In article <3F99D547.4070101@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>rnf2 wrote:
>> "John Mielke" <mielkman@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.c om...
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>>and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>>
>>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the
>>>
>> mid
>>
>>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>>
>>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>>>(i.e. How does anybody know what level it was that long ago?)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ice core in Antartica, peat cores in bogs, ice cores in Alaska.
>>
>> plenty of ways of finding out about the limate long before metrologists
>> evolved.
>>
>> rhys
>>
>>
>
>If we only knew for sure how old the ice and peat was...
>
>Matt
>
We do. Look up radioactive dating.

 

In article <3F99D547.4070101@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>rnf2 wrote:
>> "John Mielke" <mielkman@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.c om...
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>>and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>>
>>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the
>>>
>> mid
>>
>>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>>
>>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>>>(i.e. How does anybody know what level it was that long ago?)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ice core in Antartica, peat cores in bogs, ice cores in Alaska.
>>
>> plenty of ways of finding out about the limate long before metrologists
>> evolved.
>>
>> rhys
>>
>>
>
>If we only knew for sure how old the ice and peat was...
>
>Matt
>
We do. Look up radioactive dating.

 

In article <3F99E3DC.2060800@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>>in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not
incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>>facts and others.
>>>
>>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>>taller, heavier, etc.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.
>
>Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
>field/theory deals with the origin of the species then?

Evolution. That's different from the origin of LIFE. That's perhaps
cosmology, or a similar field.


>If you ask most
>people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
>evolution.

Because strict creationists insist God made all life exactly as it is today.


>Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
>species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
>isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.
>
>
>>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>>should allow this to happen, right?
>>
>>
>> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
>> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
>> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
>> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
>> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.
>
>Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
>interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
>good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
>both creationists and evolutionists.
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, but quoting unscientific web sites just makes you
look stupid.

>
>However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.

There's a giant conspiracy involving every biologist, every chemist, every
anthropologist? X-Files time!

>There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
>Bell Labs/Lucent.
>
>
>> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
>> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
>> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
>> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.
>
>But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
>analysis, dating, etc.

Yes, but when so many facts keep piling up, only a fool keeps denying them.


>Check out these links if you'd like to see just
>some of the issues.
>
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp
>

Check out a biology textbook.

>Matt
>

 

In article <3F99E3DC.2060800@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>>in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not
incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>>facts and others.
>>>
>>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>>taller, heavier, etc.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.
>
>Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
>field/theory deals with the origin of the species then?

Evolution. That's different from the origin of LIFE. That's perhaps
cosmology, or a similar field.


>If you ask most
>people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
>evolution.

Because strict creationists insist God made all life exactly as it is today.


>Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
>species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
>isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.
>
>
>>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>>should allow this to happen, right?
>>
>>
>> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
>> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
>> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
>> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
>> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.
>
>Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
>interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
>good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
>both creationists and evolutionists.
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, but quoting unscientific web sites just makes you
look stupid.

>
>However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.

There's a giant conspiracy involving every biologist, every chemist, every
anthropologist? X-Files time!

>There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
>Bell Labs/Lucent.
>
>
>> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
>> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
>> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
>> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.
>
>But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
>analysis, dating, etc.

Yes, but when so many facts keep piling up, only a fool keeps denying them.


>Check out these links if you'd like to see just
>some of the issues.
>
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp
>

Check out a biology textbook.

>Matt
>

 

In article <3F99E3DC.2060800@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>>in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not
incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>>facts and others.
>>>
>>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>>taller, heavier, etc.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.
>
>Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
>field/theory deals with the origin of the species then?

Evolution. That's different from the origin of LIFE. That's perhaps
cosmology, or a similar field.


>If you ask most
>people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
>evolution.

Because strict creationists insist God made all life exactly as it is today.


>Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
>species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
>isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.
>
>
>>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>>should allow this to happen, right?
>>
>>
>> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
>> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
>> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
>> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
>> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.
>
>Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
>interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
>good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
>both creationists and evolutionists.
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, but quoting unscientific web sites just makes you
look stupid.

>
>However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.

There's a giant conspiracy involving every biologist, every chemist, every
anthropologist? X-Files time!

>There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
>Bell Labs/Lucent.
>
>
>> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
>> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
>> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
>> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.
>
>But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
>analysis, dating, etc.

Yes, but when so many facts keep piling up, only a fool keeps denying them.


>Check out these links if you'd like to see just
>some of the issues.
>
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp
>

Check out a biology textbook.

>Matt
>

 

In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Brent P wrote:

>>
>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>
>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>
>

Sorry, radioactive dating is quite accurate.

>Matt
>

 

In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Brent P wrote:

>>
>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>
>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>
>

Sorry, radioactive dating is quite accurate.

>Matt
>

 

In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Brent P wrote:

>>
>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>
>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>
>

Sorry, radioactive dating is quite accurate.

>Matt
>

 

In article <7cwmb.25220$e01.49323@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>
>>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>
>> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>
>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>etc etc...
>
>
Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old. Biblical
infallability, you know.

 

In article <7cwmb.25220$e01.49323@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>
>>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>
>> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>
>It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>etc etc...
>
>
Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old. Biblical
infallability, you know.