Hytegia peer reviews Walter Remine

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Also - a quick review of that paper on magnetic fields:
That's not how magnetic fields work. Try again later.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm inclined to agree with Hytegia. This thread was supposedly about YYNJ presenting a peer reviewed creationist paper that could be reproduced and tested. That's what this thread should remain until YYNJ presents such a paper or concedes there aren't any.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

This thread is going to remain about Walter Remine because that's what I chose. Granted, it's not something you can test in a lab, but it's what I chose and anyone that wants to discuss it can. I have a buddy who will be joining and there has been a request given to Walter Remine and he may join this thread himself.

It's funny because this is really just Haldane's Dilemma revisted. And Haldane was an evolutionary geneticist and biologist. Haldane's Dilemma remains unsolved to this day. Walter Remine has spent a lot of time to update the dilemma with the advancements we've made in science, especially in genetics.

If more than Inferno is not willing to admit that if I (or my buddy or Remine) can show that our supposed simian ancestor needed 16,000 offspring to keep from de-evolving, then the theory of evolution has a serious problem, then you are all just afraid. And you don't have any need to be which it makes it that much more hilarious.

Hytegia, I appreciate the fact that you want to do something in a lab, and so I'm giving myself a deadline of tomorrow end of day to produce a paper that you can test in a lab. I will start a new thread for it.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I'm inclined to agree with Hytegia. This thread was supposedly about YYNJ presenting a peer reviewed creationist paper that could be reproduced and tested. That's what this thread should remain until YYNJ presents such a paper or concedes there aren't any.

I'm going to find another paper for Hytegia because he wants to use a lab. But as a side note, the paper I presented can be reproduced and tested. It's called mathematics. Math can be reproduced and tested. Why aren't you willing to admit the truth to the problem that I proposed? If I've just made it up and the 16,000 number is not true, then what are you afraid of?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Only if you agree to do the same if I prove that those dinosaur carvings of yours can't possibly portray actual living dinosaurs.

Sure. They don't hold a lot of water with me. I believe that man coexisted with dinosaurs for 3 reasons.

1. Dinosaurs are described in the Bible. I've never heard an answer from an atheist to those descriptions. The creature in the Bible had a tail like a cedar tree.

2. Human footprints have been discovered in the same layer of strata as dinosaur footprints. I've seen the rigorous scientific testing done to confirm this. It's not a hoax.

3. Dinosaur carvings and cave drawings have been discovered.

Let's not discuss these things here. If you really want to discuss each one, go ahead and start another thread and call me out on it. The whole topic is not really a big deal to me.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I sadly recognise that the layman doesn't really know what science is, and I have to make this point really clear.
APOLOGETICS ISN'T SCIENCE

I find the claim that "the paper was recognized to be scientificaly sound but rejected on the grounds that does not add anything new" to be utter crap, if it was that indeed publisher told him I find it more likely that he/she was trying not to be confrontational rather then actually implying that there was any valid science, because there wasn't any.
A test that I recomend to the layman as a filtering criteria to distinguish science from non science (even if he or she doesn't understand what is being talked about) is to check if it has data collection (or unprocessed data from someone else), it must have data, it must process that data (describe how the data was processed). If the "data" (in this case not data, just numbers) is pulled out of the authors ass (which is the case here) then it is a prety good indicator that the paper is actually toilet paper.
Science has to check back with reality, why didn't the author devised an experiment to compare his numbers with reality?

And here is another good indicator just between us. If you are pulling stuff from creationism websites, then you don't even need to read the paper that you know that it is bullshit. If it had any merit they would be published somewhere else.

Apologetics may not be science, but mathematics is. The paper is just as valid as Haldane's original Dilemma. You guys all look very foolish when you act like this paper means nothing, yet Dr. James Crow said it was a "serious problem" that deserved a "serious answer."

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Also - a quick review of that paper on magnetic fields:
That's not how magnetic fields work. Try again later.

NASA has already verified Dr. Humphrey's predictions. And his predictions came from the fact that he believed the universe did not evolve. The evolutionist's predictions were wrong and of course came from the false idea that the universe evolved.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

If more than Inferno is not willing to admit that if I (or my buddy or Remine) can show that our supposed simian ancestor needed 16,000 offspring to keep from de-evolving, then the theory of evolution has a serious problem, then you are all just afraid. And you don't have any need to be which it makes it that much more hilarious.

This is a meaningless statement until you define what you mean by de-evolve.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

This is a meaningless statement until you define what you mean by de-evolve.

Oh brother... Let me rephrase the question.

Are you willing to admit that it if it can be shown that our supposed simian ancestor needed 16,000 offspring per female to overcome the cost of harmful mutation, then that is a serious problem for the theory of evolution?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This is a meaningless statement until you define what you mean by de-evolve.

Oh brother... Let me rephrase the question.

Are you willing to admit that it if it can be shown that our supposed simian ancestor needed 16,000 offspring per female to overcome the cost of harmful mutation, then that is a serious problem for the theory of evolution?

Yes.

YesYouNeedJesus, can you tell us why the T. rex and all the other non-avian dinosaurs are found below the K-Pg Boundary and why there are no non-avian dinosaurs above it? How does that fit into your understanding of geology? YesYouNeedJesus, did you even know that C14 can be created from radioactive elements in the ground and that it does not always have to come from the atmosphere? If you truly believe that we have original biological material from these fossils, than why settle for protein when you can just go for the DNA that should be in it? Can you define evolution in its biological context? And:

DepricatedZero[/url]"]So which is it here? Do you accept that the biofilms might have preserved the original material, offering an explanation, or not?

And:

Inferno[/url]"]

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

How does that fit with your creationism, Bob and TheOnlyThing2Fear and YesYouNeedJesus? Booyakasha!

 

[scalyblue]

I'm inclined to agree with Hytegia. This thread was supposedly about YYNJ presenting a peer reviewed creationist paper that could be reproduced and tested. That's what this thread should remain until YYNJ presents such a paper or concedes there aren't any.

I'm going to find another paper for Hytegia because he wants to use a lab. But as a side note, the paper I presented can be reproduced and tested. It's called mathematics. Math can be reproduced and tested. Why aren't you willing to admit the truth to the problem that I proposed? If I've just made it up and the 16,000 number is not true, then what are you afraid of?

Mathematics is only as accurate as the problem presented and the data inputed. Haldane himself said that he was pretty sure that drastic changes will need to be made to the math; why aren't you using the revised version of his math and instead the original verison?

Here's a good, cited refutation of 'haldane's dilemma' that you won't read or will read and won't comprehend.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html

 

[Inferno]

YesYouNeedJesus, can you tell us why the T. rex and all the other non-avian dinosaurs are found below the K-Pg Boundary and why there are no non-avian dinosaurs above it? How does that fit into your understanding of geology? YesYouNeedJesus, did you even know that C14 can be created from radioactive elements in the ground and that it does not always have to come from the atmosphere? If you truly believe that we have original biological material from these fossils, than why settle for protein when you can just go for the DNA that should be in it? Can you define evolution in its biological context? And:

DepricatedZero[/url]"]So which is it here? Do you accept that the biofilms might have preserved the original material, offering an explanation, or not?

And:

Inferno[/url]"]

"In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs."

How does that fit with your creationism, Bob and TheOnlyThing2Fear and YesYouNeedJesus? Booyakasha!

Also add my as of yet unanswered question from the "Where does the number 4.5 billion come from?" thread:
Given that I sent you the paper, what do you say now that both Isoletus and I have furnished you with an answer? What do you say about the paper? I'm currently at another computer, but I believe it's figure 2 where the newly dated ages are. Now that you know that they propose a maximum difference of 230 million years and now that you know that later papers corrected for that and again honed in on 4.55GY, what do you say about the age of the earth? How old is the earth?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Apologetics may not be science, but mathematics is.

Mathematics is not science either, it is mathematics.
There is no such thing as a mathematical proof for anything in reality what so ever.
To say that you are doing science while all you have is poor math is apologetics.

The paper is just as valid as Haldane's original Dilemma.

What? Since when the paper you presented has, let's say DATA!

You guys all look very foolish when you act like this paper means nothing, yet Dr. James Crow said it was a "serious problem" that deserved a "serious answer."

Argument rom authority.
I could care crap about what your misquote of Dr. Jame Crow says. For all I care it could have been Einstein or the fucking Pope who said it, it is just rubish. The paper is Apologetics. If it doesn't have any form of data the only conclusion he can make is his own prejudice, he might as well be calculating how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Only if you agree to do the same if I prove that those dinosaur carvings of yours can't possibly portray actual living dinosaurs.

Sure. They don't hold a lot of water with me. I believe that man coexisted with dinosaurs for 3 reasons.

1. Dinosaurs are described in the Bible. I've never heard an answer from an atheist to those descriptions. The creature in the Bible had a tail like a cedar tree.

2. Human footprints have been discovered in the same layer of strata as dinosaur footprints. I've seen the rigorous scientific testing done to confirm this. It's not a hoax.

3. Dinosaur carvings and cave drawings have been discovered.

Let's not discuss these things here. If you really want to discuss each one, go ahead and start another thread and call me out on it. The whole topic is not really a big deal to me.

Good, because it should be obvious that this is all bullshit.

I mean, do you know how many species of Theropods there were? There are 23 different orders and families just contained within that group, each one with dozens more species and often whole other families (with still more species) contained within. And that's just the Theropods, no other type of dinosaur. Are we really to believe that the Earth could sustain that many enormous top-predators all at the same time?

Have fun running in the street.

 

[Inferno]

I really want to condense all of this (i.e the challenges, questions, etc.) into a few short questions for YesYouNeedJesus:
1) Can you name one piece of evidence we should find if evolution/the age of the earth/enter other scientific theory you don't agree with is correct? If found, would this prove to you that evolution/the age of the earth/enter other scientific theory you don't agree with is correct?

2) Can you name one piece of evidence we should find if evolution/the age of the earth/enter other scientific theory you don't agree with is false? If not found, would this prove that evolution/the age of the earth/enter other scientific theory you don't agree with is at the very least possible?

3) Can you name one piece of evidence claimed by creationists that we should find if evolution/the age of the earth/enter other scientific theory you don't agree with is right, even though science disagrees that we should find this? (In other words, they claim we haven't found that and therefore evolution is wrong, even though nowhere in evolutionary theory does it suggest that we should find that. If found, this evidence would prove evolution wrong.)


For each of the pieces of evidence you list, could you, in one paragraph, explain why that would prove/disprove the above theories? I say each because one piece is the absolute minimum requirement, I would suggest you can come up with at least three, most members of this forum could probably come up with tens of them in mere seconds.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

NASA has already verified Dr. Humphrey's predictions. And his predictions came from the fact that he believed the universe did not evolve. The evolutionist's predictions were wrong and of course came from the false idea that the universe evolved.

You're a damned idiot.

The Earth's magnetic field is caused by a shifting of a rotating molten core. All the good Doctor did was do a pleasant equivocation of mass, and it turned out to be correct. However, his predictions of how the Earth's magnetic field and how Jupiter and other planets' magnetic fields work are flat-out wrong.
I had at least thought you capable of citing 5th grade Science knowledge.

He got the number correct, but he did not correctly define the mechanism which produce these numbers.

Also, Evolution is the backbone of Biology. Not Geology. Not Physics. There is no interrelation nor correlation.

FINALLY - once again, his conclusions are solid, but he merely goes offhand and attributes it's brilliance to Yahweh. It's like a man admiring a rock, and then ascribing it's beauty to Yahweh or God. In the end, it's still a rock - no matter whom you attribute it's comings from.

=========================

No. This thread is a challenge of Peer-Review and testing. You started this thread for me to Peer Review and do the verifying tests on this paper as the acceptance of a challenge. I cancelled all of my plans this week aside from standing watch, and even my appointments at Medical to get my PHA done, so that I can play this game fair and square.
Once you were notified that this paper was a bunch of bullshit, you instead attempt to drive the conversation with nonsense and dance around it instead of having the common fucking decency to actually be honest for even a second and either say "Oh. Here's one-" or "No. I don't have any. My apologies."

Quit dancing and stick to the point - you either have something, or you don't.

If your next post isn't a paper that can be verified through testing that supports a single claim of a Young Earth Creation, I would request that the thread gets locked on account of intellectual dishonesty and failure to contribute of the agreement, with a note that YYNJ failed to produce a single document that provided evidence. And the next time he discusses evidence, he be redirected to that very ending post where he had all the chance to produce such evidence and failed to do so.

No posts by anyone else, either.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Since you like magnetic fields, here you go. This thread will remain about Haldane's Dilemma. I'm not letting you guys off that easy!

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

1. Inferno
2. Anachronous Rex
3. he_who_is_nobody

I was hoping to get more than 3 people not fearful of my challenge. Any more takers before we proceed?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

1. Inferno
2. Anachronous Rex
3. he_who_is_nobody

I was hoping to get more than 3 people not fearful of my challenge. Any more takers before we proceed?

Lock the thread. This chickenshit has nothing more to posit, and has effectively wasted my week.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

MOD NOTE: Thread locked due to perpetual pointlessness