Soliton signing out!

12/25/2008 | Soliton

[Soliton]

After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.

I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.

I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.

For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.

I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.

Merry Christmas

[valkyry1]

Just don ask the yote if he is pro-abortion, that will set him off.

Claiming to be about science seems to be an effective means (at least on this forum) to adopt liberal secularist god-hating values, and still maitain a pretense of being conservative.

[CottShop]

[[Your childish taunts do you and your cause no credit, but that's pretty much all we see from many of you lately]]

Wow! And htis coming from someone who liberally sprinkles his posts with childish taunts himself? Seems you don't like seeing a projection of yourself in others eh? Dish it out but can't take it sort of hting eh?

[[But here is some evidence for you to chew on:]]

Evidence? Lol- yup- "Here we show you a nice ne3at graph of how man evolved from fishes- Evidence? Stop asking us for actual scientific evidnece- We've said it happened that wauy, and by golly that is hte way that happened and if anyone dissagrees, why hten they're nothign but haters and deniers!!!!"

Evidenc-e- Give me a break!

[[The reason is that the rabbit, which is a fully formed mammal, must have evolved through reptilian, amphibian, and piscine stages and should not therefore appear in the fossil record a hundred million years or so before its fossil ancestors.]] [LINK]

And htere you have it folks! They said it, therefore that's the way it must be DESPITE any evidence to corroborate their claims! "We can't state with anuy credible certainty how old somethign is because we can ONLY accurately date back some 10,000 years- and anythign beyond that is PURE guesswork based on ASSUMPTIONS and an a priori belief, but b6y golly we're going to tell you that 'precambrian ages' date back some 3.5 billion years, and noone better dissagree or we'll be on you liek a pack of rabid wolves on a gutwagon!"

To see just how deceitful Macroevo folks are when discussing fossil evidnece, and to see how they twist and distort claims made by Creationists- note the following claim from Talkorigins- a 'major' site for Macroevolution claims, and note the response!:

Talk Origin false claim against Creationists: Some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.

Response: Talk.Origins' reference to many millions of years assumes the accuracy of uniformitarian dating methods. This shows how incapable they are of breaking from their evolutionary mindset to discuss these topics even remotely objectively. A more objective way of stating it would be to say that these animal phyla appear over several layers of rock.
The fact that the fossils found in Cambrian rock differ from living animals of the same phyla only shows the living forms were not buried in Cambrian rock; the reason is just theory.
Once again Talk.Origins is missing the real point, which is that there is no fossil evidence connecting multicellular life with single-celled life, nor is there any fossil evidence showing the development of animal phyla.

Talk Origins claim: 2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.

Response: 1: This just an excuse, trying to explain away why evolution theory does not fit reality. It does not change the fact that there is no fossil evidences connecting multicellular life with single-celled life, nor is there any fossil evidence showing the development of animal phyla.

2: There are plenty of examples of soft parts being fossilized, so the excuse of a "lack of readily fossilizable parts" does not explain the total lack of evidence.

3: Even if Precambrian rock were as old as evolutionists claim, there is still a lot of it, such that statistically some of these fossils should have survived. However, compared to the odds against some of the statistically impossible events needed by evolutionists, having all the rock containing the fossils they need to connect complex multicellular life to single-celled life just happens to have eroded away does not seem so unlikely. [LINK]

[CottShop]

[[Sure thing.

I didn’t realize I was that frightening to you ;-)]]

Rthat’s ok He apparently “won’t read my posts”- too much refutations for him I guess- Best way to handle being refuted? Refuse to participate, take you ball, and go home while complaing about the messenger who brought the bad news all the way home

[CottShop]

lol- ‘too uch refutations’ should be ‘too many refutations’ Woops- tired again.

[Coyoteman]

Stone Age tools go south
Signs of early hand-axe making not limited to eastern Africa

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/39625/title/Stone_Age_tools_go_south

Although separated by several thousand kilometers, southern and eastern Africa were, in a sense, a stone’s throw from each other ancient times. New evidence suggests that human ancestors in southern Africa fashioned teardrop-shaped stone hand axes 1.6 million years ago, nearly twice as long ago as many researchers thought and about the time such tools are known to have first appeared in eastern Africa. ...

Gibbon suspects that Homo ergaster, a species regarded as a direct ancestor of modern humans, made the Windsorton hand axes. A nearby South African site has yielded H. ergaster fossils, but no fossils of any member of the human evolutionary family have been found in the Windsorton vicinity. Fossil finds have linked H. ergaster to Acheulean tools in eastern Africa.

[snip]

[CottShop]

Colin Paterson, though one of the world's top experts on fossils and though he has studied evolution for over 20 years, has been seriously questioning it. He does still believe evolution, as far as I am aware. He has made comments shocking to other leading evolutionists. The following quote is a more recent quote of Paterson, taken from an article in the Sept. 1988 issue of Moody Monthy magazine. [LINK]

"For the last 18 months or so I've been kicking around non-evolutionary or even anti-evoluitonary ideas. For over 20 years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for more than 20 years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long.

For the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution? Any one thing ...that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing--it ought not to be taught in high school.'"

"Thirdly, when they first appear the organisms are fully functional at their first appearance. Evolution implies that creatures would gradually change over time from one form of creature to another. This would lead to their being many many creatures that never made it and died because they had something wrong with them. They perhaps were not strong or fast enough or lacked something in their body that others of their kind had. These unfortunate mutant creatures that couldn't make it are known as transitional forms or intermediates. If evolution occurred, when we look at the fossils, from the old layers to the young layers, we should see living forms that were not fully functional early which then became able to survive better later on. We should see, for instance, fish gradually changing into amphibians, amphibians gradually changing into reptiles, single-celled organisms becoming larger multicelled creatures, and so on. This is not what scientists have found.

Because of the long periods of time required by evolution for the changes to take place, there should be many of these transitional forms fossilized and available for us to find and study. This brings us to the fourth important point--that there are no fossils of living things that are real transitional forms. This point is hotly contested by many evolutionist scientists. Some of this disagreement revolves around what exactly constitutes a transitional fossil. Also, science textbooks often have photos or drawings of creatures that are said to be transitional forms. There are certain misleading things about the way these examples are described in textbooks. Many of the top evolutionists know better than to claim there are known examples of these intermediates. But there is a strong desire to make the textbooks confidently support evolution in order to influence the values and beliefs of millions of students"

[CottShop]

LOL- You know full well Ergaster is NOT an accepted classification- but you just keep posting as though it is when clearly Even Evolution scientsits DOUBT it is a seperate class of ‘Human’

It’s funny that you keep posting info that is VERY questionable and which many scientists doubt as though it were a relevent subject to defend Macroevolution

By hte way- How Ya’ll doing on the IMPOSSIBILITIES of Macroevolution right from the Very beginning, all the way up to the highly complex species that contain TRILLIONS of impossible biological leaps? Got any of htem figured out yet? No? Then how is it possible that you are even attempting to defend somethign so far along an IMPOSSIBLE journey that it is nothign but a fantasy faith based hypothesis?

It’s like attempting to argue that rocks make an impossible biological leap and later- billions of years later, evolved into turds, and taking a fresh turd, and a petrified one, that might contain some MINOR biological difference, and claiming that they are two seperate ‘species’, and makling the wild claim that it is ‘further scientific evidence, that turds Macroevolved from rocks’

Ergaster evidence- lol Might wana do a little research on Ergaster- it might surprise you to know that only a HANDFUL of scientists think it was an actual seperate ‘human’, with the VAST MAJORITY believing that it was NOT (For which they give VERY GOOD evidence to support their claim that it was NOT)

[CottShop]

“Until the mid-1980s, most evolutionists believed that the erectus skulls found in places like Asia and Europe had all emerged from an original erectus population which had emerged in Africa. Then others started saying that the skulls in Africa were a little different, and represented a separate species, which they named Homo ergaster, that is thought to have evolved into erectus.

This recent skull discovery has been made in Africa, and the skull is ‘dated’ (using the usual evolutionary assumptions) at one million years. It is a classic erectus skull, which seems to confirm the earlier view. This has caused people to reassess the whole matter of ergaster, with many now saying that ergaster never existed. I.e. they now point out that the differences between ergaster and erectus were, all along, too minor to call them a separate species. They were just a part of the range of variation in one group.

In other words, where once one could talk of three separate Homo species called ergaster, erectus and sapiens, now these are reduced to erectus and Sapiens. Study leader Dr Tim White, co-director of the Laboratory for Human Evolutionary Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, points out the widespread occurrence of what’s known as taxonomic splitting:

‘There’s been a recent tendency to give a different name to each of the fossils that comes out of the ground, and that has led to what we think is a very misleading portrayal of the biology of human evolution.’”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0322_homo_erectus.asp

[metmom]

Speaking of squirming, you can squirm and wiggle all you want but you were still wrong in post 763, 765, as in this one, that immersion does not measure weight.

[metmom]

Again, totally ignoring the comment about pinging those you talk about.

[metmom]

In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field[clarification needed]).

Gravitons are postulated because of the great success of the quantum field theory (in particular, the Standard Model) at modeling the behavior of all other forces of nature with similar particles: electromagnetism with the photon, the strong interaction with the gluons, and the weak interaction with the W and Z bosons. In this framework, the gravitational interaction is mediated by gravitons, instead of being described in terms of curved spacetime as in general relativity. In the classical limit, both approaches give identical results, which are required to conform to Newton's law of gravitation.[4][5][6]

You have in no way demonstrated that they do, in fact, exist as particles.

You cannot see radio waves, nor can you detect them without instruments, but they are the same phenomena as visible light.

Yes, radio waves are. They are part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Are you saying, then, that gravity is part of the electromagnetic spectrum?

[metmom]

If you want TRVTH, though, just ask the creationists here. They'll be happy to fill you full of it.

Good....

In the beginning....

[tpanther]

Here’s a clue, there’s motive behind all measurements, unless you’re going to argue that people measure things just for kicks and grins.

For the last time, people aren’t interested in body volume, they’re interested in % of body fat MASS. Immersion is one way to find out such a thing.

If anyone’s squiriming it’s been you, losing this argument, arguing that gravity can somehow be talked about in terms of material, and that you can’t back up your absurd statements about metmom and the internet.

[tpanther]

Your inability to see gravity does not make it unobservable.

She said it wasn't material. Try to stay on task.

[tpanther]

But the argument started over a claim that immersion was used to measure weight, mass, and body fat. My first response — still correct after all these years — was that immersion measures volume.

It is used in calculating body fat PERCENTAGE. And body fat is ultimately talked about in terms of MASS, not volume. You have to actually acknowledge each step in the procedure to understand this though.

The medical procedure for determining body fat uses displacement to measure body volume.

Step one.

Volume is an essential factor in the equation.

Strawman.

Tpanther has consistently denied that volume is of any interest and he/she is wrong. Simple as that.

You either have a serious reading comprehension problem...or you're a dishonest liar. I've consistently pointed out that volume is not what people are looking for when they put people into tanks to measure their body fat PERCENTAGE. Which is completely different than "denying that volume is of any interest". Are you capable of underatanding this js?

I also pointed out that I was a hospice nurse with a wife and kids...(and prior Air Force in other posts)...so it would stand to reason to virtually anyone that I'm a he.

Metmom said gravity wasn't material, but you mucked that up and butchered that beyond all comprehension too.

You should seriously get that looked into!

Any other science gurus want to defend tpanther and metmom?

Let's see...so far it's you against Swordmaker, kevmo, tpanther, metmom, well frankly, I've lost count...!!!!

[metmom]

Forces in general are difficult to discuss in layman’s terms,...

Not so much.

...and I don’t happen to have an advanced degree in general relativity.

Just for kicks.....

Do have any kind of degree in ANY field of science?

For the record, say good by to Soliton.

[metmom]

Anatomy of modern forms suggest order of evolution was:

evolutionary inference

The fit ....evolutionary inferences .... because if..... we should not expect them to appear.... apparent evolution. "

must have evolved ....and should not therefore appear ....

. analysis..... indicates .....

Nothing like confidence in one's theory.

[valkyry1]

Believe it or not, that is hard evidence to some.

[js1138]

Your inability to see gravity does not make it unobservable.

She said it wasn't material. Try to stay on task.

Metmom said "Gravity can be neither seen nor touched. It is not material."

I count that as asserting the inability to see gravity. What do you think?

[mkjessup]

For the record, say goodbye to Soliton.