And I note that you, as everyone else, shall be unable to answer such a
challenge as well.
But let's get a little deeper into this. This might be a little simplistic,
but evolutionists assert that evolution is the result of time plus energy
plus chance. They assert that the organic compounds (which compose the
building blocks of living systems) were formed by bursts of energy (as
perhaps lightning or cosmic rays) into the "primordial soup". The only
problem is, such energy (and indeed, ANY energy, even solar energy) would be
much more likely -- BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE -- to cause the DESTRUCTION of
such compounds, rather than their formation. So then where did life come
from?
I await your answer with breathless anticipation.

Note that you use a probabilistic argument to support an absolute
conclusion. "Much more likely" means that, over the great expanse of
time, stuff that's "unlikely" will happen.

If I have dice with 10,000,000,000,000 combinations, eventually every
single one of them will come up.

[Jacques Guy]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis
evolutionists assert that evolution is the result of time plus energy
plus chance. They assert that the organic compounds (which compose the
building blocks of living systems) were formed by bursts of energy (as
perhaps lightning or cosmic rays) into the "primordial soup".

Bullshit, utter, arrant, prime-cut bullshit. They assert nothing of the
kind.
Only that the formation of the first living organisms MAY (notice the
emphasis: MAY) have been triggered by such an accident (which you might
prefer to call Divine Intervention.

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis
The only
problem is, such energy (and indeed, ANY energy, even solar energy) would be
much more likely -- BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE -- to cause the DESTRUCTION of
such compounds, rather than their formation.

What? So solar energy ("even solar energy") destroys life forms? Where
do you live? In a coffin, and you only come out at night?

[Richard]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable piece
of scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim. Feel free to
provide it though.

A challenge that shall never be met.

You guys are posting to the wrong groups. If you'd like to tangle with
people who actually know what they are talking about, enter talk.origins.

Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested in
deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.

That's what all the flakes say when their pet theories get laughed at
out of hand--after being soundly rebutted 10,000 times. Flat
earthers, perpetual motion machine builders, and Velikovskians...get
a life.

[Theodore A. Kaldis]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis

As for evolution, isn't all around me at all. Not one verifiable piece
of scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim. Feel free to
provide it though.

A challenge that shall never be met.

You guys are posting to the wrong groups. If you'd like to tangle with
people who actually know what they are talking about, enter talk.origins.

Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested in
deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.

[Courageous]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis
Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested in
deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.

Handed your hat, and out the door, I see. Ouch.

C//

[Theodore A. Kaldis]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis
Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested in
deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.

Handed your hat, and out the door, I see. Ouch.

No. They are not honest or honourable. I nail THEIR arse to the door, and
they will never admit it.

[Anti-Multiculty]

These leftist drones are cowards deep down as well Theo as they only operate
en masse - you watch when they vacate the newsgroup for a breather they will
all disappear then come back all at once in a week or two to do it all
again....all part of the suppression effort at the thought-collective.

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis
Been there, done that. F*** those drongos, they're more interested in
deceit and subterfuge than in serious scientific inquiry.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"

[Gary Forbis]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis
No, in a universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics, "evolution" (more
properly termed "devolution") works only ONE way: ordered systems tend to a
state of greater DISorder. Universally.

That's just wrong.

Here's a little experiment for you:

Boil water in a pot. Slowly add powdered sugar to the water until it is
supersaturated. Turn off the heat. Suspend a string in the water and
let it cool. When cool enough put it in the refrigerator and let it cool
more.

You will find big crystals of sugar attached to the string.
Now you may not know this but powdered sugar is still crystaline, just
powdered. Thermosdynamics does allow ordered systems to atain greater
order. The waffle word "tend to" gives you an out but then this out is
big enough to support the creation of life from the random process of
mutation and the not quite so random process of selection.

[Theodore A. Kaldis]

Post by Mark Addinall

Post by Anti-Multiculty
BTW I thought this quote was good.....
"... Malaria kills about 1 million children per year. Most of these
deaths are due to Plasmodium falciparum, which, like other strains, is
transmitted by the bite of anopheles mosquitoes. Another comparatively
new mutation conveys resistance to P. falciparum, but at a high price. It
causes sickle cell anemia, a painful inherited blood disease that occurs
mainly in blacks.

"Mainly in blacks" is a bit of a stupid statement.

Mark, your political correctness is getting the better of you. Sickle cell
anemia occurs in the USA mainly in blacks, in about 0.2% of the American
black population. This is because it is an INHERITED disease -- the result
of a recessive gene -- of which about 8% of American blacks are carriers.

Post by Mark Addinall
"Mainly in peoples who inhabit areas where malaria is endemic" is closer to
the truth by a long shot.

And just how prevalent is malaria in the USA?

[Arthur Brain]

Post by Theodore A. Kaldis
Mark, your political correctness is getting the better of you. Sickle cell
anemia occurs in the USA mainly in blacks, in about 0.2% of the American
black population. This is because it is an INHERITED disease -- the result
of a recessive gene -- of which about 8% of American blacks are carriers.

Post by Mark Addinall
"Mainly in peoples who inhabit areas where malaria is endemic" is closer to
the truth by a long shot.

And just how prevalent is malaria in the USA?

I'll help you out here, sometimes it can be difficult for
bible-bashers to ask the correct questions in order to see beyond
their idiotic fantasies.

Sickle-cell anaemia did not evolve in the last few hundred years.

In areas where this particular mutation took hold, its natural
prevalence reached an equilibrium point at the point where the
population were largely carriers.
At this rate, if they had 4 offspring, one would likely die of
malaria, one of sickle-cell anaemia, the other two would be reasonably
OK and likely to get the chance to produce their own offspring.

The current genetic make-up of the population of the USA tells us
practically nothing whatsoever about evolution - for reasons that are
obvious to anybody who has even the vaguest understanding of this (or
any other) science.

I think one of the best-studied populations for this mutation was in
Southern Italy/Sicily - correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ned Latham]

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by fritz
You have to get over the idea of a 'responsible' designer or god.
That is just a delusion that is clouding your thinking.
Evolution isn't 'responsible' for anything, it is just the best theory
we have at the moment to explain the way life is. It is way, way better
than anything the creationists have proposed, including 'intelligent design'.

Evolution isn't responsible for anything because it is a complete
fabrication. There has been *no* conclusive evidence put forward by
any scientists as to the origin of life on earth, or anywhere else,
indeed the whole theory is scientifically unsound. People like you
are the ones who have clouded judgement because you are so keen for
an alternative, any alternative, that you don't wait for science
to prove it.

Nonsense. It's called a theory because it's testable but as yet
unproven. The reason people accept it is its good sense.

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by fritz
The ability of science to analyse DNA has put the final nails in the
coffins of the fools who still believe in 'creation science'.
For a quick explanation of the evolution of diseases go to
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~jbwhammond/disevo.htm

On this website, the claim is made that; "..In Escherichia coli a
synonymous site (where no amino acid change is caused by a base-
changing mutation) is estimated to mutate once in approximately
1010 years..."

Unlike the theory of evolution, the notion of a steady rate of genetic
mutation *is* scientifically unsound.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Excherichia Coli is a 5000 gene per chromosome colon bacteria which
has been studied for over a century, and hasn't yet changed into
anything else other than more Escherichia Coli. The same goes for
every other species out there you want to throw up as an example,
no change into a different species has ever taken place.

So what? It might never happen. Doesn't mean it can't. The obvious
fact of many species is evidence that it can.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
Consider these words by an evolutionary scientist....
"...The usual answer to this question is that there was plenty of
time to try everything. I could never accept this answer. Random
shuttling of bricks will never build a castle or a Greek temple,
however long the available time.

Apparently he's not too familiar with what "random" means.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
A random process can build
meaningful structures only if there is some kind of selection
between meaningful and nonsense mutations...."

And Natural Selection is... ?

Post by Anti-Multiculty
-*A. Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Evolutionary Paradox and Biological
Stability," in Molecular Evolution, p. 111.

Post by fritz
Now A-M, perhaps you would like to explain why your 'intelligent
designer' is such a mean fucking cunt.

Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,

Nonsense. Just because we haven't observed any *yet* doesn't mean
that they don't occur.

Post by Anti-Multiculty
we have seen the problems of mutation in the countless
experiments on the fruit fly. All forced mutations on that little
critter failed each and every time to produce a new species.

Post by fritz
Or you might deny a creator and concede that evolution really is
the best scientific explanation we have at present for life as we
observe it.

It isn't though, even evolutionary scientists have a hard enough time
joining the dots.

Many still think in teleological terms and/or accept such silly notions
as that steady rate of change idea and bollix themselves that way. The
theory is, in fact, very simple, straightforward and easy to understand:

Mutations occur. If they're reproductively beneficial or neutral
they tend to be passed on to subsequent generations. If they're
radical enough, the offspring are a new species.

Ned

[Ned Latham]

Post by Anti-Multiculty

Post by fritz
I'd be interested in how 'intelligent design' explains bubonic
plague, malaria, polio, ebola, AIDS, STDs, birth disorders,
degenerative mutations, genetic diseases, etc. etc. etc.
In short, all the things in this world designed to fuck up life for us humans.
'Intelligent design' doesn't address the broader issue of why if
there is a 'designer' it must be one mean mother fucking bastard.

Likewise, i'd be interested to know how you think evolution is
supposedly responsible for all that also.

Neither is. Mutations occur. If they're reproductively beneficial
or neutral they tend to be passed on to subsequent generations. If
they're radical enough, the offspring are a new species.

Simple, really.

Ned