the flood.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Might explain coal, but not oil. You christians are so uneducated.

Our bodies have oil in them. Where do you think acne comes from??

You scientists and your "theories."

Like my step-dad always says, "All them scientists gots are WAG's, wild a$$ guesses"


. . . He actually does say that 😞

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Might explain coal, but not oil. You christians are so uneducated.

Could you explain the formation of non-uniformly spread oil-deposits using uniformatarianism?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Our bodies are about 60% water. I'd actually expect that to be higher, bearing in mind that our early evolution was in the sea. Calcification of bones to resist gravity was necessary in a medium that doesn't have the bouyancy of water.

Your statement about volcanoes is only true of the water in the soil above the weakness. What comes out of the ce ...[text shortened]... ic reverb through the planet) etc give us a good idea of what's down there. It's not water.

But there is no such thing as evolution. There is just a "theory". You can't prove that one, either.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Might explain coal, but not oil. You christians are so uneducated.

I feel so dumb. :'(:'(:'( Can you explain it to me, in words that I understand, why coal and not oil, genius? Bet not because there is no such thing as a "fossil" fuel.

Originally posted by beerbrewer
I feel so dumb. :'(:'(:'( Can you explain it to me, in words that I understand, why coal and not oil, genius? Bet not because there is no such thing as a "fossil" fuel.

I really hope you are joking. Otherwise, I fear you might give dj2becker a run for his money.

Originally posted by beerbrewer
But there is no such thing as evolution. There is just a "theory". You can't prove that one, either.

oh come on, if you are going to insult scientists do it properly. the insult is it's just a hypothesis. calling it a theory is undermining your own arguments. to qualify as a theory a hypothesis has to be very rigerousely tested and not be disproved. evolution IS a theory and IS true. you can see it happening in the world around us. what can't be 'Proved' is that all the life around us evolved from a small set of very primative organisams over billions of years. we wern't there an didn't see it. it is possible (or at least there is no way of proving it isn't) that some entity (god whatever, usually called for these perposes a cartesian devil) that can manipulate your senses and create any illusion it cares to. however if such a thing exists then nothing atall can be proven other than the fact of your own existance. nothing else in the world can be proven to exist. there are two ways out. if religeouse then declare that the world is so fantastic that the being that created it/illusion of it, must also be fantastic. and somethign that amazing wouldn't deceive you, so it must all be real (descartese chose this route). if scientific then you assume that their isn't a cartesian devil, the world is real, and follows rules. the two sides have been warring since time immoral, as they are mutually incompatible. they are also both positions of faith, and people can't be persuaded out of positions of faith. I would point out however that if there is a cartesian devil then they are creating a world that does a very very accurate impression of following imutable rules, which can be deduced and used to make predictions about the world and designe the machiens we use. this is the value of science. religeons value is harder to assert. talk of moral standards then i will point out atrocities, plus I, and many others, have morals without religeon.
the point: a theory is scientific if you can disprove it with evidence. if it cant be proved/disproved then it is a tenet of faith, and arguing about it is pointless. there are interesting and important questions/arguments raised that get swamped by people standing on their high pedistal and yelling their point of veiw at the top of their voice and never listening to anyone.
anyway thats my thought. feel free to rant ad infinitum. it's a free web for now.

Originally posted by beerbrewer
I feel so dumb. :'(:'(:'( Can you explain it to me, in words that I understand, why coal and not oil, genius? Bet not because there is no such thing as a "fossil" fuel.

Simple really, 99% of all biomass is plants. Around 10^12 tonnes worldwide. You could account (I guess) for the coal underground by the flood washing all the plant material down. However, there simply isn't enough animal material alive at any given time to account for all the oil being synthesized in one fell swoop. It required a long time to get enough animal material to account for the oil.

Originally posted by googlefudge
oh come on, if you are going to insult scientists do it properly. the insult is it's just a hypothesis. calling it a theory is undermining your own arguments. to qualify as a theory a hypothesis has to be very rigerousely tested and not be disproved. evolution IS a theory and IS true. you can see it happening in the world around us. what can't be 'Proved ...[text shortened]... .
anyway thats my thought. feel free to rant ad infinitum. it's a free web for now.

That is an aweful lot of words and I really don't care to read them but if you could give me an example of one species that "eveolved" into another, I sure would feel better. Thanks.

Originally posted by beerbrewer
That is an aweful lot of words and I really don't care to read them but if you could give me an example of one species that "eveolved" into another, I sure would feel better. Thanks.

You posted some words but I don't want to read them. Do you have a favourite breed of cat?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Simple really, 99% of all biomass is plants. Around 10^12 tonnes worldwide. You could account (I guess) for the coal underground by the flood washing all the plant material down. However, there simply isn't enough animal material alive at any given time to account for all the oil being synthesized in one fell swoop. It required a long time to get enough animal material to account for the oil.

So, about how long does it take for the animal material to convert into oil? And I would have to assume that there is a specific amount of animal matter required to make a certain amount of oil. I say this because I dug up the dog I buried two years ago and didn't strike oil. And also, going by what you said, we should be finding large quantities of oil in the Rocky Mountains, based on the number of dinosaur fossils found there. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be a smart a$$; I just want to be as smart as you.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You posted some words but I don't want to read them. Do you have a favourite breed of cat?

re you gonna try to tell me that my cat evolved from a turnip?

Originally posted by beerbrewer
That is an aweful lot of words and I really don't care to read them but if you could give me an example of one species that "eveolved" into another, I sure would feel better. Thanks.

see Archaeopteryx, a transitory species, in between reptiles and birds.

Or, for a bacterial example, see MRSA.

There has recently been a good example made in these forums regarding plants. Here are a few.

"While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas."

"Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris."

"Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain."

"At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes."

In animals;

"Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972)."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Originally posted by beerbrewer
So, about how long does it take for the animal material to convert into oil? And I would have to assume that there is a specific amount of animal matter required to make a certain amount of oil. I say this because I dug up the dog I buried two years ago and didn't strike oil. And also, going by what you said, we should be finding large quantities of oil i ...[text shortened]... ere. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be a smart a$$; I just want to be as smart as you.

You dog didn't have enough time, pressure, or heat to turn into oil. Also, oil is the remains of aquatic creatures. I'd hazard a guess that your dog isn't a marine animal.

Apparently there is some 909 billion tonnes of coal and about 180 billion tonnes of oil worldwide (http://www.geohive.com/charts/index.php/). There is only about 75 billion tonnes of biomass currently on the planets surface (wiki). If the flood did produce all the oil and coal, it'd require about 15 floods back to back, and perfect efficiency of conversion.

Originally posted by beerbrewer
re you gonna try to tell me that my cat evolved from a turnip?

I'm not reading what you are writing. Stop trying.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
see Archaeopteryx, a transitory species, in between reptiles and birds.

Or, for a bacterial example, see MRSA.

There has recently been a good example made in these forums regarding plants. Here are a few.

"While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. l ...[text shortened]... mating (Dobzhansky 1972)."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

So my cat may have evolved from a turnip?