dutchdreams

Don't you find it very lucky that the new amounts deposited are just enough for evolution? Nope, not really, specially since NASA at the time of the lunar landing already predicted there would be a small deposit present. I find it funny that later on creationists debate the numbers, telling it should be far bigger, then later on when the old figures are confirmed, they cry havoc for data manipulation. If you even read your own source you would see that the flaws in the test that he is pointing out mean there would be even less helium than the earlier test indicates... This man is just trying to discredit humphrey, not his work... Lovely how you twist things around because you don't get them: creationist (Humphry) manipulates data, by applying a vaccuum in his testing. My source criticizes him for it, because of course you shouldn't do diffusion rate measurements under vacuum when you're interested in the diffusion of gases under subterranean pressure. Here's the WHOLE quote, of which you conveniantly left out a part: However, Dr. Humphreys' diagram has little scientific merit. First of all, his helium diffusion experiments were performed under a vacuum rather than at realistic pressures that model the subsurface conditions at Fenton Hill (about 200 to 1,200 bars; Winkler, 1979, p. 5). McDougall and Harrison (1999), Dalrymple and Lanphere (1969) and many other researchers have already shown that the diffusion of noble gases in silicate minerals may decrease by at least 3-6 orders of magnitude at a given temperature if the studies are performed under pressure rather than in a vacuum. That's what your quote is refering to: it is shown (and known) that if you apply realistic (subterrenean) pressures, *rather than vacuum* (Humphrey) the rates as proposed by Humphrey already decrease by 3-6 orders. Which is more in line with earlier work done on the same crystals during the 1980s. Do you understand it now? In short: Humphrey manipulated the test by applying a vacuum to come to a higher diffusion rate, so people like you can believe there should be an enormous amount of helium present in our atmosphere and thus supposedly have an arguement against an old-age earth. Before you start on the descrediting work card: Humphrey and his buddies did their research to discredit earlier work on the same rock crystals done in the 80s. In fact, it's what their whole research is based on, only thing is Humphrey did it by wrong model assumptions, wrong experiments. He even had the crystals etched with hydrofluoric acid at one time. Any chemist can tell you how the original crystal lattice will be destroyed by that kind of treatment and therefore hold no relevance anymore to the original sample diffusion coefficient. Diffusion experiments done on those etched crystals done by Humphrey's et al resulted in even *higher* diffusion rates. It was recognised in the 2003 paper that these were too high and therefore disregarded. His research is a show of how sample treatment and analysing techniques affect diffusion rates at best. His conclusion how it's proof for a young earth is completely laughable and easy to undermine. By:[*:2x0avf7z]Materials used[*:2x0avf7z]Letter size and form[*:2x0avf7z]Punctuation[*:2x0avf7z]Text divisions[*:2x0avf7z]Ornamentation[*:2x0avf7z]Ink color[*:2x0avf7z]The texture and color of parchement Let's have a look at the dead sea scrolls both of these two sources mention C14 dating corroborates nicely with other techniques. So, we have a benchmark now: you either have to admit your own dating techniques are fallacy (since the C14 corroborates them) or you have to admit C14 dating isn't the crappy method you so adamantly believe. Which one is it going to be? You are confusing macro evolution with micro evolution. Variations within kinds were made by God, however you have not been able to breed a complete new kind of animal have you? Evolution is evolution, be it micro or macro. I wasn't aware (micro) evolution was written in the bible? Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. The DDT-resistance is passed on from generation to generation. The insects that die, will be removed from the gene-pool eventually. So, the population has changed into a DDT-resistent population. Now compare that to the genome of the insects when we started using DDT decades ago: it has changed, woah evolution. On a side note, can you point out every wild (as in living in the wild) counterpart of all our breeds of dogs and cats, please? How are you doing on the link I gave you for the proof on evolution? Or would you rather present us with a mathematical model about repopulation of earth after the Flood. Where starting from 8 (?) people, earth was repopulated in 700 years into a big enough population to sustain Egyptian dynasties, Chinese empires, Babylonian culture. Could you also point me to where Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals fit in the Bible? These Cro-magnons and Neanderthals showed qualities that are attributed nowadays to humans alone, toolmaking, but most of all ART and even signs of speech capability . So, what were they according to you? Humans? Apes? Sub-humans? I thought we were created in his image? Don't bother debating the age, I really want to know how you explain these archeological finds. Be sure to include their capability of art in your explanation. EDITED: a paragraph

More reliable ? Heck, even creationist scientists are telling people NOT to use the moondust argument anymore to discredit the old-age universe. Found on answersingenesis.org:moon-dust argument no longer useful and Snelling (a creationist) on moondust Or are you now going to doubt creationist science as well? Thanks for the laugh on helium: it's now flammable and explosive? This is what a different source has to say about your 'helium problem'. In it, data manipulation is discussed, misidentification of rock samples, the list goes on. Just a little quote: In 2003, many Christian fundamentalists became very excited about a RATE project in Humphreys et al. (2003a), Humphreys et al. (2003b) and Humphreys (2003). Humphreys et al. (2003a) claim that zircons from the "Jemez granodiorite" of the Fenton Hill rock core, New Mexico, USA, contain too much "radiogenic" helium to be billions of years old. By inaccurately modeling the helium diffusion rates in the zircons, making numerous invalid assumptions and assuming some unfounded miraculous increases in radioactive decay rates, Humphreys et al. (2004) concluded that the zircons are only "6,000 ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâñ 2,000 years old." Not surprisingly, their results conveniently straddle Bishop Ussher's classical 4004 BC "Genesis creation date" for the world. Just out of curiosity of course, but how were those zillions of copies of the book dated and tested for authenticity (a.k.a not forged)..... by carbon dating perhaps? Evolution happens on a continuous daily basis in the emerging of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, rapid changing of influenza and AIDS virus, pesticide-resistant insect plagues. Which is perfectly observable due to the short reproduction time of these organisms. You can say what you want, but all that goes drastically against the belief that each and every organism has always existed in their present form. You haven't given any proof against anything, just personal opinion, without backing up of your claims. A lot of sources have already been provided to you. The only thing so far you've tried doing is questioning earth's age and the methodology of carbon dating. Even creationist scientists stay away from some of the 'proof' you have given, as shown above. As for evidence on evolution, this will do for now: be sure to read part 1 -5, not just the introduction

World 12 has quite a few player moderators, including this particular one I keep seeing at the fishing colony. Oh wait, that would be Josh :P. As far as J-mods, I've seen a few pop up in the fishing guild to check on auto-ers.

The point of this experiment would be that amino acids CAN be created out of 'goo' (for the lack of a better word), which is an argument often used to dismiss an evolutionairy pathway (you hinted at it yourself a few posts back, amino acids being solvable in water ?). These people have shown, that amino acids can be formed under these circumstances. The only reference to life these researchers have given themselves is 'that it increases the odds that life evolved on planets other than Earth' (because the amino acids can be spread throughout by meteorites). In short, they researched the mechanism of formation of acids itself , not if it could lead to life (on earth) or not. That last bit is a conclusion on your own account.

You need 20 different amino acids to even make a single protein, also, who sais these are left handed amino acids? Their conclusion is very right, considering they only set out to create amino acids with this experiment, not specific left or right amino acids. Something which at the end of the article is mentioned as their next field of research. Of course you're wrong on needing all 20 amino acids to make a single protein. There are 20 BASE amino acids (monomers) which can polymerise to form a protein. This doesn't mean every protein needs all those 20 monomers. Here's some basic amino acid chemistry

Ah, you mean that incident of 80 years ago. An old sketch by an artist, which was never meant for scientific publication (but for a popular magazine). Of course it was later used by every creationist to confront other people how those bad evolutionists manufacture evidence. There already was scepticism in the scientific world about the nebraska man after its discovery, it was never accepted as 'proof' of evolution and in fact it was later refuted BY science. As explained in this link

Maybe this experiment was a bit more scientific to your liking?

Interesting article on atheism/religion. which is part of this book Conclusion in it: Based on a careful assessment of the most recent survey data available, we find that somewhere between 500,000,000 and 750,000,000 humans currently do not believe in God. Such figures render any suggestion that theism is innate or neurologically based untenable. The nations with the highest degrees of organic atheism (atheism which is not state-enforced through totalitarian regimes but emerges naturally among free societies) include most of the nations of Europe, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. There also exist high degrees of atheism in Japan, Vietnam, North Korea, and Taiwan. Many former Soviet nations, such as Estonia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus also contain significant levels of atheism. Atheism is virtually non-existent in much of the world, however, especially among the most populated nations of Africa, South America, the Middle East, and much of Asia. High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the world ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ particularly nations with high birth rates ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ atheism is barely discernable.

I'd mute everyone in sight.

I been wearing several pair of these for the last few years. 'Van Lier' shoes: Dutch hand made, indestructable and comfortable/affordable. They go for about $250- a pair.

Black jeans, black socks, black shoes (no, I'm too old to be an emo) and a dark blue nautica cotton T-shirt that I bought a few years ago in the USA: two sizes too big, but very comfortable.

Looks in pretty good shape for a 10 year old car (let me guess, it belonged to an old lady before you :P). I don't really like the color though: pimp it up ;)

13 isn't a "little kid". And I don't know why you're disgusted, I'm sure at 13 that would be a dream come true for you as would be for plenty others. ---------- I'm tired now... those are the best quotes I found. Why might he be disgusted, becuase that is a child, their body may not have even hit puberty yet, the fact is the majority of 13 year olds arn't mature enough to treat sex as a really serious issue, that's why there is an age of consent. At the age of 22 that woman should know what's right and wrong, she should know that having sex with a 13 year old (somebody who's less than two thirds of their age) is wrong, who's to say he knows the risk? Do we know if they used protection? For all we know the woman could have an STD, the point is the law is in place to protect our youth until they are at the age where they should be aware of all this and be able to make educated decisions. The fact is, the woman has broken the law and we don't know all the details, we don't know if the boy had second thoughts or anything, please can we just stick to facts we know, those being: -The boy is 13 years of age, 3(? (not sure where this has happened) years below the age of consent. - The woman is 22 years of age and therefore can be held responsible for her actions. - The woman has broken the law. Now it doesn't matter if the boy encouraged the woman, believe me I've seen this kind of siuation with a 13 year old who was fully developed and I was 17 and knew it would be (very) wrong. I'm sorry, but all you seem to be doing in this thread is laughing at everybody who's opinion disagrees with you. Just because somebody doesn't know the law doesn't mean they have a low IQ, please stop trying to make people feel bad for no reason. Go read my other post. I don't need to repeat myself. I don't give a [:!:] how old he was. If he consented, that's fine. "Who's to say he knows the risks", you say? WHO'S TO SAY HE DOESN'T KNOW THE RISKS?! Me. I say so because someone has to bring logic into this low-IQ infested world. Yes, this case was probably consensual. Why should it still be trialed as statutory rape? Because the judicial system works with precedents. We (the society) do NOT want to give future *genuine* sex offenders a stick to beat the judicial system with. Any defence shark, errr I mean lawyer in future sex offender cases would JUMP at the opportunity to raise this as a case in defence of their client (should this case be deemed 'consensual'). It will shift the burden of proof from the suspect to the actual victim: he/she will have to prove that in fact the relation was NON-consensual. Do you honestly want to subject minors to cross eximination in which the victim has to prove the relation was non-consensual? Do you really want to give future offenders even the slightest chance of escaping justice? There's your logic for you.

Worst thing for Jagex to do was cave in to the protesters' whishes after the third party client riots. It created a precedent, that players can influence how the game is played. It's always easy to talk in hindsight, but I'd say Jagex is partly responsible for the rioting that goes on at the moment with every crucial decision.

2.06 ~ Liberal airhead ~ Woohooo. I love the footnote at the end of the page : Well, there you have it. For more information, consult T. W. Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950). It should be noted here that that the authors concluded that it had "still to be demonstrated" if the F-scale actually did, in fact, measure fascist receptivity at a personality level. They were sure it measured something --- but not exactly sure what. T. W. Adorno returned to the University of Frankfurt, where he amused himself as a principal figure in the Frankfurt school of "critical theory", producing a Freudian-Marxist melange of pseudo-scientific speculative foolishness that is now, thank God, thoroughly discredited.

I don't know what I'd find worse: using bacon for toiletpaper, or toiletpaper for bacon :-X

I have been in a relationship with a devout Christian a few years ago. In the beginning when we started to get to know eachother it wasn't a problem. As the relationship continued and we got to know of eachothers point of views on morals, social issues and our future together, it became clear that we couldn't compromise. She expected me to go to church with her and accept her lord as my savior. She tried to convert me, but the only reason she could come up with, is that her family would never accept our relation unless I was into the lord. Since that would go against my own world image and later possibly conflict within myself, I had to break up with her. Years later, I met her again, married with someone of the same church, happy and vibrantly pregnant: I knew I had made the right decision. Loving someone is also knowing when to let go of someone.

Right. I take it you couldn't find a credible source, yes? The last article, had this in it: A little googling on 'Dr Gary Tunsky' who wrote that last article, gave his bio as a hit. He's a Naturopathic Doctor (ND title). Oh and he wants to treat cancer through your diet He claimes there really is only one disease: not thousands of seperate diseases, just one disease. Wikipedia on naturopathic medicine: 'With only a few exceptions, most naturopathic treatments have not been tested for safety and efficacy utilizing scientific studies or clinical trials. There is a concern in the scientific and medical communities that these treatments are used to replace well-studied and tested medical procedures thereby endangering the health of the patient.' I'll stick to living in my bubble as well. Atleast I can eat chicken in it, even though it's deemed an acidic food. Anyways, I never felt the need to kill an animal on purpose, except for annoying flies, spiders and mosquitos. I don't think killing an animal creates character: hardship in life will take care of that.

I keep them when im mining and banking. Only time I drop them is when I'm mining and superheating. I fill up my inventory with metal ores before heading out and only leave enough space in my inventory for the number of coal required to make the metal bars (e.g. 6 slots for addy ore). Simply no room for gems then ;)

As for advice: become a vet, while keeping writing and singing as a hobby during your studies. Then again, I like playing it safe ;) Myself, I went for a career in research, held a PhD position for 2.5 years, but that didn't work out. Right now, I'm employed by a chemical engineering agency, specialising in the control and safety of oil refineries and chemcial plants. My job includes revising and designing strategies so accidents like these don't happen. In about 10 years time I hope to have enough expiernce in the field to be a freelance consultant. Safety expert for hire by the big companies.

Wasn't he the guy that complained about pre-maturity.......err maturity a few pages back ? Anyways, to those who think prostitution is something done pre-marital: how come so many married men are among the clientele ? Disfunctional marital sex life would be one of the reasons.

Can anyone explain this and this to me ? 'God works in mysterious ways' and 'they didn't pray enough' come to mind. Back on topic sort of, in short why I am atheist: - I don't believe in omniscient, omnipotent yet invisible friends. - I will not base my belief in a divine being on a book written by men, revised by men and put together by men (Irenaeus) well over a millenium ago. Afterwards claiming it is the word of that divine being. What about the other dozen gospels that didn't make it into the bible? - I was raised a catholic, but seeing the leader of his church going to Aids- infected Africa and tell his followers not to use condoms, I was convinced he couldn't be right. - I do not believe in an afterlife. I am perfectly fine with the idea I will be dust in the wind after being cremated. - I don't like other people telling me how to interpret texts, doctrines, or life as a whole. I *really* don't like people deciding what is good for me and what not based on belief instead of on emperical data. - We have contemporary laws that keep most citizens in check, without the threat of a vengful being. Gods have outlived their usefulness in that area. - Christian morality/doctrine goes against my personal opinion on important issues: abortion, euthanasia, pre-marital sex, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, contraception. - There is too much controversy/turmoil in religious conflicts for me to be a supporting part of it. - Science gives a solid explanation.

Your best bet on getting accurate information about this, would be contacting the embassy of the country (countries) you're interested in. For studying in the European Union this link might help. (And the guy recieving free medical care probably has something to do with the Hippocratic oath/Duties of a doctor: care for your patient before anything else)

First there was punk, then there was coke.....err I mean the mid-80s, then there was grunge, now there are emo's ? The pistols did it already in the 70s. Nothing new, nothing special, no future.....blah blah.

I never solved it without help. Best I did was 4 sides completed, I couldn't figure out how to do the remaining two. I remember buying a booklet when these things were the fad; I must've been about 8 or 9 years old. Actually, my mom bought it, since I used to just put a screwdriver in between the parts, rip it apart and put it together again. If it ain't broken, don't fix it ! This could only be done with the cheap fake ones though, the trademark Rubik's would break at the spindle, so don't try this at home :P. The hype was insane, everybody carried one to school. Nation-wide championships were televised, world championships for the one who could solve it the quickest. Awesome television, a whole hour filled with nonsense, while the actual competition lasted for less than a minute.