Comments on: Quote of the day http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/ The world’s first, full-service conservative Internet broadcast network Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:28:36 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: j_ehman http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385583 j_ehman Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:07:33 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385583 Since I cannot edit previous comments, I would like to add to my response to Kralizec. The assumptions I spoke of previously are more specifically identified as the following (my apologies for being too general before): <blockquote> 1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there). 2. Decay rates have always been constant. 3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. </blockquote> credit to www.answersingenesis.com http://www.answersingenesis.com/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp Since I cannot edit previous comments, I would like to add to my response to Kralizec.

The assumptions I spoke of previously are more specifically identified as the following (my apologies for being too general before):

1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2. Decay rates have always been constant.

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

credit to http://www.answersingenesis.com
http://www.answersingenesis.com/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

]]> By: j_ehman http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385536 j_ehman Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:11:44 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385536 dorkafork I'm still trying to understand what your objection is. I must be missing something. Did someone lie about something? Please elaborate more. dorkafork

I’m still trying to understand what your objection is. I must be missing something. Did someone lie about something? Please elaborate more.

]]> By: dorkafork http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385501 dorkafork Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:53:20 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385501 Acceptance is one measure of successful teaching. <blockquote> Why do you keep taking their statements at face value? Why? Should I take at face value the dishonest representation of creationists in the media?</blockquote> It wasn't the media, this was evidence introduced and accepted by a court. Did they or did they not subpoena and receive early drafts of Pandas and People? Did or did these drafts not have nearly identical passages with the words "intelligent design" replacing "creationism"? Did or did not the DI say their goal was to "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."? Acceptance is one measure of successful teaching.

Why do you keep taking their statements at face value?

Why? Should I take at face value the dishonest representation of creationists in the media?

It wasn’t the media, this was evidence introduced and accepted by a court. Did they or did they not subpoena and receive early drafts of Pandas and People? Did or did these drafts not have nearly identical passages with the words “intelligent design” replacing “creationism”? Did or did not the DI say their goal was to “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”?

]]> By: Blacklake http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385402 Blacklake Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:27:51 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385402 <blockquote>1) South Park: evolution explained by Mr. Garrison. The most fiendish summary of evolution theory ever ever.</blockquote> You do realize Mrs. Garrison is intended to depict an individual who's a bit less than stable, don't you?

1) South Park: evolution explained by Mr. Garrison.
The most fiendish summary of evolution theory ever ever.

You do realize Mrs. Garrison is intended to depict an individual who’s a bit less than stable, don’t you?

]]> By: RightWinged http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385392 RightWinged Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:10:18 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385392 <blockquote>Why do you keep taking their statements at face value?</blockquote> Why? Should I take at face value the dishonest representation of creationists in the media? <blockquote>Why should scientists care about the acceptance of well-established scientific theories? Doesn’t that pretty much answer itself? How on Earth does dismay at scientific ignorance become religious belief? The statement of the various National Academies says “Within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science.” Should scientist be happy about that? Should they just roll over and say, “Hey, sure, teach whatever. Sun rotates around the Earth, do whatever you want. If I oppose that it’d mean I’d have some sort of religious belief in heliocentrism.” dorkafork on April 27, 2007 at 4:40 PM</blockquote> You're dishonestly mixing up two issues, teaching and acceptance. The scientists who get pissy over acceptance aren't pissed about curriculum, they are frustrated that their methods for convincing people that evolution is true haven't worked. They meet (and write in the world's major science publications) to voice frustration and formulate plans for converting more people. This isn't hidden, it's very blatant. Again, why should they care? Why should it concern them that the vast majority of the public doesn't buy evolution? Are they concerned that belief that we are unique among species will make us value human life? Are they concerned that we'll keep behavior in check because we answer to a higher power? Why do they care if the general public buys what they're selling?

Why do you keep taking their statements at face value?

Why? Should I take at face value the dishonest representation of creationists in the media?

Why should scientists care about the acceptance of well-established scientific theories? Doesn’t that pretty much answer itself? How on Earth does dismay at scientific ignorance become religious belief? The statement of the various National Academies says “Within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science.” Should scientist be happy about that? Should they just roll over and say, “Hey, sure, teach whatever. Sun rotates around the Earth, do whatever you want. If I oppose that it’d mean I’d have some sort of religious belief in heliocentrism.”

dorkafork on April 27, 2007 at 4:40 PM

You’re dishonestly mixing up two issues, teaching and acceptance. The scientists who get pissy over acceptance aren’t pissed about curriculum, they are frustrated that their methods for convincing people that evolution is true haven’t worked. They meet (and write in the world’s major science publications) to voice frustration and formulate plans for converting more people. This isn’t hidden, it’s very blatant. Again, why should they care? Why should it concern them that the vast majority of the public doesn’t buy evolution? Are they concerned that belief that we are unique among species will make us value human life? Are they concerned that we’ll keep behavior in check because we answer to a higher power? Why do they care if the general public buys what they’re selling?

]]> By: naliaka http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385355 naliaka Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:10:32 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385355 Instead of going around in circles, root around and find these two subjects first, then come back and debate: 1) <strong>South Park</strong>: evolution explained by Mr. Garrison. The most fiendish summary of evolution theory ever ever. 2) <strong>Evolutionary Theory applied to practical agricultural purposes</strong>: <strong>T.D. Lysenko </strong>and his concept of <strong>vernalization:</strong> Result: Soviet agriculture production collapses. Half a century of chaos in the Soviet farm production. Scientists who objected to the "enlightened" new methods of trying to force an evolutionary conversion in plants (wheat) lost their jobs, were jailed. Many terrifying parallels to today's Global Warming "consensus," led by Neo-Lysenkoian Al Gore. Google or whatever, links easily found for both ... Instead of going around in circles, root around and find these two subjects first, then come back and debate:

1) South Park: evolution explained by Mr. Garrison.
The most fiendish summary of evolution theory ever ever.

2) Evolutionary Theory applied to practical agricultural purposes:
T.D. Lysenko and his concept of vernalization:
Result: Soviet agriculture production collapses. Half a century of chaos in the Soviet farm production.
Scientists who objected to the “enlightened” new methods of trying to force an evolutionary conversion in plants (wheat) lost their jobs, were jailed.
Many terrifying parallels to today’s Global Warming “consensus,” led by Neo-Lysenkoian Al Gore.

Google or whatever, links easily found for both …

]]> By: j_ehman http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385331 j_ehman Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:38:26 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385331 Kralizec. Simply put, the dating methods involving the uranium-235, potassium-40, uranium-238, thorium-232, lutetium-176, rubidium-87, and samarium-14 isotopes are based on assumptions. Similar to the assumptions involving carbon-14. The assumption is that the amount of these isotopes that exist on the planet has been changing over time, i.e. they have reached their half lives at some point. When working on such assumptions you can never be certain that your results are accurate. Since carbon-14 only has a half life of 5730 years it is certain to me that isotopes of its type have reached their half lives. You cannot assume that because uranium-235 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years that any such isotope would have already reached its half life. To assume so is to already have the belief in an old earth. The evidence that exists points to a young earth. There is also the case of our magnetic field, but I'll let you say your piece on this issue first. Kralizec. Simply put, the dating methods involving the uranium-235, potassium-40, uranium-238, thorium-232, lutetium-176, rubidium-87, and samarium-14 isotopes are based on assumptions. Similar to the assumptions involving carbon-14. The assumption is that the amount of these isotopes that exist on the planet has been changing over time, i.e. they have reached their half lives at some point. When working on such assumptions you can never be certain that your results are accurate. Since carbon-14 only has a half life of 5730 years it is certain to me that isotopes of its type have reached their half lives. You cannot assume that because uranium-235 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years that any such isotope would have already reached its half life. To assume so is to already have the belief in an old earth. The evidence that exists points to a young earth. There is also the case of our magnetic field, but I’ll let you say your piece on this issue first.

]]> By: Kralizec http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385299 Kralizec Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:00:30 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385299 <blockquote>j_ehman on April 27, 2007 at 12:27 AM</blockquote> J_ehman, I don't imagine there's a paleobiologist on Earth who would disagree materially with your remarks about the limited applicability of the carbon-14 dating technique. Will you tell us about the dating techniques that rely on these other radioisotopes: uranium-235, potassium-40, uranium-238, thorium-232, lutetium-176, rubidium-87, and samarium-147? You're not required to be scientific; as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to be a strict, six-day creationist. But if you're going to try to use scientific doctrines to dispute scientific doctrines, either make a detectable effort to do it right, or expect someone to embarrass the hell out of you. Really, if all you know is one fact, then won't everyone on both sides of the debate be better served by your simple faith and respectful silence?

j_ehman on April 27, 2007 at 12:27 AM

J_ehman, I don’t imagine there’s a paleobiologist on Earth who would disagree materially with your remarks about the limited applicability of the carbon-14 dating technique. Will you tell us about the dating techniques that rely on these other radioisotopes: uranium-235, potassium-40, uranium-238, thorium-232, lutetium-176, rubidium-87, and samarium-147?

You’re not required to be scientific; as far as I’m concerned, you’re welcome to be a strict, six-day creationist. But if you’re going to try to use scientific doctrines to dispute scientific doctrines, either make a detectable effort to do it right, or expect someone to embarrass the hell out of you. Really, if all you know is one fact, then won’t everyone on both sides of the debate be better served by your simple faith and respectful silence?

]]> By: abinitioadinfinitum http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385199 abinitioadinfinitum Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:07:03 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385199 For all you Christians and non beleivers as well Friday night, April 27th, at 7pm, 9pm and midnight eastern on CNN Headline News will show a special on the Middle East and Bible prophecy with Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins and Joel Rosenberg. If you want to know what time it is in Bible time. IMHO Mat 16:2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, [It will be] fair weather: for the sky is red. Mat 16:3 And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times? For all you Christians and non beleivers as well
Friday night, April 27th, at 7pm, 9pm and midnight eastern on CNN Headline News will show a special on the Middle East and Bible prophecy with Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins and Joel Rosenberg.
If you want to know what time it is in Bible time. IMHO
Mat 16:2
He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, [It will be] fair weather: for the sky is red.
Mat 16:3
And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times?

]]> By: dorkafork http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385087 dorkafork Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:40:16 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385087 RightWinged, why on Earth do you believe these groups are being honest? Every time this comes up, I point out that these groups have been caught red-handed lying about their intentions, and every time you seem to ignore it. I offer links, sources... <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-12-20.html" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> one detailed history. Why do you keep taking their statements at face value? Doesn't it bother you at all, the deception these groups have been shown to use? Doesn't it make you the least bit skeptical of their claims? And why do you keep criticizing the scientists for "get(ting) pissy that public polls show the public isn’t buying their theory". "On the other hand I could list dozens of articles from major science publications on evolutionists gathering together to voice their frustration with the lack of acceptance and formulate ways to gain more acceptance. Why should they care if they aren’t the truly religious?" Why should scientists care about the acceptance of well-established scientific theories? Doesn't that pretty much answer itself? How on Earth does dismay at scientific ignorance become religious belief? The statement of the various National Academies says "Within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science." Should scientist be <i>happy</i> about that? Should they just roll over and say, "Hey, sure, teach whatever. Sun rotates around the Earth, do whatever you want. If I oppose that it'd mean I'd have some sort of religious belief in heliocentrism." RightWinged, why on Earth do you believe these groups are being honest? Every time this comes up, I point out that these groups have been caught red-handed lying about their intentions, and every time you seem to ignore it. I offer links, sources… Here’s one detailed history. Why do you keep taking their statements at face value? Doesn’t it bother you at all, the deception these groups have been shown to use? Doesn’t it make you the least bit skeptical of their claims?

And why do you keep criticizing the scientists for “get(ting) pissy that public polls show the public isn’t buying their theory”. “On the other hand I could list dozens of articles from major science publications on evolutionists gathering together to voice their frustration with the lack of acceptance and formulate ways to gain more acceptance. Why should they care if they aren’t the truly religious?”

Why should scientists care about the acceptance of well-established scientific theories? Doesn’t that pretty much answer itself? How on Earth does dismay at scientific ignorance become religious belief? The statement of the various National Academies says “Within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science.” Should scientist be happy about that? Should they just roll over and say, “Hey, sure, teach whatever. Sun rotates around the Earth, do whatever you want. If I oppose that it’d mean I’d have some sort of religious belief in heliocentrism.”

]]> By: abinitioadinfinitum http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385056 abinitioadinfinitum Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:12:47 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385056 <blockquote>RightWinged on April 27, 2007 at 3:30 PM</blockquote> Amen

RightWinged on April 27, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Amen

]]> By: RightWinged http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-385012 RightWinged Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:30:03 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-385012 <blockquote>dorkafork on April 27, 2007 at 9:15 AM</blockquote> Because the group wants to see something happen doesn't mean they are pushing it in any nonscientific way, or trying to get real science (without the storytelling) banned from the classroom. On the other hand I could list dozens of articles from major science publications on evolutionists gathering together to voice their frustration with the lack of acceptance and formulate ways to gain more acceptance. Why should they care if they aren't the truly religious? The creation/intelligent design side of course would like people to understand the truth, but you don't have any organized push to have Genesis taught in the science class... While the evolution side gets pissy that public polls show the public isn't buying their theory.

dorkafork on April 27, 2007 at 9:15 AM

Because the group wants to see something happen doesn’t mean they are pushing it in any nonscientific way, or trying to get real science (without the storytelling) banned from the classroom. On the other hand I could list dozens of articles from major science publications on evolutionists gathering together to voice their frustration with the lack of acceptance and formulate ways to gain more acceptance. Why should they care if they aren’t the truly religious? The creation/intelligent design side of course would like people to understand the truth, but you don’t have any organized push to have Genesis taught in the science class… While the evolution side gets pissy that public polls show the public isn’t buying their theory.

]]> By: Blacklake http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384972 Blacklake Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:42:47 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384972 <blockquote>Is that banana video for real? I mean, are those people saying what they believe, or are they mocking religious believers? Because I can’t tell.</blockquote> They are serious.

Is that banana video for real? I mean, are those people saying what they believe, or are they mocking religious believers? Because I can’t tell.

They are serious.

]]> By: Bill C http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384872 Bill C Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:38:48 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384872 Bayes theorem. Bayes theorem.

]]> By: j_ehman http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384868 j_ehman Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:35:05 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384868 First, to believe in evolution and to believe in the Bible at the same time is contradictory. If the Bible is true, the entire Bible is true, not just part of it. It is not "gossip" as the uninformed person above quipped. Second, they have transcripts that date back nearly 2000 years. The Bible has been translated to different languages, true, but it hasn't been changed from the original Hebrew and Greek. Do some research on it before you start saying such things. Next, for abinitioadinfinitum, each day was a day. Read your Bible again. "and there was morning and there was evening on the ____ day". It says that every time. The Bible was written for our understanding. So if it says there was morning and evening, then there was morning and evening, not morning(e12) and evening(e12). For those of you that don't believe in God, ask yourself a question. Where does your sense of beauty come from? Here's some help. Society didn't give it to you, and neither did your parents. If you see something and you find it beautiful, why? First, to believe in evolution and to believe in the Bible at the same time is contradictory. If the Bible is true, the entire Bible is true, not just part of it. It is not “gossip” as the uninformed person above quipped.

Second, they have transcripts that date back nearly 2000 years. The Bible has been translated to different languages, true, but it hasn’t been changed from the original Hebrew and Greek. Do some research on it before you start saying such things.

Next, for abinitioadinfinitum, each day was a day. Read your Bible again. “and there was morning and there was evening on the ____ day”. It says that every time. The Bible was written for our understanding. So if it says there was morning and evening, then there was morning and evening, not morning(e12) and evening(e12).

For those of you that don’t believe in God, ask yourself a question. Where does your sense of beauty come from? Here’s some help. Society didn’t give it to you, and neither did your parents. If you see something and you find it beautiful, why?

]]> By: jdpaz http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384846 jdpaz Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:23:13 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384846 fogw, just to continue beating on this dead horse, if caterpillar to butterfly metamorphosis is evolution, why do we get the same stinkin' butterfly each time? Shouldn't we expect something else to emerge from that chrysalis every once in a while? Do you expect cats or platypi to ever come out of caterpillar chrysalae? No, it's the same butterfly each time. fogw, just to continue beating on this dead horse, if caterpillar to butterfly metamorphosis is evolution, why do we get the same stinkin’ butterfly each time? Shouldn’t we expect something else to emerge from that chrysalis every once in a while? Do you expect cats or platypi to ever come out of caterpillar chrysalae? No, it’s the same butterfly each time.

]]> By: Attila (Pillage Idiot) http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384830 Attila (Pillage Idiot) Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:15:14 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384830 Is that banana video for real? I mean, are those people saying what they believe, or are they mocking religious believers? Because I can't tell. P.S. Rose is right. Is that banana video for real? I mean, are those people saying what they believe, or are they mocking religious believers? Because I can’t tell.

P.S. Rose is right.

]]> By: jdpaz http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384821 jdpaz Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:11:22 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384821 fogw,<blockquote>I’m not familiar with the “partway theory”</blockquote> In order for a caterpillar to change into a butterfly it needs the proper DNA information that programs the metamorphosis. When a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly it is merely acting upon ALREADY EXISTING instructions---exactly the same way that say a single celled human transforms into an adult human. There is no evolution involved in the process. The challenge for the evolution crowd is to show where the information comes from in the first place. A pre-caterpillar that doesn't metamorphose needs to get all the new DNA to "learn" to make the change (in really small steps for each generation, thus the "partway theory"---you can't have a non-metamorphosing caterx and in the next generation have a butterfly-producing caterpillar). Evolution posits random mutation and natural selection as a mechanism for gaining the new information. Unfortunately, there isn't a single case known of a mutation adding information to the genome except maybe the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Comic book heroes aside, mutations are almost always neutral or negative and don't add information. These are the opposite of what evolution requires to go from abiogenesis to humans (and BEYOND!!!11!!). Just to reiterate, the caterpillar to butterfly thing (or tadpoles turning into frogs) is not any kind of proof for evolution any more than kids growing up to be adults is. fogw,
I’m not familiar with the “partway theory”

In order for a caterpillar to change into a butterfly it needs the proper DNA information that programs the metamorphosis. When a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly it is merely acting upon ALREADY EXISTING instructions—exactly the same way that say a single celled human transforms into an adult human. There is no evolution involved in the process.

The challenge for the evolution crowd is to show where the information comes from in the first place. A pre-caterpillar that doesn’t metamorphose needs to get all the new DNA to “learn” to make the change (in really small steps for each generation, thus the “partway theory”—you can’t have a non-metamorphosing caterx and in the next generation have a butterfly-producing caterpillar). Evolution posits random mutation and natural selection as a mechanism for gaining the new information. Unfortunately, there isn’t a single case known of a mutation adding information to the genome except maybe the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Comic book heroes aside, mutations are almost always neutral or negative and don’t add information. These are the opposite of what evolution requires to go from abiogenesis to humans (and BEYOND!!!11!!).

Just to reiterate, the caterpillar to butterfly thing (or tadpoles turning into frogs) is not any kind of proof for evolution any more than kids growing up to be adults is.

]]> By: Rose http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384784 Rose Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:57:32 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384784 I don't believe in Darwinism but I don't think this banana illustration is too convincing when you consider that God also designed the pineapple. I don’t believe in Darwinism but I don’t think this banana illustration is too convincing when you consider that God also designed the pineapple.

]]> By: ScottMcC http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384769 ScottMcC Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:52:26 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384769 <blockquote>Dude, look me in the eye and tell me that the Grand Canyon, bioluminescent flowers at the bottom of the ocean, and Jessica Alba are all just freaky random cosmic accidents. Yep, didn’t think so… not only are they “freaky random cosmic accidents” the laws of probability say that there are at least two exact Jessica Albas’ in the universe or maybe even more. so to burst your bubble… btw worlds not flat and the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth… p.s. you might want to tell God that too… for the 50th rewrite of the bible… Kaptain Amerika on April 27, 2007 at 3:17 AM</blockquote> Laws of probab--? Wow! You've opened my mind up! I now know that because the 2nd Jessica Alba randomly walked into your house made of bioluminescent flowers at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, EVERYTHING I KNOW IS WRONG! <blockquote>Yes, there is awe inspiring beauty to be found on this marvelous blue marble, but there’s no shortage of random death and inexplicable suffering. fogw on April 27, 2007 at 9:08 AM</blockquote> Oh, I totally agree now. No need to give me the hard sell, O Comrade In Science! I realize now that the explanation of random chance--what all of us smart intellectuals like to call "The Sh-t Happens Theory of Life"--is so much more life-affirmingly plausible than believing that some invisible man in the sky gives human beings the intellect and bravery to warn people about disasters or find cures for diseases! Yep, I've left you stupid godbags behind now that my mind is opened up by the Random 2nd Jessica Alba explanation of existence! Life is meaningless! It's all random! SOLYENT GREEN IS PEEEEEEOPLE!

Dude, look me in the eye and tell me that the Grand Canyon, bioluminescent flowers at the bottom of the ocean, and Jessica Alba are all just freaky random cosmic accidents.

Yep, didn’t think so…

not only are they “freaky random cosmic accidents” the laws of probability say that there are at least two exact Jessica Albas’ in the universe or maybe even more.

so to burst your bubble… btw worlds not flat and the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth…

p.s. you might want to tell God that too… for the 50th rewrite of the bible…

Kaptain Amerika on April 27, 2007 at 3:17 AM

Laws of probab–? Wow! You’ve opened my mind up! I now know that because the 2nd Jessica Alba randomly walked into your house made of bioluminescent flowers at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, EVERYTHING I KNOW IS WRONG!

Yes, there is awe inspiring beauty to be found on this marvelous blue marble, but there’s no shortage of random death and inexplicable suffering.

fogw on April 27, 2007 at 9:08 AM

Oh, I totally agree now. No need to give me the hard sell, O Comrade In Science! I realize now that the explanation of random chance–what all of us smart intellectuals like to call “The Sh-t Happens Theory of Life”–is so much more life-affirmingly plausible than believing that some invisible man in the sky gives human beings the intellect and bravery to warn people about disasters or find cures for diseases!

Yep, I’ve left you stupid godbags behind now that my mind is opened up by the Random 2nd Jessica Alba explanation of existence!

Life is meaningless!
It’s all random!
SOLYENT GREEN IS PEEEEEEOPLE!

]]> By: abinitioadinfinitum http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384754 abinitioadinfinitum Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:38:08 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384754 Anyone who takes the time to study science will KNOW without a doubt that . Jesus is Lord . Albert Einstein People like us who believe in physics, know the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent delusion Albert Einstein Special Relativity ( 1905 ) Length, mass, velocity and time are relative to velocity of the observers General Relativity ( 1915 ) No distinction between Time and Space = a 4-dimensional continuum This is confirmed 14 ways to 19 decimals This means we live in > 4 dimensions. 1854 Georg Riemann's metric tensors 1915 Albert Einstein's, 4-dimensional space-time 1953 Kaluza-Klein 4+n Dimensions -Light & Supergravity 1963 Yang-Mills Fields -Electromagnetic and both Nuclear Forces 1984 Superstrings, 10-Dimensions All of you know the first 3 dimensions and the past and present of the 4th dimension, but do you have any idea what is in the other 6 dimensions? No , but God knows all The Stretch Factor of the Universe -The expansion factor: ~!0 to the 12th -16 Billion years x 365 = 6,000,000,000,000 days -6 x 10 to the 12th days divided by 10 to the 12th = 6 days . Exponential Expansion Day one 8 billion years 2nd day 4 billion years 3rd day 2 billion years 4th day 1 billion years 5th day .5 billion years 6th day .25 billion years ------------------------------------------ 15.75 billion years . God Bless all of you and I pray you all find the truth that . Jesus is Lord Anyone who takes the time to study science will KNOW without a doubt that
.
Jesus is Lord
.
Albert Einstein
People like us who believe in physics, know the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent delusion

Albert Einstein
Special Relativity ( 1905 )
Length, mass, velocity and time are
relative to velocity of the observers
General Relativity ( 1915 )
No distinction between Time and Space
= a 4-dimensional continuum
This is confirmed 14 ways to 19 decimals
This means we live in > 4 dimensions.

1854 Georg Riemann’s metric tensors
1915 Albert Einstein’s, 4-dimensional space-time
1953 Kaluza-Klein 4+n Dimensions
-Light & Supergravity
1963 Yang-Mills Fields
-Electromagnetic and both Nuclear Forces
1984 Superstrings, 10-Dimensions

All of you know the first 3 dimensions and the past and present of the 4th dimension, but do you have any idea what is in the other 6 dimensions? No , but God knows all

The Stretch Factor of the Universe
-The expansion factor: ~!0 to the 12th
-16 Billion years x 365 = 6,000,000,000,000 days
-6 x 10 to the 12th days divided by 10 to the 12th = 6 days
.
Exponential Expansion
Day one 8 billion years
2nd day 4 billion years
3rd day 2 billion years
4th day 1 billion years
5th day .5 billion years
6th day .25 billion years
——————————————
15.75 billion years
.
God Bless all of you and I pray you all find the truth that
.
Jesus is Lord

]]> By: fogw http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384711 fogw Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:11:09 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384711 <blockquote>jdpaz on April 27, 2007 at 11:47 AM</blockquote> The striking metamorphosis from one creature to another, in nature, takes place in a relatively short period of time. One can logically conclude more significant changes, and more of them, would occur over hundreds of millions of years. I'm not familiar with the <em>"partway theory"</em> as it applies to creation or evolution. Could you enlighten me? <blockquote>If any step in the process is missing then you don’t get a viable creature.</blockquote> Better ease off on the Sci-Fi flicks.

jdpaz on April 27, 2007 at 11:47 AM

The striking metamorphosis from one creature to another, in nature, takes place in a relatively short period of time. One can logically conclude more significant changes, and more of them, would occur over hundreds of millions of years. I’m not familiar with the “partway theory” as it applies to creation or evolution. Could you enlighten me?

If any step in the process is missing then you don’t get a viable creature.

Better ease off on the Sci-Fi flicks.

]]> By: Blacklake http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384689 Blacklake Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:01:52 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384689 Brundlepillar! Brundlepillar!

]]> By: jdpaz http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384670 jdpaz Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:53:19 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384670 ...a butterpillar??!! ...a CATERPIFLY??!!!?!/1/1?!//1/1 …a butterpillar??!! …a CATERPIFLY??!!!?!/1/1?!//1/1

]]> By: jdpaz http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/comment-page-1/#comment-384659 jdpaz Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:47:26 +0000 http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/26/quote-of-the-day-35/#comment-384659 fogw, the caterpillar/butterfly "evolution" actually supports the need for special creation. Try to imagine what you'd have partway through the evolution to the metamorphosis sequence---a part butterfly/part caterpillar MONSTER!!!11!! If any step in the process is missing then you don't get a viable creature. fogw, the caterpillar/butterfly “evolution” actually supports the need for special creation. Try to imagine what you’d have partway through the evolution to the metamorphosis sequence—a part butterfly/part caterpillar MONSTER!!!11!!

If any step in the process is missing then you don’t get a viable creature.

]]>