Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Gee, just what Jorge said ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    No distortions jorge. Just the facts, as per my signature. Facts are your enemy, but they are not mine.

    Jim
    Just as you willingly never read/understood my article, you clearly have not read/understood Dr. Clarey's paper. It's good to see that you remain as consistent as always, O-Mudd.

    While I'm here let me just mention that more and more evidence continues to mount against the partnership of Materialistic Naturalism and Theistic Evolutionism. Nonetheless, as I've often stated, NO amount of scientific evidence will ever pry the Evo-Faithful from the clutches of their fanatical beliefs. Why? Simple! Because as I've said from the start it has never been about "science" - that was just the cover story to distract the masses. It was always, and remains, about religious/ideological beliefs.

    Try this on for size and enjoy! ..........

    https://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/a_wow_signal_of/

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      Can I get a show of hands of those who care what Jorge said?
      Right back at you, kiddo!
      Hey, too bad that your candidate -- the crooked criminal Hillary Clinton -- lost.
      Bwahahahaha ...

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Right back at you, kiddo!
        Hey, too bad that your candidate -- the crooked criminal Hillary Clinton -- lost.
        Bwahahahaha ...

        Jorge
        Yeah. You're a moron Jorge.

        Jed is a conservative libertarian.

        Besides it was a non sequitur insult that isn't even on par with pewee herman

        63183129.jpg

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Just as you willingly never read/understood my article, you clearly have not read/understood Dr. Clarey's paper.
          Another drive-by clucking.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Just as you willingly never read/understood my article, you clearly have not read/understood Dr. Clarey's paper. It's good to see that you remain as consistent as always, O-Mudd.
            I've read your paper several times Jorge, and understood it quite well each time. And I have read Dr. Clarey's paper, though not in depth as there seems no interest by you or anyone else in discussing its contents. Your 'claim' I've not understood them in both cases is baseless. The first in that I have demonstrated many times over I understand both its content and it's primary purpose. And the second in that there has been no discussion of that papers content. My reply to you simply points to the fact the identifying artifacts of an impact structure have only one known natural cause.

            To recap - your paper is (at least) an attempt to provide for the possibility there are other explanations for Asteroid impact craters than Asteroid impacts. An in so doing, the hope is to provide a possible 'back door' out of the incredible consequences to the Earth and life on the Earth of the creation of the set of known impact craters in the short <10,000 history of the Earth that YEC proposes.

            And it fails miserably in its goal.

            The one /primary proposed possible alternative explanation simply is NOT an alternative explanation for any of the major impact craters I have discussed in the past on these pages. Further - even if you could find some as yet unknown force or cause capable of producing such craters and all the identifying artifacts, the consequences of unleashing that much energy in that short a period of a time in such a ways as to nearly instantly evacuate the material thus excavated and under the pressures so implied would be the same - and the implications for the age of the Earth (i.e. <10,000 years including all these events) would be the same.

            And so it fails to provide even one plausible alternative cause, and most importantly it does NOTHING AT ALL to solve THE problem for young earth creationism that such events pose: there is not enough time for them to have occurred and human civilization (or life on the planet for that matter) to have survived in a YE paradigm.

            While I'm here let me just mention that more and more evidence continues to mount against the partnership of Materialistic Naturalism and Theistic Evolutionism. Nonetheless, as I've often stated, NO amount of scientific evidence will ever pry the Evo-Faithful from the clutches of their fanatical beliefs. Why? Simple! Because as I've said from the start it has never been about "science" - that was just the cover story to distract the masses. It was always, and remains, about religious/ideological beliefs.

            Try this on for size and enjoy! ..........

            https://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/a_wow_signal_of/

            Jorge

            That was a nice little read Jorge. It might even present something interesting to discuss with someone capable of holding a meaningful discussion as opposed to meaningless tirades like the one above. However, as a start, I would say that 'proofs' of intelligent design in the fashion thus described are at best dubious. Really small probabilities do not an intelligent designer guarantee (even though we can quite whole-heartedly agree in our belief that this universe was indeed intelligently designed)


            Jim
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 03-20-2017, 07:50 PM.
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              Right back at you, kiddo!
              Hey, too bad that your candidate -- the crooked criminal Hillary Clinton -- lost.
              Bwahahahaha ...

              Jorge
              And too bad the winner (your candidate perhaps?) is no more capable of recognizing a tabloid fabrication than you are ...


              Jim
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                And too bad the winner (your candidate perhaps?) is no more capable of recognizing a tabloid fabrication than you are ...

                Jim
                "my candidate"? I'm too smart to fall for the filthy scam that politics is. I do enjoy poking fun at people that fall prey to that scam. Oh, and to be truthful, I did "vote" for Trump but that was only to keep the Criminal Clinton Cartel out of the White House-- it had nothing to do with any political affiliation.
                .
                .
                .
                Hey, while I'm here I may as well not totally waste the brief visit.
                Here's the latest anti-Evo evidence that I came across ...

                http://crev.info/2017/03/more-soft-t...s-fossil-bird/

                100-million-year-plus soft tissue just keeps showing up to embarrass the Evo-Faithful.

                I really enjoyed the comment of the site's owner - sounded just like me:

                "What do you do with unrepentant sinners? Instead of bowing their heads in shame and quitting science, they are taking ownership of their sins. They are saying it proves that soft tissue can last for millions of years!

                Don’t you remember the shock at those initial discoveries? Nobody predicted that soft tissue would remain even a million years, let alone 130 million. They are demonstrating that the Cult of Darwin cannot be falsified. It is not science."
                [my highlights]

                As I've stated many times here on TWeb, nothing - NOTHING!!! - will get the Evo-Faithful to abandon their Materialistic religion. They'd rather slit their wrists with a rusty blade.

                You may now begin spinning this latest evidence against your religious beliefs.
                Or you can just totally ignore it -- same difference. Hehehe

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post

                  I really enjoyed the comment of the site's owner - sounded just like me:

                  Yes it did - another scientifically illiterate nincompoop desperately trying to spin a scientific discovery into the ridiculous claim dinosaur fossils are only 4500 years old.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jorge the welcher View Post
                    "my candidate"? I'm too smart to fall for the filthy scam that politics is. I do enjoy poking fun at people that fall prey to that scam. Oh, and to be truthful, I did "vote" for Trump...
                    So he's your preferred candidate, welcher.
                    but that was only to keep the Criminal Clinton Cartel out of the White House--
                    Does H Clinton welch on bets?
                    Hey, while I'm here I may as well not totally waste the brief visit.
                    Here's the latest anti-Evo evidence that I came across ...

                    http://crev.info/2017/03/more-soft-t...s-fossil-bird/
                    Just the usual YEC lies.

                    The writers neglect to mention that most of the "soft tissue" Jiang et al. are referring to is mineralized material that retains the shape and structure of the original tissue, and instead give the impression that the soft tissue remains unfossilised.

                    In particular, this:
                    Source: the welcher's source

                    In their chemical analysis, the nine authors compared the soft tissue with modern samples of collagen and found a close match. “These FTIR spectra and mapping imply that amino acid residues may be present,” they say.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    is blatantly dishonest.

                    This is the graph from the original paper:
                    graph2.jpg
                    That's not a close match. As Jiang et al. write: The peaks at 1,652 and 1,510 cm−1 correspond to the diagnostic amide I and II absorbances, respectively, They have a correspondence of two absorption peaks. No sign of actual collagen. Perhaps the anonymous YEC hack doesn't know that collagen isn't an amino-acid, or hopes his readers don't.

                    Then there's this:
                    Source: ibid

                    A separate paper in National Science Review reported an even earlier fossil bird, Eoconfuciusornis, from the Early Cretaceous Jehol Formation in China (131–120 million Darwin Years). Phys.org calls it “the most exceptionally preserved fossil bird discovered to date.”

                    Researchers have not found fossils from any other bird from the Jehol period that reveal so many types of soft tissue (feathers, skin, collagen, ovarian follicles).

                    Once again, though, the focus is not on the implications of finding soft tissue that should be long gone.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    But there's nothing in either the Phys.org article or the abstract of the original paper to suggest that they did find any soft tissues, as opposed to just imprints of soft tissues: "We report on an exceptional specimen of Eoconfuciusornis preserving rare soft-tissue traces of the ovary and wing." The anonymous YEC liar is conflating fossilised soft tissue with preserved soft tissue.

                    Not that Jorge the welcher cares about facts - he'll ignore any criticism of the substance of his latest find just like he ignored such criticisms of the previous ones. He is too much of a cowardly fraud to discuss any actual science.
                    Last edited by Roy; 03-27-2017, 12:46 PM.
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      "my candidate"? I'm too smart to fall for the filthy scam that politics is. I do enjoy poking fun at people that fall prey to that scam. Oh, and to be truthful, I did "vote" for Trump but that was only to keep the Criminal Clinton Cartel out of the White House-- it had nothing to do with any political affiliation.
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      Hey, while I'm here I may as well not totally waste the brief visit.
                      Here's the latest anti-Evo evidence that I came across ...

                      http://crev.info/2017/03/more-soft-t...s-fossil-bird/

                      100-million-year-plus soft tissue just keeps showing up to embarrass the Evo-Faithful.

                      I really enjoyed the comment of the site's owner - sounded just like me:

                      "What do you do with unrepentant sinners? Instead of bowing their heads in shame and quitting science, they are taking ownership of their sins. They are saying it proves that soft tissue can last for millions of years!

                      Don’t you remember the shock at those initial discoveries? Nobody predicted that soft tissue would remain even a million years, let alone 130 million. They are demonstrating that the Cult of Darwin cannot be falsified. It is not science."
                      [my highlights]

                      As I've stated many times here on TWeb, nothing - NOTHING!!! - will get the Evo-Faithful to abandon their Materialistic religion. They'd rather slit their wrists with a rusty blade.

                      You may now begin spinning this latest evidence against your religious beliefs.
                      Or you can just totally ignore it -- same difference. Hehehe

                      Jorge
                      Jorge - the age of the earth and the long history of life on it is no more questionable than that the Earth is itself not flat but rather a globe orbitting the sun. So yes, when we discover that there are perhaps microscopic remnants of the living material in a 130million year old fossilized bone, we don't run and ask if indeed the Dinosaur bone might be only 6,000 years old. Any more than some optical abbheration that lets me see farther than the expected distance will make be doubt the Earth is round.

                      First of all, we have remnants of Mammoths that are 20,000 years old with MOST of the material intact. So clearly, these dinosaur remnants, if they were exceptionally preserved and only a few thousand years old, would contain a whole heck of a lot more than just microscopic possible molecular samples of the original.

                      So what I(and any sane, rational person) will do is try to understand how that material survivied, and under what conditions I might expect to find other samples like it. There is no consilient evidence to support your viewpoint, and reams of evidence against it. That is just the way it is.

                      Jim
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 03-27-2017, 06:35 PM.
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                        Yes it did - another scientifically illiterate nincompoop desperately trying to spin a scientific discovery into the ridiculous claim dinosaur fossils are only 4500 years old.
                        As I've stated many times here on TWeb, nothing - NOTHING!!! - will get the Evo-Faithful to abandon their Materialistic religion. They'd rather slit their wrists with a rusty blade.

                        I rest my case.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          So he's your preferred candidate, welcher.Does H Clinton welch on bets? Just the usual YEC lies.

                          The writers neglect to mention that most of the "soft tissue" Jiang et al. are referring to is mineralized material that retains the shape and structure of the original tissue, and instead give the impression that the soft tissue remains unfossilised.

                          In particular, this:
                          Source: the welcher's source

                          In their chemical analysis, the nine authors compared the soft tissue with modern samples of collagen and found a close match. “These FTIR spectra and mapping imply that amino acid residues may be present,” they say.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          is blatantly dishonest.

                          This is the graph from the original paper:
                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]21597[/ATTACH]
                          That's not a close match. As Jiang et al. write: The peaks at 1,652 and 1,510 cm−1 correspond to the diagnostic amide I and II absorbances, respectively, They have a correspondence of two absorption peaks. No sign of actual collagen. Perhaps the anonymous YEC hack doesn't know that collagen isn't an amino-acid, or hopes his readers don't.

                          Then there's this:
                          Source: ibid

                          A separate paper in National Science Review reported an even earlier fossil bird, Eoconfuciusornis, from the Early Cretaceous Jehol Formation in China (131–120 million Darwin Years). Phys.org calls it “the most exceptionally preserved fossil bird discovered to date.”

                          Researchers have not found fossils from any other bird from the Jehol period that reveal so many types of soft tissue (feathers, skin, collagen, ovarian follicles).

                          Once again, though, the focus is not on the implications of finding soft tissue that should be long gone.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          But there's nothing in either the Phys.org article or the abstract of the original paper to suggest that they did find any soft tissues, as opposed to just imprints of soft tissues: "We report on an exceptional specimen of Eoconfuciusornis preserving rare soft-tissue traces of the ovary and wing." The anonymous YEC liar is conflating fossilised soft tissue with preserved soft tissue.

                          Not that Jorge the welcher cares about facts - he'll ignore any criticism of the substance of his latest find just like he ignored such criticisms of the previous ones. He is too much of a cowardly fraud to discuss any actual science.
                          As I've stated many times here on TWeb, nothing - NOTHING!!! - will get the Evo-Faithful to abandon their Materialistic religion. They'd rather slit their wrists with a rusty blade.

                          I rest my case.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Jorge - the age of the earth and the long history of life on it is no more questionable than that the Earth is itself not flat but rather a globe orbitting the sun. So yes, when we discover that there are perhaps microscopic remnants of the living material in a 130million year old fossilized bone, we don't run and ask if indeed the Dinosaur bone might be only 6,000 years old. Any more than some optical abbheration that lets me see farther than the expected distance will make be doubt the Earth is round.

                            First of all, we have remnants of Mammoths that are 20,000 years old with MOST of the material intact. So clearly, these dinosaur remnants, if they were exceptionally preserved and only a few thousand years old, would contain a whole heck of a lot more than just microscopic possible molecular samples of the original.

                            So what I(and any sane, rational person) will do is try to understand how that material survivied, and under what conditions I might expect to find other samples like it. There is no consilient evidence to support your viewpoint, and reams of evidence against it. That is just the way it is.

                            Jim
                            As I've stated many times here on TWeb, nothing - NOTHING!!! - will get the Evo-Faithful to abandon their Materialistic religion. They'd rather slit their wrists with a rusty blade.

                            I rest my case.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              As I've stated many times here on TWeb, nothing - NOTHING!!! - will get the Evo-Faithful to abandon their Materialistic religion. They'd rather slit their wrists with a rusty blade.

                              I rest my case.

                              Jorge
                              If you rest your case, why do you keep posting?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jorge the welcher View Post
                                Not that Jorge the welcher cares about facts - he'll ignore any criticism of the substance of his latest find just like he ignored such criticisms of the previous ones. He is too much of a cowardly fraud to discuss any actual science.
                                As I've stated many times here on TWeb, nothing - NOTHING!!! - will get the Evo-Faithful to abandon their Materialistic religion. They'd rather slit their wrists with a rusty blade.

                                I rest my case.
                                You haven't made a case, welcher, you've just run away from discussion of the evidence. Again. As usual.

                                Where's the $150?
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X