I doubt that you really believed this when you said it. "In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianh and Precambriani rocks--rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved." - these were documented in the following places:
Strangely enough, I don't have access to 1966 issues of Nature. But I'd be prepared to bet quite happily that the pollen concerned was a later emplacement by wind or water through cracks in the rock.
Then there's also the many living fossils that remain mostly unchanged, yet were thought to be extinct many millions of years ago
And the problem is???
Anyway, that's just one example. I found a list of 20+ such fossils, and that was just with a very quick search, I'm sure you can find more than enough to falsify evolution in your mind by searching google with "out of place fossils".
Well, if the above were your best examples, I won't hold my breath on the rest. Perhaps I should have added 'Not reworked' to the definiton.
Under no language, or any law of logic or rational could anyone say that we've observed the formation of life 3.8 billion years ago.
As I said, we can make historical observations; that you personally dismiss them is pretty much irrelevant. When a geologist examines a rock, he/she is making a historical observation. That rock is evidence of what happened in the past; since other people can observe the same rock, it is repeatable.
I suggest you relook at this. I'm saying that these are people who practice science, and believe in the origin of the universe was from God.
BUT do they put this in the papers they write? Do they allow their conclusions to be constrained by what the bible says? If not - and they could hardly get papers published with supernatural explanations - how would you tell their papers from those written by athiests?
Evolutionists go to great lengths to prove creationism isn't scientific. Their proof - we can't provide a theory that is falsifiable.
Actually, you [creationists] can't provide a theory that does not resort to supernatural explanations, and is hence unscientific. Or even one that agrees with present day data.
That same problem exists with the theory of evolution we disagree with.
Evolution could be falsified in any number of ways. Just one [properly observed and documented] fossil out of place would be enough.
If you were on trial for murder, I wouldn't apply the principles of science because it wouldn't be appropriate.
Could you explain this a bit further? Looks like you are throwing out all forensic, circumstantial and eyewitness evidence here.
I'd use logic to deduce whether you were guilty or not.
How? Having thrown out all the evidence, you're just guessing now.
The only reason I quibble over the meaning of these words is because of that devious tendancy of evolutionists to accuse creationism of being unscientific when their beloved theory falls by the same sword
Let me ask you - what is more likely to get a scientist fame and recognition:
a) A small extention or addition to an exsiting theory, or
b) The complete demolition and replacement of a major scientific theory.
I understand that the "science" of origins is not based in the scientific method.
Well, it is. In this case our observation is that life of some form arose under the conditions prevalant on earth around 3.8 billion years ago. Other observations - such as the current composition of life forms - provide more observations; the laws of physics provide constraints. Hypotheses can be tested against these.
A creation scientist is one who practices science and believes the origin story as presented in the Bible
Then that person is no longer a scientist. Supernatural explanations automatically disqualify you; as to preconceptions.
It's not because they believe they can scientifically examine unrepeatable history.
Well, if I'm ever up on trial for murder, I hope you're in the Jury. After all, we can't know anything from 'unrepeatable history', can we?
We can examine history scientifically. Observations can be repeated, and tested against present day processes and laws. Experiments can be done to test hypotheses; and predictions of future discovery made. This is science, as much as chemistry or physics is.
Science 169, 670 - Documents the existance of giant halos, but pretty much admits that they are the result of standard decay of U and Th. At that time, the idea of superheavy elements with long half-lives was not out of the question.
Science 173, 727. - Documents the existance of halos dominated by U-238 derived lead; i.e from Radon movement.
Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. - Now this actually gives some interesting data, notably that Po-210 and Rn-222 haloes are going to be virtually indistinuishable. Indeed, the given uncertanties in measurement are larger.
Science 184, 62 - Apart from the given diagram siomply not supporting the text, there is no new evidence here. There is a *claim* [That the haloes can't come from Rn-222], but no supporting evidence is given.
Most of the later references either seem to be in non-peer reviewed publications or unavailable online, which is a pity.
And this is the problem. None of the published material excludes the alternative hypothesis [i.e. decay chain element migration].
Obviously you have never read the original papers; this is most often a claim that evolutionists level against creationists. The shoe is now on the other foot.
Apart from the fact that you COMPLETELY FAILED to answer any of the other points raised.
Had Radon diffused through the minerals, it would have left a trail of halos, a cylindrical tube as it diffused (varying with diffusion rates in its intensity).
Would it? Only in a perfectly uniform rock; not in granite. And a section through such a cylinder would look axactly like a single halo.
This has _never_ been observed
Well, see above. I'm not surprised. Patterns of haloes along cracks and fissures have. By me.
Also, Gentry did specific experiments, which you would be aware of had you read the original papers, designed to find any traces of Radon seepage. There was no evidence at all.
That is a bit strange, given that granites *do* seep Radon. Tends to make me think the experiment was flawed.
Also the chain through Po takes three steps; many of the halos had only two of those steps. No way that would happen in your scenario. But again, if you'd read the papers, you'd know that.
Which implies that the non-3 step haloes were not Polonium. Which kind of argues against your case.
You also asked me to speculate on why you assume age for some formations. Sorry, you'll have to ask someone else that question
First, a note about Granites; they do doffer substantially from the bulk composition of the continental crust, being somewhat lighter and SiAl-rich by comparison. Typically we see ancient groundwater/hydrothermal systems associated with them - systems which give rise to hiughly useful mineral deposits; we see large scale metamorphic haloes caused by the emplacement of hot rocks and subsequent recrystalisation of the country rock. At places like Yellowstone, we even see the process going on today. Can you explain why a god would set this all up to make it all look so old?
Don't suppose you'd like to tell me why these polonium isotopes were 'created', but none of the other short lived (i.e. half life less than around 10 million years) isotopes? Things like Technitium? Plutonium?
Anyway, you know the explanation for those haloes, even if it annoys you. Zircons in granites contain high concentrations of Uranium; polonium is part of the decay chain of uranium. You will notice that it is directly below Radon; Radon, being a gas, will diffuse through the rock and hence when it decays to Polonium, it will appear that the polonium has just appeared. Problem solved.
Since 19 of the 20 amino acids used in proteins are chiral, any abiogenesis must take this into account.
Did the first form of life use this many ammino acids? [Hint: No]
enzymes are only active when their 3d shapes are exactly as required.
Are, however, the Metal-ligand active centers of many enzymes (which form naturally..) active without protein coats? [Hint: Yes]
The minimum protein complement of a cell that could accurately self-replicate has been estimated at between 280 and 400 proteins.
However, the minimum protein count of a prebiotic metabolic reaction chamber is... [Hint: zero]
In other words, your argument is based around a number of amazingly incorrect assumptions.
..Unfortunately for you and their claim, those globules cannot accurately reproduce...
Actually, reproduction followed by differing development pathways is all that's required. And as long as an energy source is present, things will not have to degrade.
I used to be an evolutionist, and can spout and cite the exact same drek as evolutionists are known to do. I have a full education and background in the cosmic, biochemical, and biological "evolution" story line.
That's strange, considering that in the next post you propose a mechanism for abiogenesis which is not taken seriously be any scientist in the field. This suggests that you are a liar.
For your next excercise in applied science, calculate the total energy contained in tidal water movement in the Bristol channel. Then compare it to the total energy output of all the UK's power stations..
Yes, this is a perfect solution. Except it creates the perfect enemy. Nuclear waste. US has spent iirc $6 billion looking for a place to stash waste. Waste that it knows will last another couple tens of thousands of years, many lifetimes that of man. Waste that will require extra-ordinary amounts of work to contain, to isolate, to cut off from our reality. We're talking Final Fantasy seal in crystals work here ladies and gentlemen.
That's not strictly true. The long half-life Actinides (Plutonium etc.) can (ahs should) be recycled into more fuel. The fission products have half lives of around 30 years or so. Quite simply, this stuff only has to be kept safe for perhaps 300 or so years before it becomes as radioactive as granite, for instance. Only if you ban reprocessing (for political reasons) do you get a severe problem.
A cynic would point out that Green opposition to nuclear power has effectively contributed more to global warming, by keeping coal as a power source instead, than all the SUVs in America.
Either way, I'm still a reknewable man myself. It'd only be like five or ten times the cost (guess came from out of mi arse again). And I'm a big fan of the distributed system. Just put solar on everyone's house. Couple huge honkin wind farms. Less of these gargantuan power lines everywhere.
I would certainly agree to mandating solar panels for all new roof construction and replacement. And as a condition for anyone installing air conditioning in their home. Wind farms are best suited for things like generating hydrogen (or other alternate transport fuels), since this removed the problem of episodic supply.
While it is true that a lot of doom-and-gloom predictions have failed to materialize, most famously the "Club of Rome" report in the seventies which predicted running out of oil ludicrously soon, it is silly to ignore the clear signs of environmental and social degradation simply because we've been fine up until now
This report has often been cited as wrong, but at the time it was substantially correct.
Basically, it did not predict oil running out. It will always be possable to extract some oil from the ground. However, the problem is not a sudden event of every well running dry, but of oil production going into decline. Given the exponential rise of oil production up until 1973 (The report was published in 1972, I believe), a simple hubbert curve gave a peak between 1992-1994. The figures used have not changed since then, despite all the latest technology.
However, between 1973-1985, artificial (political) restraints on oil supply pushed the curve below the 'free exploitation' Hubbert model, which delayed the peak. When the peak occurs also depends on your definition of oil; if you are talking about strictly conventional oil, it's probably already peaked, circa 2000. Add in deepwater, tar sands, extra heavy oil and condensate and peak probably won't be till 2005-2015, depending on just how exaggerated OPEC reserve figures are.
Its cheap: even a really, really nice roadbike is going to be US$4000 (and that's ridiculous overkill for most people).
Mine was $350, at current exchange rates (I'm in the UK)
Foreign oil wars become unnecessary. (I suppose we need to consider manufacture of plastics in this, though. Anyone know how much oil it would require just to produce our plastics?
IIRC, about 10% of global petroleum production goes into assorted feedstocks - various chamicals, pharmacueticals, plastics, etc. If that was all we used it for, we'd have no problems for around 200 years; even the depleted US stocks would last ~50 years.
Cycling is an excellent solution for many problems, including congestion, pollution, oil dependance, obesity, accidents, and even mental health. Unfortunately, this will offend the road building lobby, the car industry, the oil industry, the diet industry, medical insurers and the funeral industry; expecit it it be banned outright soon...
Taking the next step is more than a little harder, as is coming up with a source for those necessary aminos which don't ever form under simple conditions.
That depends on what you think the next step is. After all, a specific-sequence protein, even if it manages to form by chance, is useless; only when a transcription mechanism exists which can generate the protein will it be useful.
However, a simple peptide coat for an Fe/Ni-S reaction center would be a useful early step, as both would arise spontaneously. Proteins matching such a description are shared amongst *every* organism (ferrodoxins), which suggests a very early origin.
...broke down as fast as they were made (in a carefully customised device, not in the wild),
In the wild, we have this thing called 'an ocean'. UV does not penetrate much into it. You may also look up things like 'chemical equlibria'; but that would, no doubt, be too much like hard work.
Or that no evidence of a reducing atmosphere exists?
There is planty of evidence for a reducing early atmosphere; simply asserting otherwise does not make it so.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
To clarify: it doesn't matter how long you live as long as you reproduce before you die. You can be either better adapted, or a better breeder to survive. The idea that a particular species flourished because it was better adapted to its environment is just as plausible as that of being a better breeder.
The better an individual is adapted to it's environment, the more offspring it will produce.. 'Better adapted' and 'Better breeder' are part of the same thing!
According to palentologists, humans didn't begin to use tools until sometime around 10,000 to 50,000 years ago
Perhaps you should learn to use Google before posting something so incorrect.. the first homonid tool use dates back to 2.6 or so Million years ago.
yet as a species we are supposedly 50 million years old
Again, this takes just seconds to check; the Genus Homo is around 2.3-2.5 million years old. The species Homo Sapiens is much younger than this. A cynic might suggest that you were just making up numbers to suit your argument and hoping no one would check them.
Re:I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
Well, in Europe it's a 'Lunatic fringe' thing, although the American evangalists seem to be trying to export it.
Why is it that we never see the full calculations for the costs of Kyoto, just lots of shrills claiming it'll cost the entire GDP of the planet for a century or something like that.
Would you like to tell me what high oil prices do to western economies? What the spiralling prices of US natural gas (as a result of depletion) are doing to US fertiliser, cement et al industries right now? What you'll do when the revolution comes in Saudi Arabia?
Fossil fuels also carry a price tag; just because the economists of the world don't include externialities in their calculations, dosen't mean they don't exist.
Catalytic converters - wrt carbon - catalyse unburnt fuel to CO2 and CO to CO2. These rections would have happened in any case (but over hours to weeks instead of milleseconds), but the net CO2 effect is zero.
Carbon ending up solid is pretty much zero from any reasonable effecient engine or power station; you notice that your engine does not fill up with the stuff.
Lost about 30lbs myself, shouldn't lose any more..
I think that Atkins can/does reduce appetite, and therefore the total amount of calories consumed.
Contrast with low fat diets, which directly reduce calories but are harder to follow because they don't reduce appetite.
As far as big business goes, this is correct. Low-fat, highly processed products are a big money spinner - you are replacing relatively expensive things (meat, butter, etc) with cheap starches, AND selling for a bigger markup. It's much harder to do low-carb processed food, and heaven forbid people stop eating processed food at all..
But given that K-Ar dating is typically used for age ranges in the 10s or 100s of millions of years, these results show that the uncertanty due to primordial argon is small, and hence the method is accurate. Thanks for demonstrating that radiometric dating is reliable.
Having no evidence for a theory or idea based in scientific pricipals is not pseudoscience, it's pure hypothetical science.
But postulating an idea which is not backed by scientific principals [i.e. the effect of a magnetic pole shift on the earth's rotational axis can be calculated and shown to be trivial], and for which there would be evidence if it actually happened [Geology as a science does really exist, much to the surprise of most of the online community], IS pseudoscience.
Or do you consider the work on Super String Theory pseudoscience?
No, it is a valid field because it is both an extension of existing scientific laws and constrained by observation.
Pseudoscience is the mis-application of science to further one's own agenda, and usually used in an attempt to prove something that the 'scientist' wants to be true (ghost reports for example).
Or a morbid desire for catastrophe.
And have all the questions been asked and answered? Then perhaps you should stop studying geology if we already know everything.
We *know* the laws of physics haven't made any massive changes in the last 10 or so billion years. But there are still some pretty fundamental questions to answer in geology; it's just that the question 'What effect does a magnetic pole flip have' has been asked so many times that it gets boring. And it's quite simple...i.e.
Do pole flips correlate with mass extinctions? NO.
Do pole flips corrleate with true polar wander? NO.
Do pole flips correlate with climatic changes? NO.
Should we expect any major effects (apart from compasses, obviously) from the next pole flip? NO.
So we do know things about this event; it's happened before and it'll happen again.
I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they consider an unexplained theory as "idiocy". That's pretty much how most of todays most useful inventions and discoveries were initially reffered to as idiocy.
And I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they pronounce on a subject without researching it first. Or doing the relevant calculations. Suggestions that the earth's rotation axis will suddenly change or shift are appalingly common in pseudoscience, despite zero evidence of them actually happening ever, and no viable mechanism ever being presented.
But I think the questions should still be asked (and answered if possible).
This is the problem; they have been asked and answered. Any torque generated by the interaction of the Earth and Sun's magnetic fields will be felt where the magnetic field is generated (i.e. the liquid outer core); any movement stirred up there will be dissapated by internal friction.
We can already measure past climatic changes as a function of milancovitch cycles; if magnetic polarity reversals had any effect, they would throw a great big spanner into these measurements.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that you really believed this when you said it. "In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianh and Precambriani rocks--rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved." - these were documented in the following places:
Strangely enough, I don't have access to 1966 issues of Nature. But I'd be prepared to bet quite happily that the pollen concerned was a later emplacement by wind or water through cracks in the rock.
Then there's also the many living fossils that remain mostly unchanged, yet were thought to be extinct many millions of years ago
And the problem is???
Anyway, that's just one example. I found a list of 20+ such fossils, and that was just with a very quick search, I'm sure you can find more than enough to falsify evolution in your mind by searching google with "out of place fossils".
Well, if the above were your best examples, I won't hold my breath on the rest. Perhaps I should have added 'Not reworked' to the definiton.
Under no language, or any law of logic or rational could anyone say that we've observed the formation of life 3.8 billion years ago.
As I said, we can make historical observations; that you personally dismiss them is pretty much irrelevant. When a geologist examines a rock, he/she is making a historical observation. That rock is evidence of what happened in the past; since other people can observe the same rock, it is repeatable.
I suggest you relook at this. I'm saying that these are people who practice science, and believe in the origin of the universe was from God.
BUT do they put this in the papers they write? Do they allow their conclusions to be constrained by what the bible says? If not - and they could hardly get papers published with supernatural explanations - how would you tell their papers from those written by athiests?
Evolutionists go to great lengths to prove creationism isn't scientific. Their proof - we can't provide a theory that is falsifiable.
Actually, you [creationists] can't provide a theory that does not resort to supernatural explanations, and is hence unscientific. Or even one that agrees with present day data.
That same problem exists with the theory of evolution we disagree with.
Evolution could be falsified in any number of ways. Just one [properly observed and documented] fossil out of place would be enough.
If you were on trial for murder, I wouldn't apply the principles of science because it wouldn't be appropriate.
Could you explain this a bit further? Looks like you are throwing out all forensic, circumstantial and eyewitness evidence here.
I'd use logic to deduce whether you were guilty or not.
How? Having thrown out all the evidence, you're just guessing now.
The only reason I quibble over the meaning of these words is because of that devious tendancy of evolutionists to accuse creationism of being unscientific when their beloved theory falls by the same sword
Let me ask you - what is more likely to get a scientist fame and recognition:
a) A small extention or addition to an exsiting theory, or
b) The complete demolition and replacement of a major scientific theory.
I understand that the "science" of origins is not based in the scientific method.
Well, it is. In this case our observation is that life of some form arose under the conditions prevalant on earth around 3.8 billion years ago. Other observations - such as the current composition of life forms - provide more observations; the laws of physics provide constraints. Hypotheses can be tested against these.
A creation scientist is one who practices science and believes the origin story as presented in the Bible
Then that person is no longer a scientist. Supernatural explanations automatically disqualify you; as to preconceptions.
It's not because they believe they can scientifically examine unrepeatable history.
Well, if I'm ever up on trial for murder, I hope you're in the Jury. After all, we can't know anything from 'unrepeatable history', can we?
We can examine history scientifically. Observations can be repeated, and tested against present day processes and laws. Experiments can be done to test hypotheses; and predictions of future discovery made. This is science, as much as chemistry or physics is.
Well, let's see..
Science 169, 670 - Documents the existance of giant halos, but pretty much admits that they are the result of standard decay of U and Th. At that time, the idea of superheavy elements with long half-lives was not out of the question.
Science 173, 727. - Documents the existance of halos dominated by U-238 derived lead; i.e from Radon movement.
Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. - Now this actually gives some interesting data, notably that Po-210 and Rn-222 haloes are going to be virtually indistinuishable. Indeed, the given uncertanties in measurement are larger.
Science 184, 62 - Apart from the given diagram siomply not supporting the text, there is no new evidence here. There is a *claim* [That the haloes can't come from Rn-222], but no supporting evidence is given.
Most of the later references either seem to be in non-peer reviewed publications or unavailable online, which is a pity.
And this is the problem. None of the published material excludes the alternative hypothesis [i.e. decay chain element migration].
And if we look for example, we see that Po-209 is the most stable isotope of polonium, yet we don't see any haloes from that. This is really the show stopper.
So, I've looked at the papers. There is nothing there to support instantaneous creation. Now, will you answer my questions?
Obviously you have never read the original papers; this is most often a claim that evolutionists level against creationists. The shoe is now on the other foot.
Apart from the fact that you COMPLETELY FAILED to answer any of the other points raised.
Had Radon diffused through the minerals, it would have left a trail of halos, a cylindrical tube as it diffused (varying with diffusion rates in its intensity).
Would it? Only in a perfectly uniform rock; not in granite. And a section through such a cylinder would look axactly like a single halo.
This has _never_ been observed
Well, see above. I'm not surprised. Patterns of haloes along cracks and fissures have. By me.
Also, Gentry did specific experiments, which you would be aware of had you read the original papers, designed to find any traces of Radon seepage. There was no evidence at all.
That is a bit strange, given that granites *do* seep Radon. Tends to make me think the experiment was flawed.
Also the chain through Po takes three steps; many of the halos had only two of those steps. No way that would happen in your scenario. But again, if you'd read the papers, you'd know that.
Which implies that the non-3 step haloes were not Polonium. Which kind of argues against your case.
You also asked me to speculate on why you assume age for some formations. Sorry, you'll have to ask someone else that question
Translation: You have no answer.
Hmmm..
First, a note about Granites; they do doffer substantially from the bulk composition of the continental crust, being somewhat lighter and SiAl-rich by comparison. Typically we see ancient groundwater/hydrothermal systems associated with them - systems which give rise to hiughly useful mineral deposits; we see large scale metamorphic haloes caused by the emplacement of hot rocks and subsequent recrystalisation of the country rock. At places like Yellowstone, we even see the process going on today. Can you explain why a god would set this all up to make it all look so old?
Don't suppose you'd like to tell me why these polonium isotopes were 'created', but none of the other short lived (i.e. half life less than around 10 million years) isotopes? Things like Technitium? Plutonium?
Anyway, you know the explanation for those haloes, even if it annoys you. Zircons in granites contain high concentrations of Uranium; polonium is part of the decay chain of uranium. You will notice that it is directly below Radon; Radon, being a gas, will diffuse through the rock and hence when it decays to Polonium, it will appear that the polonium has just appeared. Problem solved.
Since 19 of the 20 amino acids used in proteins are chiral, any abiogenesis must take this into account.
Did the first form of life use this many ammino acids? [Hint: No]
enzymes are only active when their 3d shapes are exactly as required.
Are, however, the Metal-ligand active centers of many enzymes (which form naturally..) active without protein coats? [Hint: Yes]
The minimum protein complement of a cell that could accurately self-replicate has been estimated at between 280 and 400 proteins.
However, the minimum protein count of a prebiotic metabolic reaction chamber is... [Hint: zero]
In other words, your argument is based around a number of amazingly incorrect assumptions.
Actually, reproduction followed by differing development pathways is all that's required. And as long as an energy source is present, things will not have to degrade.
I used to be an evolutionist, and can spout and cite the exact same drek as evolutionists are known to do. I have a full education and background in the cosmic, biochemical, and biological "evolution" story line.
That's strange, considering that in the next post you propose a mechanism for abiogenesis which is not taken seriously be any scientist in the field. This suggests that you are a liar.
For your next excercise in applied science, calculate the total energy contained in tidal water movement in the Bristol channel. Then compare it to the total energy output of all the UK's power stations..
Yes, this is a perfect solution. Except it creates the perfect enemy. Nuclear waste. US has spent iirc $6 billion looking for a place to stash waste. Waste that it knows will last another couple tens of thousands of years, many lifetimes that of man. Waste that will require extra-ordinary amounts of work to contain, to isolate, to cut off from our reality. We're talking Final Fantasy seal in crystals work here ladies and gentlemen.
That's not strictly true. The long half-life Actinides (Plutonium etc.) can (ahs should) be recycled into more fuel. The fission products have half lives of around 30 years or so. Quite simply, this stuff only has to be kept safe for perhaps 300 or so years before it becomes as radioactive as granite, for instance. Only if you ban reprocessing (for political reasons) do you get a severe problem.
A cynic would point out that Green opposition to nuclear power has effectively contributed more to global warming, by keeping coal as a power source instead, than all the SUVs in America.
Either way, I'm still a reknewable man myself. It'd only be like five or ten times the cost (guess came from out of mi arse again). And I'm a big fan of the distributed system. Just put solar on everyone's house. Couple huge honkin wind farms. Less of these gargantuan power lines everywhere.
I would certainly agree to mandating solar panels for all new roof construction and replacement. And as a condition for anyone installing air conditioning in their home. Wind farms are best suited for things like generating hydrogen (or other alternate transport fuels), since this removed the problem of episodic supply.
While it is true that a lot of doom-and-gloom predictions have failed to materialize, most famously the "Club of Rome" report in the seventies which predicted running out of oil ludicrously soon, it is silly to ignore the clear signs of environmental and social degradation simply because we've been fine up until now
This report has often been cited as wrong, but at the time it was substantially correct.
Basically, it did not predict oil running out. It will always be possable to extract some oil from the ground. However, the problem is not a sudden event of every well running dry, but of oil production going into decline. Given the exponential rise of oil production up until 1973 (The report was published in 1972, I believe), a simple hubbert curve gave a peak between 1992-1994. The figures used have not changed since then, despite all the latest technology.
However, between 1973-1985, artificial (political) restraints on oil supply pushed the curve below the 'free exploitation' Hubbert model, which delayed the peak. When the peak occurs also depends on your definition of oil; if you are talking about strictly conventional oil, it's probably already peaked, circa 2000. Add in deepwater, tar sands, extra heavy oil and condensate and peak probably won't be till 2005-2015, depending on just how exaggerated OPEC reserve figures are.
Its cheap: even a really, really nice roadbike is going to be US$4000 (and that's ridiculous overkill for most people).
Mine was $350, at current exchange rates (I'm in the UK)
Foreign oil wars become unnecessary. (I suppose we need to consider manufacture of plastics in this, though. Anyone know how much oil it would require just to produce our plastics?
IIRC, about 10% of global petroleum production goes into assorted feedstocks - various chamicals, pharmacueticals, plastics, etc. If that was all we used it for, we'd have no problems for around 200 years; even the depleted US stocks would last ~50 years.
Cycling is an excellent solution for many problems, including congestion, pollution, oil dependance, obesity, accidents, and even mental health. Unfortunately, this will offend the road building lobby, the car industry, the oil industry, the diet industry, medical insurers and the funeral industry; expecit it it be banned outright soon...
No one has yet explained how the creationist can explain the finches.
Ok, then. Explain them.
Subsequent research has shown (links in other people's answers above) that the presumed conditions never existed.
Of course, they don't have to form on earth.. They can form in space. They can also form on earth without the lightning/UV requirement.
Taking the next step is more than a little harder, as is coming up with a source for those necessary aminos which don't ever form under simple conditions.
That depends on what you think the next step is. After all, a specific-sequence protein, even if it manages to form by chance, is useless; only when a transcription mechanism exists which can generate the protein will it be useful.
However, a simple peptide coat for an Fe/Ni-S reaction center would be a useful early step, as both would arise spontaneously. Proteins matching such a description are shared amongst *every* organism (ferrodoxins), which suggests a very early origin.
In the wild, we have this thing called 'an ocean'. UV does not penetrate much into it. You may also look up things like 'chemical equlibria'; but that would, no doubt, be too much like hard work.
Or that no evidence of a reducing atmosphere exists?
There is planty of evidence for a reducing early atmosphere; simply asserting otherwise does not make it so.
To clarify: it doesn't matter how long you live as long as you reproduce before you die. You can be either better adapted, or a better breeder to survive. The idea that a particular species flourished because it was better adapted to its environment is just as plausible as that of being a better breeder.
The better an individual is adapted to it's environment, the more offspring it will produce.. 'Better adapted' and 'Better breeder' are part of the same thing!
According to palentologists, humans didn't begin to use tools until sometime around 10,000 to 50,000 years ago
Perhaps you should learn to use Google before posting something so incorrect.. the first homonid tool use dates back to 2.6 or so Million years ago.
yet as a species we are supposedly 50 million years old
Again, this takes just seconds to check; the Genus Homo is around 2.3-2.5 million years old. The species Homo Sapiens is much younger than this. A cynic might suggest that you were just making up numbers to suit your argument and hoping no one would check them.
Well, in Europe it's a 'Lunatic fringe' thing, although the American evangalists seem to be trying to export it.
Why is it that we never see the full calculations for the costs of Kyoto, just lots of shrills claiming it'll cost the entire GDP of the planet for a century or something like that.
Would you like to tell me what high oil prices do to western economies? What the spiralling prices of US natural gas (as a result of depletion) are doing to US fertiliser, cement et al industries right now? What you'll do when the revolution comes in Saudi Arabia?
Fossil fuels also carry a price tag; just because the economists of the world don't include externialities in their calculations, dosen't mean they don't exist.
Think you should have hung onto that whetstone..
Catalytic converters - wrt carbon - catalyse unburnt fuel to CO2 and CO to CO2. These rections would have happened in any case (but over hours to weeks instead of milleseconds), but the net CO2 effect is zero.
Carbon ending up solid is pretty much zero from any reasonable effecient engine or power station; you notice that your engine does not fill up with the stuff.
Do you have any 'Second reactions' in mind?
10 to the 10 to the 1.42
or
10 to the 26 meters.
or
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 meters.
Lost about 30lbs myself, shouldn't lose any more..
I think that Atkins can/does reduce appetite, and therefore the total amount of calories consumed.
Contrast with low fat diets, which directly reduce calories but are harder to follow because they don't reduce appetite.
As far as big business goes, this is correct. Low-fat, highly processed products are a big money spinner - you are replacing relatively expensive things (meat, butter, etc) with cheap starches, AND selling for a bigger markup. It's much harder to do low-carb processed food, and heaven forbid people stop eating processed food at all..
What, you mean like this?
But given that K-Ar dating is typically used for age ranges in the 10s or 100s of millions of years, these results show that the uncertanty due to primordial argon is small, and hence the method is accurate. Thanks for demonstrating that radiometric dating is reliable.
Having no evidence for a theory or idea based in scientific pricipals is not pseudoscience, it's pure hypothetical science.
But postulating an idea which is not backed by scientific principals [i.e. the effect of a magnetic pole shift on the earth's rotational axis can be calculated and shown to be trivial], and for which there would be evidence if it actually happened [Geology as a science does really exist, much to the surprise of most of the online community], IS pseudoscience.
Or do you consider the work on Super String Theory pseudoscience?
No, it is a valid field because it is both an extension of existing scientific laws and constrained by observation.
Pseudoscience is the mis-application of science to further one's own agenda, and usually used in an attempt to prove something that the 'scientist' wants to be true (ghost reports for example).
Or a morbid desire for catastrophe.
And have all the questions been asked and answered? Then perhaps you should stop studying geology if we already know everything.
We *know* the laws of physics haven't made any massive changes in the last 10 or so billion years. But there are still some pretty fundamental questions to answer in geology; it's just that the question 'What effect does a magnetic pole flip have' has been asked so many times that it gets boring. And it's quite simple...i.e.
Do pole flips correlate with mass extinctions? NO.
Do pole flips corrleate with true polar wander? NO.
Do pole flips correlate with climatic changes? NO.
Should we expect any major effects (apart from compasses, obviously) from the next pole flip? NO.
So we do know things about this event; it's happened before and it'll happen again.
I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they consider an unexplained theory as "idiocy". That's pretty much how most of todays most useful inventions and discoveries were initially reffered to as idiocy.
And I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they pronounce on a subject without researching it first. Or doing the relevant calculations. Suggestions that the earth's rotation axis will suddenly change or shift are appalingly common in pseudoscience, despite zero evidence of them actually happening ever, and no viable mechanism ever being presented.
But I think the questions should still be asked (and answered if possible).
This is the problem; they have been asked and answered. Any torque generated by the interaction of the Earth and Sun's magnetic fields will be felt where the magnetic field is generated (i.e. the liquid outer core); any movement stirred up there will be dissapated by internal friction.
We can already measure past climatic changes as a function of milancovitch cycles; if magnetic polarity reversals had any effect, they would throw a great big spanner into these measurements.