ITT we post "science" stories from Pravda

[Cain]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/

GO!

[Thurnez Isa]

ITT we also make Kai blow his lid
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/13-02-2009/107100-Mendel_scientist_Darwin-0





fucking thing is 7 pagers long of pure scientific/christian crap

[Vene]

Not just Kai

Mendel was a nobody.  He is only remembered because his work was rediscovered in the early 1900s, and even then he falsified a lot of his data.  Granted, a lot of his ideas have merit.  But I cannot call a scientist who falsified data a good example.  Whereas Darwin worked for decades on his theory, collected obscene amounts of data, and read every fucking thing he could get his hands on.  He's a good model of a scientist.

And this is coming from somebody who is more interested in genetics than evolution (not that I'm not interested in evolution of course).

[Thurnez Isa]

 

then this science story from Pravda should... well... read it an find out

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/107046-0/

because there is airplanes mean there is a God

[Thurnez Isa]

if anyone is interested after english I could take valuable time out of my studies to debunk this piece of crap
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/06-02-2009/107069-Fossils-0

[Thurnez Isa]

For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old!

OK this comes from an article in Science magazine from 1963 which talks about the reservoir effect, where carbon from humus will make carbon dating on mollusks next to useless. BTW 1963? Seriously, WTF. To be honest I have no idea what he's blabbing about here since the study is about carbon dating and I have no idea why you would want to carbon date basalt.... it doesn't make a licking of sense.. If I see my prof on lab Friday Ill ask him, but he'll probably be as baffled as me.

a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.

What effect would lots of water have on the breakdown of carbon -14?... and why are we Carbon Dating inorganic rocks again?

Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over a period of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth's crust.

You don't need a flood for fossilization. Fossilization can occur in many different ways. To be a preserved it needs to be quickly covered by a layer of material to protect it from the environment. This could be sand, mud, ice, volcanic ash, or even tree sap. In tree sap materials can preserved completely as the sap changes to amber and given not a whole lot of time material can even be mummified in dry conditions.
Most often though fossils are mineralization as the bones are gradually replaced by minerals dissolved in a solutions, such as ground water, or its broken down completely leaving only a mold of itself. Floods are generally the best way to do this but by far not the only way.

Among other arguments, it is difficult to explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks, now and then, over millions of years was capable of performing such a feat!

No. Most of the Grand Canyon was formed and under water, and contain several layers of limestone made up from material from shells.
When the Rockies were about 70 million years ago it uplifted the Colorado area and melting snow and water created much of the canyon we see today, plus there was a huge uplift, which increased the rivers gradient, but this later subsides to a the meandering river shape we see today. Plus much later melting ice from the end of the last period of glaciation increased the amount if water that was cutting it's way through the rock that is more easily eroded. Then there was a huge volcanic explosion a million years ago that deposited the final layer of volcanic ash.
By looking at the alternating layers of sedimentary rock and limestone deposited when it was underwater you can also see what the environment was like when those deposites were made. That is also how we know for some time around the Devonian and Carboniferous periods the area was above water, since there is an nonconformity and no deposits were made. I will admit this is piss poor explanation on the creation of the canyon, but the main point is the canyon was NOT made by the Colorado river merely going into seasonal flood.

The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the earth's past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth. Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms describe God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of fossils.

Actually roughly 97% of the water is in the oceans, 2% are in glaciers and the remainder is broken down between ground water, freshwater, inland seas, soil moisture, streams, and atmosphere. Now it is true of these ground water is the highest of this remainder but still the ground holds less the 1% of the water. Water is very light when compared to the materials that lay under the earth, such as iron. Also, addressing the raising the mountains, wouldn't grand canyon like structures be seen pretty much everywhere world wide, for in your flood scenario the entire world is covered under the same conditions.

However, in various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.

I think he is referring to very odd occasions that trees are covered in volcanic mudslides, which could be big enough layer to preserve. I have no idea cause there is nothing to go on there. But I have a question. Many tree layers have been found directly on top of coral deposits. Does that mean the tree were growing on coral before the great flood?

Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves!

No. Fossils can be used in estimating the dates of sediment, but only if you have a good enough idea of when that organism lived and enough secondary information to make that estimate.
Lets take and example... lets say there was a species of dinosaur called a Thornisosaurus. Now we only have one specimen of Thornisosaurus and it was found in rock that we could estimate through other means to be in rock that dates 120 million years. Later we find another one in sedimentary rock which has not yet been dating. We could NOT date that rock with the Thornisosaurus because we don't have enough information to make that assumption. Most sedimentary rock estimates are based on tons data. So in our example, we find an igneous layer bellow that which we could radiometric date to 200 million years ago. So now we know our new layer has to be over 200 million years.. Then we follow the layer where it subsides into a known layer already dated at 80 million years, and were we find tons of ancient birds in that new layer which we know to have lived back in that time fram. Now our layer is dated from 200 to 80 million years, and by that method we could slowly narrow it down... If we find certain crystals in that layer we could date those crystals as well. So far it fits in to what we know about the Thornisosaurus. If we get it close enough we could use magnetic reversal to get it back to a 500, 000 year time frame. Anyways the point is you NEVER just assume rock dates from organisms. You track the date down from tons of data.

[Thurnez Isa]

There are numerous examples of layers containing "mixed" fossils where fossils of creatures that are supposed to have existed millions of years apart from one another are found right next to one another within the same layer or stratum (i.e. dinosaur and human foot prints crossing each other's paths!). Evolutionists simply ignore these fossils and continue with their dogmatic beliefs. Some excellent Internet resources to consult for documentation of these facts are: www.icr.org , www.creationscience.com , www.answersingenesis.org , www.christiananswers.net .

I'm not even going to bother to debunk this bullshit cause I would have to do it individually... maybe one day I will. If it was true it's amazing it has alluded the brightest of our species for 100 years.

First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. For example, there are no fossils of fish with part fins, part feet to show that fish evolved into land animals.

Yes there is tons of transitional fossils. Fish with fins and feet would not make sense... since the fish that eventually took the first steps were more amphibian related then anything, and had appendages that may look similar to land dwelling appendages but in fact could not support the animals weight on land and were probably used to manipulate twigs and such that sank to the bottom of streams and would provide good hiding places from predators. And I'm only going to say this once cause I'm sick of saying it THE TRAITS THAT TWO SPECIES SHARE ARE ONLY THE TRAITS THAT THEIR COMMON ANCESTOR SHARE! YOU DO NOT GET HALF OF ONE SPECIES AND HALF OF ANOTHER! IF YOU DID IT WOULD DISPROVE EVOLUTION CAUSE THERE IS NO PLACE IN EVOLUTION FOR SPECIES TO CROSS TAXA

Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years old because it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the earth. This is assuming that the stars, galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.

That is beautifully stupid. It doesn't explain why the galaxies are moving away from each other, or why we could see stars being born, or pretty much anything.

Highly respected scientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

Barnes was a respected scientist? Obviously he's not talking about Thomas G Barnes who argued against the theory of relativity, and used a model of the earth that predated plate tectonics to argue that the earth's magnetic pull has a half life of 1.4 thousand years, despite the fact we could measure the magnetic direction in igneous rocks up to 200 million years, and there is no experiment or evidence what-so-ever to back up any of what he said... surely not him.

According to evolutionists, the Moon is nearly as old as the earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the Moon's surface over billions of years, there should have been many feet of lunar dust on the Moon. But, when we landed on the Moon we discovered only a thin layer of dust.

Actually there is huge pools of dust in the valleys on the moon, and the amount of dust accumulated on the earth world wide due to meteor impact is almost nothing. But thanks to Google I did track this myth down. It came out in 1974 in a book called... Scientific Creationism. This seems to be just a lie based on made up numbers that keep varying. I did find that NASA has calculated the rate of growth of dust on the moon with lasers, and rather then the 200 million tons a year that Morris (Scientific Creationism author) claims the number was something like 40 thousand.

And that is the final one
Notice there was absolutely nothing to prove that fossils are younger then expected... nothing on the layering of the fossils, nothing on the amount of species found, nothing on how they should a perfect story on how life evolve... zippo.. nothing... just a hodgepodge of outdated, or just wrong information. And what I noticed about doing this, one it was incredibly easy, and it had to be just as easy for Ranganathan.. either he knows too, or just doesn't want to know.

[Kai]

I LOVE it that we have a geologist on staff. Thank fuck.

Not just Kai

Mendel was a nobody.  He is only remembered because his work was rediscovered in the early 1900s, and even then he falsified a lot of his data.  Granted, a lot of his ideas have merit.  But I cannot call a scientist who falsified data a good example.  Whereas Darwin worked for decades on his theory, collected obscene amounts of data, and read every fucking thing he could get his hands on.  He's a good model of a scientist.

And this is coming from somebody who is more interested in genetics than evolution (not that I'm not interested in evolution of course).

Yeah, Mendel just happened upon allele crossing by chance. Thats the only thing hes remembered for, and rightly so. Nothing about Darwin was like that, he was anything but chancy (his constitution didn't allow it). Everything he wrote, all the papers on so many topics and his books, were all well formulated over years time. He, unlike Mendel, was also extremely honest. Extremely. I mean, you couldn't find a more honest and humble scientist. He would have been too deathly afraid of the future backlash to falsify data.

To your latter statement,

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." ----Theodosius Dobzhansky

[Thurnez Isa]

For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old!

OK this comes from an article in Science magazine from 1963 which talks about the reservoir effect, where carbon from humus will make carbon dating on mollusks next to useless. BTW 1963? Seriously, WTF. To be honest I have no idea what he's blabbing about here since the study is about carbon dating and I have no idea why you would want to carbon date basalt.... it doesn't make a licking of sense.. If I see my prof on lab Friday Ill ask him, but he'll probably be as baffled as me.

Ok I finely tracked this shit down. Although he quotes the science journal it comes from a book by Henry Morris. And can you guess what book? That's right.. Scientific Creationism.
Morris claims that Argon Radiometric Dating showed recent lava flows to be millions of years old. This comes from a 1968 paper in Funkhouser and Naughton. Now I couldn't find the paper, but I found the rebuttal, which is that they were dating the olivine that was an inclusion into the lava flow. Meaning the olivine is not part of the flow but is enclosed by it, which means its much older. Plus the paper then states they can not date the lave flow cause none of the Potassium had depleted. It was obviously not from a paper about carbon dating. Now you are left to decide if its honest mistake or the author is intentionally trying to mislead you.

[Vene]

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." ----Theodosius Dobzhansky

I love that quote.

[Cain]

Pravda is like the greatest news site ever.  Its like the National Enquirer, only in Russian.

[East Coast Hustle]

yeah...it was so much BETTER back in the day, though. My russian teacher used to bring copies back with him from summers spent working as an interpreter in the USSR. That shit was comedy GOLD.

[Cain]

Bump

[Jasper]

I can't read more than half a paragraph of that crap.  My god.