GT

Kind of like IM.

If you want to "Shout" something to everyone on the board, it's the place to do it.

There's also a complete history of all the shouts. Click the "Shoutbox" link on the main menu at the top (between "Live Chat" and "Calendar").

Currently, only logged in users can see it.

I took the time to look up what you're referring to with macro-evolution. If you're referring to a jump from one species to another in a relative short amount of time, no I don't see that and everything I've studied would not suggest it. All evolution is done in minor steps, with the minor changes in the genes being beneficial to survival (most are not and the change dies out). Major change is achieved by many incremental changes, all being beneficial to survival.

If you really want a perspective on it, read Dawkin's book - The Selfish Gene. No macro-evolution required. Don't worry, you won't end up having to go to an evolution fellowship meeting 2 - 3 times a week and send him 15% of your income. The worst that will happen is that you wasted a few hours of your time. ;)

I think this sums up this thread rather well:

In the northeastern United States, for example, are found two species of tree frogs, Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis. The two are absolutely identical in appearence, and the only way to distinguish them in the field is by their slightly differing mating calls. One of these species is a "polyploid" of the other, that is, it developed from the other species when a chromosomal abnormality left some individuals with twice the normal number of chromosomes. (Polyploidy is a very common means of plants to produce new species--in fact, most domesticated food plants like wheat and rye are polyploids--but is comparitively rare among animals.) There is no doubt that the two frogs share an ancestor/descendent relationship, and that one evolved from the other through polyploidy.

For the creationists to consider these two virtually identical frogs as being of different "kinds" would be absurd on the face of it, since they are so alike they can be distinguished only in the lab, and they obviously share evolutionary descent. So naturally, the creationists would like to lump these two species together as "variations" within one "created kind". But there is a problem for the creationists--the two Hyla species do not, and, because of their chromosomal differences, cannot, interbreed. Not only do they not produce any fertile offspring--they are incapable of producing any offspring at all. The same problem arises in connection with plants--the polyploid descendents of particular plants can no longer produce viable seeds with the parent stock, and thus cannot produce any offspring with the parent species. Therefore, the creationist, using the criterion of "interbreeding", must conclude that the two are different "kinds", even though one is obviously a descendent of the other (polyploid plants have been successfully produced and bred in the laboratory--in fact many of our food crops are polyploid descendents of corn and wheat plants which can no longer interbreed with the parent stock).

I think you're putting too much stock in breeding.

Personally, I don't see how it plays any role. Just b/c two animals/plants set of genes have changed to the point that they are incompatible breeding with each other doesn't prove or disprove anything. At the most it shows that their genes have only diverged enough to prevent the incompatibility.

Kind of old (1995) but good information on the creationist's "kind" theory:

CREATION "SCIENCE" AND THE GENESIS "KINDS"

And on Noah's flood:

CAN NOAH'S FLOOD ACCOUNT FOR THE GEOLOGIC AND FOSIL RECORD?

oesn't take an Einstein to see the problems with isotope dating. (are there 12,000 year old trees?) Do you know what the assumptions are?

The Age of Life, Radiometric Dating, and Tree Rings

If you haven't seen any problems with creationism yet, you're not looking (intentionally?).

Nobody knows how gravity works either. Must not exist.

Ice Age

Real evidence for multiple glaciation is overwhelming. Older works on glacial geology (Flint, 1971; Wright and Frey, 1965) describe in great detail arguments for four great ice ages in the last two million or so years. This evidence includes well developed soil horizons and sub-tropical vegetation over-run by succeeding ice advances (Morrison and Wright, 1965). More recent works (Goudie, 1983; Wright, 1989; Dawson, 1992; Anderson and Borns, 1994) support these observations and further separate the four advances into about ten different advances. In addition, they give evidence of several other very much older glacial epochs, including some Precambrian ones which would have been "pre-flood."

Probably the best arguments for the magnitude of ice age time is the record from long cores taken through the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. In the Antarctic ice, summer and winter bands can be counted back, year by year, to at least 30,000 years (Anderson and Borns, 1994) with overall core lengths indicating total time spans of several hundred thousand years. Dates from counting the annual layers in the cores can in turn be correlated with C14 dates from the CO2 contained in entrapped air bubbles, with C14 dates from tree ring correlations which can be counted and correlated back 12,000 years, with annual sediment layers from glacial lakes, with dates from the pollen records of climatic change in Europe and America, and with radiometric dates and rate of sedimentation dates on deep sea cores. Most of these dates can in turn be stitched together and mutually supported by paleomagnetic dates from other areas and dating techniques (summaries by Anderson and Borns, 1994). As new evidence is gained and dating techniques are refined, all these lines of converging evidence show increasing good correlations with the Malenkovich cycles, based on Newtonian celestial mechanics, an additional set of time determinations linked to modern astronomic measurements. To argue in the face of such massive and interlocking evidence that the entire span of the Ice Ages constituted only the last few thousand years must represent a supreme example of faith overcoming reason.

Here's a good summary of the creationism time-line:

A Creation "Science" Geologic Time Scale

(1) 4000 B.C. Creation Week: (laws of science suspended)

1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." Laws of science invalid.

Flood Year: Flood "Geology" - ONE (?) year of normal (?) "science"

Post-Flood Geology - 4,500 years of normal (?) science to

Present

The creation museum's proof that humans lived with dinosaurs (even had them as pets):

I just got out of class (I'm a grad student). My prof just spent several minutes emphasizing to prove information to yourself. He said don't ever assume a piece of scientific literature to be fact, not even if it has been peer-reviewed. He says he's found a lot of peer-reveiwed works in chemistry journals which turn out to be incorrect. He's even taken journal articles and turned them into homework assignments for his students. His students would find issues with the assignment, and it turned out it was because of serious errors in the experiment the article described. Scientists are people and are prone to the same errors as anyone else. (Note: this class has nothing to do with evolution)

I bring this up because it was argued on another thread that evolution is proven with literature under peer-review, and that creation-scientists are not credible because their work is not peer-reviewed by "real scientists".

Peer-review may give an article more credibility, but it is no guarantee, and should never be simply accepted. For me to simply accept something, even gravity, without careful study and consideration, would go against my scientific training. It takes a lot work to become convinced of something. Just because the scientist next to me is convinced, doesn't mean I should be.

Perhaps you should apply the same thinking to the book of Genesis.

This thread has finally made sense to me. It only makes sense if you accept Genesis as absolute truth and everything else must fit within it. Sorry, don't care how scientific one wants to claim to be, that is bad science. It's also a carry over from TWI days -- the fundamentalist literal interpretation of scripture. Waybrain in action.

And this museum is not another point of view. Saying 2+2=5 is not a point of view. It is a factual error, or in this case, outright dishonesty.

Law of Believing = complicated

Faith = Simple

This is an example where the simple makes more sense?

First, both are simple. VP's law of believing, you get what you believe for, negative or positive, is plain and simple. Faith (or 'belief', which is probably what it should be translated as) is only 1/2 of the equation, belief in something someone (God knows who that might be) wrote 2,000+ years ago without any evidence supporting it.

Both aren't worth crap. Both are for the lazy mind that doesn't want to put forth the effort to find the real answer, whether it agrees with the Bible or not, or who don't want to know the real answer b/c it will disagree with what they already hold to be true.

Still astounded that people actually believe dinosaurs and humans lived together. Yaba-daba-dooh!

Creationism is always easier. Any part you don't know you just say God did it. Takes all the effort of thinking out of it. The lazy mind approach.

And calling Richard Dawkins religious while extolling the virtues of creationism based on Genesis is like saying I'm still in TWI and here to witness for them.

I wish you could explain yourself better. You're making no sense.

I gave just one example. This is a common trend. Therefore I cannot accept the theory of evolution as absolute.

Go see the museum.

I'm sure you have many examples. Still doesn't disprove the theory, nor should it. That's how theory works. You keep working at it until all the holes are explained, proven, disproved, corrected, etc. But just b/c there are areas that are not understood does not disprove it, as it appears you are trying to do. By this logic, gravity doesn't exist.

And no one expects anyone to accept it as absolute.

Go see the museum? Probably would if they weren't trying to pawn it off as scientific fact. Would be amusing. But as it is, it's insulting.

I really don't understand your reasoning there.

Just because part of a process is not understood does not mean the theory surrounding it is wrong.

Gravity is theory. No one understands how it works. Plenty of holes in it. Yet I don't think you dismiss the theory, no? If you jump off a building, your going to hit the ground going pretty fast without any understanding of how it works.

Same for evolution. It's the best theory that explains all the evidence. As more comes in, it is adjusted or corrected.

The theories presented in Genesis worked pretty good 2,000+ years ago, when the earth was flat, the sun and universe rotated around the earth and fossils were unknown. Someone forgot to update the text as more evidence came in though.

Science is wrong all the time. But unlike religion, when contrary evidence is found, science corrects itself.

I really don't need to examine what this museum has to offer. It is known that they are dishonest with scientific facts. They also watched too many episodes of The Flintstones in claiming man lived with the dinosours.

But even more, it is based on texts I have already studied the origin of and found they are not what they claim to be. Not from a belief system, but from evidence. Hardcore solid evidence. If you're trying to proove something based on something else that has already been disproven, what's the point?

You sound like you had a faith-based biology teacher who was forced into teaching evolution and all he did was give you the holes in it.

You may be right about macro-evolution, if I'm thinking about the same thing. Don't know. Try reading The Selfish Gene some time. Some "good arguments that need to be looked at."

Let me add that I have nothing against you Bolshevik. I like you. You have a good head on you, witty, and (if I recall your previous posts correctly) was smart enough to see through TWI even after growing up in it.

My beef is with this joke of a museum.

I would suggest if the source of whatever you believe came from TWI to apply the scientific method to it. By that I mean to question it severely. Try to disprove it, no matter what it is. If you can disprove it, then dump it. Otherwise, you're just a target for the next group to come along. School of hard knocks presented me with that bit of advice. And it seems to work rather well.

This museum claims the earth is only 6,000 years old, taking a literal reading of Genesis. How many fields of science have to be ignored to support this hypothesis? Archeology showing prior human existence, including cities? Geology with its mountains of evidence and many reliable dating methods (carbon-14 is not the only)? Thermo-dynamics? Cosmology? Astronomy, with its known speed of light and that the closest star to us (excluding our sun) is 4,500 light years away. If the earth and, by extension of Genesis, the universe is only 6,000 years old, the only thing you would see in the night sky are the planets in our solar system and maybe a couple other stars.

IMO Anyone who believes evolution is just as much a religious nut. Where's the proof?

Evolution is B.S. You don't believe God or gods. Are you offering an alternative view? Are we genetically designed by aliens? Is that what you're saying?

A slight suggestion to pay attention in biology class.

Proof? How much do you need? There are volumes of evidence you seem to ignore.

There was plenty of explanations at the museum to show that a prior post in this thread is nonsense.

There were photos of layers of coal. They are flat on the top and bottom. There are perfect layer of a sediment dividing it.

There are fossils that cut through the layers. Up and down. Cutting through supposedly millions of years.

The sedimentary layers were caused by a global flood.

You'll have to see at the museum.

As far as the ark, yes, I'm sure they were working hard to haul off poop. Seems like a moot point.

Why is it that this museum is the only one claiming proof of a global flood? And their proof is one layer of coal?

I don't think you understand the magnitude of the amount of "poop" that would have to be carted off. Of course if your in the habit of ignoring physical laws, then it's easy as pie.

Now here, aren't you just giving more credibility to the idea that there was an ark and flood?

Been arks and floods throughout history. But none that encompassed the entire earth, or even worse, kept a set of every living creature.

Don't a lot of museums display the ancient gods of Egypt, Greece, and Babylon? Does anyone have a problem with this?

So this new museum displays the record of Genesis, along with explainations by real scientists about why we see what we see. There was an incredible amount of food for thought.

As far as I know, this museum is the only one of its kind that claims to be scientific proof of a myth.

If it wants to claim to be a museum of Christian beliefs, I have no problem with it. But when they distort scientific facts, warp logic, and disgrace common sense in the guise of science -- that I have a problem with.

Just my opinion:

Calling this place a museum is a joke. Squeezing 2,000+ year old mythology into scientific facts, distorting them, and outright misrepresenting/changing them is blatant dishonesty.

There is no evidence of a global flood occurring 4,500 years ago. There is no evidence of a global flood ever occurring. If the entire earth was ever covered in water, it would leave a layer of sediment and be visible wherever you dug. How can anyone ignore a basic fact like this to squeeze in a myth story taken from two older myth stories (the Egyptian Hermopollitian Creation myth and Babylonian flood myths), haphazardly combined and converted to monotheism?

If you really want to put your noggin to work and use some common sense, picture the boat Noah supposedly built. It had 1 window, approximately 2 feet by 2 feet. Now picture these thousands of animals on the boat defecating and urinating every day. You've got 1 small window to provide ventilation. Think that's enough? Living in a sewer for months with little ventilation is survivable, right? Oh wait! The 8 people on the boat could have worked 24x7 carting the feces up to and out the window and siphoning the urine out and still had time to feed all the animals and themselves. That's workable. Yeah!

Tell me, what would be the difference between this "museum" and one set up to show the creation of the earth by the Greek gods? Is there any?

Anyway, enjoy your "museum".

Section of OJ's book leaked.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/19/oj-did-it-leaked-online/

I read somewhere that the Goldmans won the rights to the book and plan to release it under a new title, "Confessions of a Murderer," in order to collect what is owed them from him.

Change Traffic Lights With A Universal Remote! - video powered by Metacafe

It's time for another one...

What American accent do you have?

My Results:

Northern

You have a Northern accent. That could either be the Chicago/Detroit/Cleveland/Buffalo accent (easily recognizable) or the Western New England accent that news networks go for.

The commercial is real, no cheats except that it is two takes stitched together b/c they couldn't get a studio long enough to handle the entire sequence at once. The stitching point is where the muffler roles down the ramp.

As for tires rolling uphill:

In answer to the most frequently asked question about the commercial:

The sequence where the tyres roll up a slope looks particularly impressive but is very simple. Steiner says that there is a weight [in each]tyre and when the tyre is knocked, the weight is displaced and in an attempt to rebalance itself, the tyre rolls up the slope.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/advertisements/hondacog.asp

Uh, that's why it's in the Just Plain Silly forum. :blink:

At the 1994 annual awards dinner given by the American Association for Forensic Science, AAFS President Don Harper Mills astounded his audience in San Diego with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story.

"On 23 March 1994, the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound of the head. The decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building intending to commit suicide (he left a note indicating his despondency). As he fell past the ninth floor, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the eighth floor level to protect some window washers and that Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide anyway because of this."

"Ordinarily," Dr. Mills continued, "a person who sets out to commit suicide ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended. That Opus was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not have changed his mode of death from suicide to homicide. But the fact that his suicidal intent would not have been successful caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.

"The room on the ninth floor whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing and he was threatening her with the shotgun. He was so upset that, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Opus.

"When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. When confronted with this charge, the old man and his wife were both adamant that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. The old man said it was his long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her - therefore, the killing of Opus appeared to be an accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.

"The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal incident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus."

There was an exquisite twist. "Further investigation revealed that the son had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a ninth story window.

"The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide."

Turned on HTML options for this forum. Should be able to resume trying to embed YouTube videos.