Evolution

  • 310 Replies
  • 25883 Views
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Evolution
« Reply #270 on: December 18, 2015, 07:02:27 PM »
First place, evolution is not science. You have to believe we all came from a common ancestor we never OBSERVE that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
This article is huge, so I can only really give headings to all the different reasons.

Comparative physiology
Biochemistry
Genetics
Comparative anatomy
Palaeontology
Geographic distribution
Natural selection
Speciation
Computation and mathematical iteration
I suggest you read, as then we can discuss the minutiae.

Quote
We never seen a canine coming from a non-canine.
Firstly. Just because we haven't seen something doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Other pieces of evidence can be used to justify that hypothesis.
Secondly, the evolution of Canis Familiaris was a historical occurrence happening worldwide.
A similar example would be agriculture. We didn't see it be invented, does that mean that it has always been so?
Or were you referring to the tooth?

Quote
So we are equal as I can't directly prove scientifically that the Biblical God created everything in six days roughly six thousand years ago and you can't prove that we came from non-living (read spontaneously generated) material.
Except that your wolrldview brokers no argument, while mine is predicated on argument and discussion.
Also, the only evidence for the existence of your god is a book.
The evidence for the big bang can be found here:
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid
http://study.com/academy/lesson/evidence-for-the-big-bang-theory-background-radiation-red-shift-and-expansion.html

Quote
Second, my articles are no more biased than the evolutionist side. I ask that you show me that a canine came from a non-canine or better still come from non-living material through the means you claim it did.
Are you under the impression that I, personally, am the brains behind 'evolutionism'?
I can provide you with the research if you really want, but the best way to find out is to ask questions of a scientist.
Find one who is willing to chat, maybe at a university or a museum, or online somewhere, and ask questions.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #271 on: December 18, 2015, 07:08:01 PM »
I'll look at the article and discuss the points one at a time.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Evolution
« Reply #272 on: December 18, 2015, 07:25:52 PM »
Find one who is willing to chat,..., or online somewhere, and ask questions.
:D

He just spits them in the face, evidence is shown on the last two pages.

Completely useless. These fools are not open minded thinkers, yet completely close minded and no understanding of Earth sciences whatsoever.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #273 on: December 18, 2015, 07:26:50 PM »
From Wikipedia:

Quote

One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species,[1] producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent. If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence, as well as mutations unique to that ancestor. More closely related species have a greater fraction of identical sequence and shared substitutions compared to more distantly related species.

First place maybe we have similar gene sequences because we have a common designer. If didnt had that then we could only eat each other. But because we do the brown cow can eat the green grass, turn it into milk and we churn it to make butter and I use the butter on my toast.

Second, by that logic, because Chevy and Ford create cars that are similar that proves that both of them came from a skateboard.

Quote
The simplest and most powerful evidence is provided by phylogenetic reconstruction. Such reconstructions, especially when done using slowly evolving protein sequences, are often quite robust and can be used to reconstruct a great deal of the evolutionary history of modern organisms (and even in some instances of the evolutionary history of extinct organisms, such as the recovered gene sequences of mammoths or Neanderthals). These reconstructed phylogenies recapitulate the relationships established through morphological and biochemical studies. The most detailed reconstructions have been performed on the basis of the mitochondrial genomes shared by all eukaryotic organisms, which are short and easy to sequence; the broadest reconstructions have been performed either using the sequences of a few very ancient proteins or by using ribosomal RNA sequence[citation needed].

So we know evolution is true because we can reconstruct DNA sequences? Just because we can reconstruct them doesn't prove that they evolved by themselves. That'll be like me saying since I can reconstruct a Lego building that fell over that proves that the building came about by chance.
Quote
Phylogenetic relationships also extend to a wide variety of nonfunctional sequence elements, including repeats, transposons, pseudogenes, and mutations in protein-coding sequences that do not result in changes in amino-acid sequence. While a minority of these elements might later be found to harbor function, in aggregate they demonstrate that identity must be the product of common descent rather than common function[citation needed].

So because there are left overs basically that proves it came about by chance? First off maybe the animal or human needed it for some reason that we don't know about. Maybe the leftovers served as a decoy for viruses and deseases. But to say that left overs prove that it evolve is like me saying that once I've rebuilt the Lego building and there's left overs that proves that it came about by chance.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #274 on: December 18, 2015, 07:42:32 PM »
From Wikipedia:

Quote

Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns   Edit
All known extant (surviving) organisms are based on the same biochemical processes: genetic information encoded as nucleic acid (DNA, or RNA for many viruses), transcribed into RNA, then translated into proteins (that is, polymers of amino acids) by highly conserved ribosomes. Perhaps most tellingly, the Genetic Code (the "translation table" between DNA and amino acids) is the same for almost every organism, meaning that a piece of DNA in a bacterium codes for the same amino acid as in a human cell. ATP is used as energy currency by all extant life. A deeper understanding of developmental biology shows that common morphology is, in fact, the product of shared genetic elements.[2] For example, although camera-like eyes are believed to have evolved independently on many separate occasions,[3] they share a common set of light-sensing proteins (opsins), suggesting a common point of origin for all sighted creatures.[4][5] Another noteworthy example is the familiar vertebrate body plan, whose structure is controlled by the homeobox (Hox) family of genes.

Basically, because the way DNA/RNA is built the same throughout living things therfore they evolved. That's like me saying since Chevy and Ford uses the same machines to create cars therefore both came from a skateboard. Maybe the reason most if not all living things have the same "machines" is because they came from a common designer and it works. What evidence I have for a common designer? I'll provide a link in the next post.
Quote
DNA sequencing   Edit
Comparison of the DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity, and the resulting phylogenetic trees are typically congruent with traditional taxonomy, and are often used to strengthen or correct taxonomic classifications. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.[6][7] Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes.[8][9] The sequence of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene, a vital gene encoding a part of the ribosome, was used to find the broad phylogenetic relationships between all extant life. The analysis, originally done by Carl Woese, resulted in the three-domain system, arguing for two major splits in the early evolution of life. The first split led to modern Bacteria and the subsequent split led to modern Archaea and Eukaryotes.

Baboons, gorillas, and chimps are all primates so of course they would have similar gene sequences. However that's not the only thing that links them together. For example humans have eyes similar to octopuses but no evolutionists are claiming that we came from octopuses. Somewhere in are makeup we are similar to sunflowers.
Quote
Some DNA sequences are shared by very different organisms. It has been predicted by the theory of evolution that the differences in such DNA sequences between two organisms should roughly resemble both the biological difference between them according to their anatomy and the time that had passed since these two organisms have separated in the course of evolution, as seen in fossil evidence. The rate of accumulating such changes should be low for some sequences, namely those that code for critical RNA or proteins, and high for others that code for less critical RNA or proteins; but for every specific sequence, the rate of change should be roughly constant over time. These results have been experimentally confirmed. Two examples are DNA sequences coding for rRNA, which is highly conserved, and DNA sequences coding for fibrinopeptides (amino acid chains that are discarded during the formation of fibrin), which are highly non-conserved.[10]

That's only one thing they are comparing. That'll be like me saying anything with wheels are related.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #275 on: December 18, 2015, 07:47:35 PM »
I'm about to eat so I'll come back and finish my analyses on the Wikipedia link but for now here's evidence for a designer.

http://www.conservapedia.com/General_and_Special_Evidence_for_Intelligent_Design_in_Biology
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Evolution
« Reply #276 on: December 18, 2015, 08:25:27 PM »
First place maybe we have similar gene sequences because we have a common designer. If didnt had that then we could only eat each other. But because we do the brown cow can eat the green grass, turn it into milk and we churn it to make butter and I use the butter on my toast.
Interesting.
What are you trying to say, though?
Do you not concede, though, that genetic similarity exists and is indicative of a common ancestor?

Quote
Second, by that logic, because Chevy and Ford create cars that are similar that proves that both of them came from a skateboard.
Or maybe, they are cars and that is a false equivalency

Quote
So we know evolution is true because we can reconstruct DNA sequences? Just because we can reconstruct them doesn't prove that they evolved by themselves. That'll be like me saying since I can reconstruct a Lego building that fell over that proves that the building came about by chance.
No, the fact that protein (which can biochemically arise out of inanimate processes) can construct itself into different DNA sequences means that evolution is true.

Quote
So because there are left overs basically that proves it came about by chance? First off maybe the animal or human needed it for some reason that we don't know about. Maybe the leftovers served as a decoy for viruses and deseases. But to say that left overs prove that it evolve is like me saying that once I've rebuilt the Lego building and there's left overs that proves that it came about by chance.
Evolution is not chance.
Mutations are chance, the selection of certain traits by the environment isn't.

Quote
Basically, because the way DNA/RNA is built the same throughout living things therfore they evolved. That's like me saying since Chevy and Ford uses the same machines to create cars therefore both came from a skateboard. Maybe the reason most if not all living things have the same "machines" is because they came from a common designer and it works. What evidence I have for a common designer? I'll provide a link in the next post.
No, the way that DNA is constructed proves that life is all related.
And if they are all related, it follows that they have a common ancestor.
And why do keep comparing evolution to cars coming from skateboards?
If anything could be comparative, it would be from a stagecoach or other carriage.  :D

Quote
Baboons, gorillas, and chimps are all primates so of course they would have similar gene sequences.
And also humans.
Don't forget humans.

Quote
However that's not the only thing that links them together. For example humans have eyes similar to octopuses but no evolutionists are claiming that we came from octopuses. Somewhere in are makeup we are similar to sunflowers.
Exactly, we share a common ancestor.

Quote
That's only one thing they are comparing. That'll be like me saying anything with wheels are related.
No.
No it's not the same thing.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #277 on: December 18, 2015, 10:05:18 PM »
First place maybe we have similar gene sequences because we have a common designer. If didnt had that then we could only eat each other. But because we do the brown cow can eat the green grass, turn it into milk and we churn it to make butter and I use the butter on my toast.
Quote
Interesting.
What are you trying to say, though?
Do you not concede, though, that genetic similarity exists and is indicative of a common ancestor?
I'm saying that there's more than one way to look at it. It does not automatically mean that they are related.

Quote
Second, by that logic, because Chevy and Ford create cars that are similar that proves that both of them came from a skateboard.
Quote
Or maybe, they are cars and that is a false equivalency

They may be cars, just like whales and humans are mammals, but they still came from different companies or to translate whales and humans aren't related except they have a common designer.

Quote
So we know evolution is true because we can reconstruct DNA sequences? Just because we can reconstruct them doesn't prove that they evolved by themselves. That'll be like me saying since I can reconstruct a Lego building that fell over that proves that the building came about by chance.
Quote
No, the fact that protein (which can biochemically arise out of inanimate processes) can construct itself into different DNA sequences means that evolution is true.

Wait, if they can make themselves then that calls for a incredible code. That'll be like me having a Lego set that builds itself and can build different things like a car or a plane. But it can only build with what it got. It can't build something that calls for 4000 pieces if it only has 300.

Quote
So because there are left overs basically that proves it came about by chance? First off maybe the animal or human needed it for some reason that we don't know about. Maybe the leftovers served as a decoy for viruses and deseases. But to say that left overs prove that it evolve is like me saying that once I've rebuilt the Lego building and there's left overs that proves that it came about by chance.
Quote
Evolution is not chance.
Mutations are chance, the selection of certain traits by the environment isn't.
Mutations are almost always either neutral, negative, or only benificial for the moment and inferior to its non-mutated counterparts.

Quote
Basically, because the way DNA/RNA is built the same throughout living things therfore they evolved. That's like me saying since Chevy and Ford uses the same machines to create cars therefore both came from a skateboard. Maybe the reason most if not all living things have the same "machines" is because they came from a common designer and it works. What evidence I have for a common designer? I'll provide a link in the next post.
Quote
No, the way that DNA is constructed proves that life is all related.
And if they are all related, it follows that they have a common ancestor.
And why do keep comparing evolution to cars coming from skateboards?
If anything could be comparative, it would be from a stagecoach or other carriage.  :D

So how did the "machines" to build DNA evolved? If there all or nearly all the same thing then what the original was and how did it worked?

Quote
Baboons, gorillas, and chimps are all primates so of course they would have similar gene sequences.
Quote
And also humans.
Don't forget humans.

Humans may have similar DNA sequence (although the more we study it, the farther apart we are to primates) but we have different everything else.

Quote
However that's not the only thing that links them together. For example humans have eyes similar to octopuses but no evolutionists are claiming that we came from octopuses. Somewhere in are makeup we are similar to sunflowers.
Quote
Exactly, we share a common ancestor.

Or maybe we share a common designer. If we are related to apes then we should have similar eyes and have little similarities to sunflowers.

Quote
That's only one thing they are comparing. That'll be like me saying anything with wheels are related.
No.
No it's not the same thing.

Why not? Btw, its getting late where I'm at so I'll deal with the rest of your link tomorrow.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #278 on: December 19, 2015, 09:16:39 PM »
From Wikipedia.
Quote
Endogenous retroviruses   Edit
Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection. This leaves the virogene left in the genome. Because this event is rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of a virogene in two different species suggests common ancestry.[11] Cats (Felidae) present an notable instance of virogene sequences demonstrating common descent. The standard phylogenetic tree for Felidae have smaller cats (Felis chaus, Felis silvestris, Felis nigripes, and Felis catus) diverging from larger cats such as the subfamily Pantherinae and other carnivores. The fact that small cats have an ERV where the larger cats do not suggests that the gene was inserted into the ancestor of the small cats after the larger cats had diverged.[12] Another example of this is with humans and chimps. Humans contain numerous ERVs that comprise a considerable percentage of the genome. Sources vary, however, 1%[13] to 8%[14] has been proposed. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes while all primates share similar retroviruses congruent with phylogeny.[15]

They only show'd one example of cats having similar viruses and compare that to humans and apes. Maybe it's because humans and apes are similar enough to share deseases, but still different enough to be completly separate kinds. Maybe we share similar deseases because we have a common designer. Why do we have deseases in the first place would call me to use the Bible as an answer. But maybe what we are looking at now is equivant to looking at a wrecked car. Would you ask Chevy why did they built such a bad looking car and show them a car wreck?
Quote
Proteins   Edit
The proteomic evidence also supports the universal ancestry of life. Vital proteins, such as the ribosome, DNA polymerase, and RNA polymerase, are found in everything from the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals. The core part of the protein is conserved across all lineages of life, serving similar functions. Higher organisms have evolved additional protein subunits, largely affecting the regulation and protein-protein interaction of the core. Other overarching similarities between all lineages of extant organisms, such as DNA, RNA, amino acids, and the lipid bilayer, give support to the theory of common descent. Phylogenetic analyses of protein sequences from various organisms produce similar trees of relationship between all organisms.[16] The chirality of DNA, RNA, and amino acids is conserved across all known life. As there is no functional advantage to right- or left-handed molecular chirality, the simplest hypothesis is that the choice was made randomly by early organisms and passed on to all extant life through common descent. Further evidence for reconstructing ancestral lineages comes from junk DNA such as pseudogenes, "dead" genes that steadily accumulate mutations.[17]

Again, maybe its because we have a common designer. It would be like a painter putting his signature on all of his works. Also, if we had completely different a proteins then humans can only eat humans. Maybe a designer made it that way to make everything compatable.
Quote
Pseudogenes   Edit
Pseudogenes, also known as noncoding DNA, are extra DNA in a genome that do not get transcribed into RNA to synthesize proteins. Some of this noncoding DNA has known functions, but much of it has no known function and is called "Junk DNA". This is an example of a vestige since replicating these genes uses energy, making it a waste in many cases. A pseudogene can be produced when a coding gene accumulates mutations that prevent it from being transcribed, making it non-functional. But since it is not transcribed, it may disappear without affecting fitness, unless it has provided some beneficial function as non-coding DNA. Non-functional pseudogenes may be passed on to later species, thereby labeling the later species as descended from the earlier species.

Maybe they lost function because of multiple repeating. I like you to read a copy of a copy of a copy (you get the idea) of a sentence by photocopy. Also that'll be like me saying since the air conditioning of my car only works on full throttle that means the company made it that way. Also, the more we study "junk" DNA the more we find out that its not junk after all
« Last Edit: December 19, 2015, 09:18:19 PM by Luke 22:35-38 »
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #279 on: December 20, 2015, 12:01:02 PM »
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: Evolution
« Reply #280 on: December 21, 2015, 03:39:36 AM »
That article is really really bad. Come on Luke, I know you can do better than that. Just in the first few paragraphs there are factual errors and misrepresentations of what evolution actually is. A transitional species is not a cross between two species. A transitional species is just what we call a species that comes between two other species. Homo erectus is said to be the transitional species between modern man and ancient ape. That doesn't mean Homo erectus is a cross between humans and apes. It's a distinct species. In fact, if we did find a "dat" or a "crocoduck" fossil, that would be a massive blow to evolution. If a crocoduck fossil was ever recovered, I personally would stop believing in evolution. The supposed "gaps" in the fossil record are simply due to the fact that not every single thing gets fossilized. In fact, a very small percentage of things that die ever get fossilized.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Evolution
« Reply #281 on: December 21, 2015, 04:40:25 AM »
Every single species in history is a transitional specie (maybe with exceptions to the first selfreplicating organisms, depending on where you put the boundary on living and not living)
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #282 on: December 21, 2015, 08:29:46 AM »
That article is really really bad. Come on Luke, I know you can do better than that. Just in the first few paragraphs there are factual errors and misrepresentations of what evolution actually is. A transitional species is not a cross between two species. A transitional species is just what we call a species that comes between two other species. Homo erectus is said to be the transitional species between modern man and ancient ape. That doesn't mean Homo erectus is a cross between humans and apes. It's a distinct species. In fact, if we did find a "dat" or a "crocoduck" fossil, that would be a massive blow to evolution. If a crocoduck fossil was ever recovered, I personally would stop believing in evolution. The supposed "gaps" in the fossil record are simply due to the fact that not every single thing gets fossilized. In fact, a very small percentage of things that die ever get fossilized.

I'll see if I can find a better one.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #283 on: December 21, 2015, 08:34:28 AM »
Here's an article although I don't like the type they used. I'll see if I can find another one.

http://www.scientificproofagainstevolution.org/Pages/default.aspx
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #284 on: December 21, 2015, 08:37:37 AM »
I think this is a pretty good article.

http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: Evolution
« Reply #285 on: December 21, 2015, 11:43:19 AM »
Just a heads up Conker, "specie" is not the singular form of "species". "species" is the singular and plural.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #286 on: December 21, 2015, 12:11:28 PM »
Just a heads up Conker, "specie" is not the singular form of "species". "species" is the singular and plural.

Isn't "specie" is related to gold or something like that?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: Evolution
« Reply #287 on: December 21, 2015, 01:28:17 PM »
I'm going to go through that last article you linked.

1. I was unable to find a scientific source for this claim, only other creationist websites.
2. See 1.
3. Same problem I outlined before about transitional fossils.
4. Irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Also, I'm pretty sure embryonic recapitulation has been falsified.
5. See 1.
6. Betrays a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. The law only applies to systems which are in thermodynamic equilibrium. The Earth receives energy from the Sun constantly, and is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
7. Betrays a lack of understanding of what vestigial organs are and what the theory of evolution is. Vestigial organs appear in animals besides humans. For example, dolphins and whales still have foot bones because they evolved from terrestrial mammals. The fact that many organs in the human body once thought to be vestigial actually have a purpose is not a strike against evolution, but against our understanding of the human body. Evolution does not say that useless body parts must eventually disappear, so that claim is simply false.
8. Non-sequiter. Just because creationism offers an (albeit erroneous) explanation does not make the scientific explanation any less valid.
9. See 3. Also betrays a HUGE misunderstanding of evolution.
10. See 1.
11. See 1.
12. See 1.
13. See 1.
14. The age of the sediment of the Nile is irrelevant to the age of the planet.
15. The Earth's rotation slowing down has to due with tidal friction from the moon, and the origin of the moon is still very much a mystery. If anything, this places a limit on the age of the moon, not the Earth.
16. All that tells us is that those thirty-seven written accounts are false.
17. God doesn't actually exist, so the Bible is not a reliable source of information.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #288 on: December 21, 2015, 09:15:22 PM »
I'm going to go through that last article you linked.

1. I was unable to find a scientific source for this claim, only other creationist websites.
[/quote]

Although this is dealing with the age of the earth (or moon in this instance), its still a valid point. From a science site the rate of moon dust collecting is about .04 inches per thousand years. Caculate that out and you get 1500 feet of dust. According to answers in Genesis it's 1/20th that. If you caculate that out it would be 750 feet.
Quote
2. See 1.

I'll provide a link about the magnetic field decreasing.
Quote
3. Same problem I outlined before about transitional fossils.

Can you show one transitional fossil?
Quote
4. Irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Also, I'm pretty sure embryonic recapitulation has been falsified.

I'm glad you see that but modern high school and college text books are still teaching that as proof for evolution.

Quote
5. See 1.

Why would it be irrevelant? If its statistically immpossible then why do you believe it?
Quote
6. Betrays a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. The law only applies to systems which are in thermodynamic equilibrium. The Earth receives energy from the Sun constantly, and is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

The sun's energy is destructive. The only thing that can use is chlorophyl. If I throw a grenade in my room will it clean it up?
Quote

7. Betrays a lack of understanding of what vestigial organs are and what the theory of evolution is. Vestigial organs appear in animals besides humans. For example, dolphins and whales still have foot bones because they evolved from terrestrial mammals. The fact that many organs in the human body once thought to be vestigial actually have a purpose is not a strike against evolution, but against our understanding of the human body. Evolution does not say that useless body parts must eventually disappear, so that claim is simply false.

The whales and dolphins use those bones to attach special organs for breeding. They're not vestigial.
Quote
8. Non-sequiter. Just because creationism offers an (albeit erroneous) explanation does not make the scientific explanation any less valid.

I agree with you however if its impossible for the universe to create itself then it must have been created by a designer.

Quote
9. See 3. Also betrays a HUGE misunderstanding of evolution.

Can you clarify?
Quote
10. See 1.
11. See 1.
12. See 1.
13. See 1.
14. The age of the sediment of the Nile is irrelevant to the age of the planet.

I think the question is why there isn't a bigger, older river someplace?
Quote
15. The Earth's rotation slowing down has to due with tidal friction from the moon, and the origin of the moon is still very much a mystery. If anything, this places a limit on the age of the moon, not the Earth.

Ok.
Quote
16. All that tells us is that those thirty-seven written accounts are false.

Really, ALL of them?
Quote
17. God doesn't actually exist, so the Bible is not a reliable source of information.

How you God doesn't exist?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Evolution
« Reply #289 on: December 21, 2015, 11:43:24 PM »

3. Same problem I outlined before about transitional fossils.

Can you show one transitional fossil?


Ignoring the fact that every fossil represents a transition in the evolutionary record, I think what you mean to ask is: Can you show a fossil which represents a species that straddles the form of two other species? (or something approximating that)

Well, the tiktaalik is a species which represents the transition from fish to amphibian rather succinctly:



That being said, there are more to discover, and you should have a read, although something tells me that you will have some links all ready to rebut the Tiktaalik.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Evolution
« Reply #290 on: December 22, 2015, 01:56:19 AM »
Although this is dealing with the age of the earth (or moon in this instance), its still a valid point. From a science site the rate of moon dust collecting is about .04 inches per thousand years. Caculate that out and you get 1500 feet of dust. According to answers in Genesis it's 1/20th that. If you caculate that out it would be 750 feet.
Too bad is neither. Regolith is a fine "dust" layer. I think it has been better described as crust, because powdered materials have no air to stop them from electrostatically binding in layers.
Besides, that "rate of dust collecting" was a speculative rate from the 50s that has been disproved since. What would cause dust to appear in the moon? There is no air to weather the rocks! That's why dust accumulation is so slow.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html

Quote
I'll provide a link about the magnetic field decreasing.

Be my guest, but: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

Quote
Can you show one transitional fossil?
Yes. http://pwp.franklincollege.edu/ASMITH2/WebQuest_files/Fossil-Fish-1.jpg
I dont even know what that fossil is! I don't have to. Every fossil is a transitional one. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Quote
I'm glad you see that but modern high school and college text books are still teaching that as proof for evolution.
Sure. But high school teachers are usually not scientists. The educational system is usually slow to keep up with science, and doesnt represent it in any way. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html

Quote
Why would it be irrevelant? If its statistically immpossible then why do you believe it?
I don't even have to read what you are responding to to know what misconception of statistics you are spouting. Try to come up with something new, g'damn.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">


Quote
The sun's energy is destructive. The only thing that can use is chlorophyl. If I throw a grenade in my room will it clean it up?
Wrong. The sun is the origin of all energy in Earth, making it a non-closed system. Of all its consequences, at least the heat and the solar radiation are required for the processes of life such as photosynthesis (the main source of nutrients for all life in the planet), vitamin sythetization (even in humans), and so on. Excessive light will cause cancer, of course, but a lack of it would anihilate life on Earth very quickly. Perhaps some extremophiles could remain, but all nutrient sources I can think of come directly or indirectly from the Sun. I can only think of one possible exception, being the Earth's internal heat, since a slight amount of it comes from the radioactive decay of elements formed during the life or supernovae of the star that eventually died and created the cloud of "dust" that eventually became the sun, and some of it comes from meteor impacts. Apart from that, all energy and matter comes from the Sun and it's accretion disk.

Quote

The whales and dolphins use those bones to attach special organs for breeding. They're not vestigial.
That's not what vestigial means: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html

Quote
I agree with you however if its impossible for the universe to create itself then it must have been created by a designer.
What if our universe is the "child universe" of a superverse? Not everything that wasnt created by itself is designed. Rocks dont form themselves, they are the by-product of processes on Earth.

Quote
I think the question is why there isn't a bigger, older river someplace?
Because there must be a bigger and older river on Earth. Why isnt there a faster man in the world than Usain Bolt?

Quote
Really, ALL of them?
Never heard of herd mentality? There is a reason why testimonials alone arent enough for someone to be proclaimed guilty.

Quote
How you God doesn't exist?
Until you prove God to exist, the null hypothesis is not to believe, and you must not base arguments on it.


EDIT:Fixed a quote nesting error.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 09:26:04 AM by Conker »
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #291 on: December 22, 2015, 08:19:11 AM »
I forgot to give a link about the magnetic field. It's pretty much undisputed that the magnetic field is decaying. It's whether it's always been that's the argument.

http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field-young/
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #292 on: December 22, 2015, 08:24:02 AM »

3. Same problem I outlined before about transitional fossils.

Can you show one transitional fossil?


Ignoring the fact that every fossil represents a transition in the evolutionary record, I think what you mean to ask is: Can you show a fossil which represents a species that straddles the form of two other species? (or something approximating that)

Well, the tiktaalik is a species which represents the transition from fish to amphibian rather succinctly:



That being said, there are more to discover, and you should have a read, although something tells me that you will have some links all ready to rebut the Tiktaalik.

1. There's nothing wrong with providing links especially when I don't know enough about a certain topic or to validate my claim.

2. There's NO transitional fossils. You can't prove that it had different children.

3. What makes the fossil you show'd a transitional fossil? It looks like an oversized salamander to me. It doesn't look like a fish. I'll see if I can find better pictures though.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #293 on: December 22, 2015, 08:32:22 AM »
Ok, I was wrong it was a fish, but it wasn't transitional as this link says.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat030621.html
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #294 on: December 22, 2015, 08:45:49 AM »
From conker's link talking about the magnetic field.

Quote

The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history.

They made a statement without backing. Have we observed the reversals? And why would that effect the decay rate?

This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006). [/quote]

But still no proof of reversals.

Quote
Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.

You still have a problem if it was a straight line. Sooner or later you're going to run into a problem.
Quote
T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.

Not sure what this has to do with the magnetic field but even secular scientist are saying that the magnetic field is declining rapidly.
Quote
Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.
Links:

Again, even modern secular scientist are saying the magnetic field is declining.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Evolution
« Reply #295 on: December 22, 2015, 10:06:19 AM »
They made a statement without backing.
No they didnt.  (Gee et al. 2000, Geomagnetic intensity variations over the past 780 kyr obtained from near-seafloor magnetic anomalies. Nature 408: 827-832.) and (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995, A three-dimensional self-consistent computer simulation of a geomagnetic field reversal. Nature 377: 203-209.) are cited as the sources for this particular line.

Quote
Have we observed the reversals?
Yes!. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal#Observing_past_fields
In layman's terms, the grains of iron embedded on the oceanic crust as it cools down have a tendency to keep their magnetic orientation the same as the one held by the magnetic field of the Earth at the time. An alternating pattern of these is shown in this rocks, which suggests that the magnetic field changed polarity between those "stripes". More evidence suggests this too, but this is the most well studied example, since is one of the discoveries that led to modern plate tectonical theory.

Quote
And why would that effect the decay rate?
It doesn't, but it gives a different explanation for it. While the young earth explanation for magnetism is an electrical current in the Earth, that will eventually dissipate, vanishing the magnetosphere, the modern explanation is what's called the dynamo theory, in which the current of flowing metal around the core generates this field. This current is subject to thermal processes, and can start to counterflow, eventually stopping and reversing. This is what scientists now believe that's happening to the Earth's magnetosphere (even more with the discovery that the magnetic poles are tilting, and will eventually reverse). This doesnt have to affect the decay rate, but its obvious now where the assumption that the Earth is young is wrong: its not that the magnetosphere is powering down from an initial and recent strong state! Its tilting (doesnt mean a tilt of the poles isnt a potentially catastrophic event), just as it has done many times in the millions and millions of years of Earth's history.

Quote
But still no proof of reversals.
If you request proof, you are supposed to follow the quotations. This, after all, is not a scientific source, just a compilation of OTHER sources and a small synopsis. I have already explained reversals.

Quote
You still have a problem if it was a straight line. Sooner or later you're going to run into a problem.
What the author means is that the statistical method used for the analysis of the age of the Earth via magnetic decay was wrong: the author used an exponential curve even when a straight line fits better so his rate of decay would be faster, and therefore the age of the Earth younger. Yes, indeed the decay of the magnetosphere when the pole reversal eventually happens will likelly be a problem, but not a problem for geology.

Quote
Not sure what this has to do with the magnetic field but even secular scientist are saying that the magnetic field is declining rapidly.
If the Earth's magnetosphere changes polarity, a rapid decline suggests rapid reversal, not that the magnetic field was recently strong and static.

Let me put a simple analogy for you. We two water reservoirs connected from a pipe. A man comes, and observes how the water falls from one to the other. He then concludes that the water was put there at some time easilly deducible from the waterpipe flow.
But then another person comes and observes some intriging things. The walls of the bottom container seem to have minute rests of algae forming a water line higher than the waterline is currently at. Not only that, but the walls of the upper container seem to have suffered pressure in a direction OPPOSITE to gravity. And now it has been observed that the upper and lower containers have tilted slightly, and observing the wall the contraption is set on, two stress marks are observed, that match the current position of the containers, and a backwards position, with the lower as the higher and the higher as the lower. With this evidence, and much more, the person concludes that the containers flip from time to time, making the initial calculation of "when was the water set?" useless.

Quote
Again, even modern secular scientist are saying the magnetic field is declining.
No one denies that. Indeed, its perfectly coherent and expected with a core counter flow model. The "modern secularist" scientists only disagree with T. G. Barnes' model of magnetism and his calculation of an earth's age, because such model didnt took into account reversals, which imply a sinusoidal-like magnetic field strength, instead of an exponential.

EDIT: Me and quotes, huh?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 11:25:52 AM by Conker »
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Evolution
« Reply #296 on: December 22, 2015, 11:07:20 AM »

1. There's nothing wrong with providing links especially when I don't know enough about a certain topic or to validate my claim.

Nothing per se, except that as your posting demonstrated, you were not very interested in what I had brought up, instead jumped right on posting someone's mediocre debunking.

Quote
2. There's NO transitional fossils. You can't prove that it had different children.

Actually there has never been a parent whose child is exactly like them.  Minute changes occur in every generation, this you cannot dispute.  Darwin showed that changes build up over time in his work to produce large changes with his work in pigeon breeding which has been corroborated with the entire history of biological study. 

You are the one who has yet to show that living creatures do not change over time.

Quote
3. What makes the fossil you show'd a transitional fossil? It looks like an oversized salamander to me. It doesn't look like a fish. I'll see if I can find better pictures though.

I am glad you decided to actually do a modicrum of investigation.  I pray (get it?) you do more in the future.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #297 on: December 22, 2015, 11:56:11 AM »
Although this is dealing with the age of the earth (or moon in this instance), its still a valid point. From a science site the rate of moon dust collecting is about .04 inches per thousand years. Caculate that out and you get 1500 feet of dust. According to answers in Genesis it's 1/20th that. If you caculate that out it would be 750 feet.
Quote
Too bad is neither. Regolith is a fine "dust" layer. I think it has been better described as crust, because powdered materials have no air to stop them from electrostatically binding in layers.
Besides, that "rate of dust collecting" was a speculative rate from the 50s that has been disproved since. What would cause dust to appear in the moon? There is no air to weather the rocks! That's why dust accumulation is so slow.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html

I'll answer this one first and get to the rest of the comments.

So you're saying that all the dust collected together to make rock layers? Have we observed this? Also your link gave measurements in tons rather than inches or millimeters. So if you convert tons to square feet how much per square foot of dust collect each year or thousand years? The .04 inches I got was from a science website. I'll provide it in the next post.

Quote
I'll provide a link about the magnetic field decreasing.
Quote
Be my guest, but: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

Answered above and will get back to your response.

Quote
Can you show one transitional fossil?
Quote
Yes. http://pwp.franklincollege.edu/ASMITH2/WebQuest_files/Fossil-Fish-1.jpg
I dont even know what that fossil is! I don't have to. Every fossil is a transitional one. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

I forgot to look at the links. I'll look at them and respond.

Quote
I'm glad you see that but modern high school and college text books are still teaching that as proof for evolution.
Quote
Sure. But high school teachers are usually not scientists. The educational system is usually slow to keep up with science, and doesnt represent it in any way. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html


its been proven false over a 150 years. I doubt the education system is that slow. Also if it is that slow then why don't you vole tree to tear out those pages in you local school?

Quote
Why would it be irrevelant? If its statistically immpossible then why do you believe it?
Quote
I don't even have to read what you are responding to to know what misconception of statistics you are spouting. Try to come up with something new, g'damn.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

I'll look at the links.


Quote
The sun's energy is destructive. The only thing that can use is chlorophyl. If I throw a grenade in my room will it clean it up?

Quote
Wrong. The sun is the origin of all energy in Earth, making it a non-closed system. Of all its consequences, at least the heat and the solar radiation are required for the processes of life such as photosynthesis (the main source of nutrients for all life in the planet), vitamin sythetization (even in humans), and so on. Excessive light will cause cancer, of course, but a lack of it would anihilate life on Earth very quickly. Perhaps some extremophiles could remain, but all nutrient sources I can think of come directly or indirectly from the Sun. I can only think of one possible exception, being the Earth's internal heat, since a slight amount of it comes from the radioactive decay of elements formed during the life or supernovae of the star that eventually died and created the cloud of "dust" that eventually became the sun, and some of it comes from meteor impacts. Apart from that, all energy and matter comes from the Sun and it's accretion disk.

It takes a sophisticated system to use the sun's energy. Like photosynthesis and vitamin sythetization. If I pour gas on the front seat of my car and light it will it run?

Quote

The whales and dolphins use those bones to attach special organs for breeding. They're not vestigial.
Quote
That's not what vestigial means: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
I'll look at the link.

Quote
I agree with you however if its impossible for the universe to create itself then it must have been created by a designer.
Quote
What if our universe is the "child universe" of a superverse? Not everything that wasnt created by itself is designed. Rocks dont form themselves, they are the by-product of processes on Earth.

You only kick the can down the road. What was the first universe and how did it started?

Quote
I think the question is why there isn't a bigger, older river someplace?
Quote
Because there must be a bigger and older river on Earth. Why isnt there a faster man in the world than Usain Bolt?

Because there's a limit to how fast a man could run. I'm not sure if Usain Bolt (appropriate name) has reached that limit or not but I'm sure he's close to it.

Quote
Really, ALL of them?
Quote
Never heard of herd mentality? There is a reason why testimonials alone arent enough for someone to be proclaimed guilty.

Every legend has some truth to it. Humans may be imaginative but we can only build upon what we observe.

Quote
How you God doesn't exist?
Until you prove God to exist, the null hypothesis is not to believe, and you must not base arguments on it.


EDIT:Fixed a quote nesting error.
[/quote]

It's amazing that one mistake could ruin a entire post. And yet cells more complicated than the space shuttle evolved?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Evolution
« Reply #298 on: December 22, 2015, 12:01:04 PM »
http://pwp.franklincollege.edu/ASMITH2/WebQuest_files/Fossil-Fish-1.jpg

There are fish today with limbs such as the frog fish. Also the ceolocanth is still alive in the DEEP part of the Indian Ocean. If it was a missing link then it should be in the shallows.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Evolution
« Reply #299 on: December 22, 2015, 03:49:31 PM »
I'll answer this one first and get to the rest of the comments.

So you're saying that all the dust collected together to make rock layers?
No. I've never said that. I said it formed "crust layers", which is not the same. Basically, the dust binds together in a very compact form of "flakes". This creates a sort of "layers", but those layers are NOT rock. They are "dust".

Quote
Have we observed this?
The Apollo missions required rock sampling material to gather the regolith, and optometrical measurements from Earth before the Apollo suggested as well a solid ground.

Quote
Also your link gave measurements in tons rather than inches or millimeters. So if you convert tons to square feet how much per square foot of dust collect each year or thousand years? The .04 inches I got was from a science website. I'll provide it in the next post.
I don't know, but even if it accumulated evenly, it doesnt seem nearly enough to get a rate of accumulation of .04 inches/year. Tons is the correct way to measure dust accumulation, since inches is dependent on radius, and therefore the rate will change simply because of the properties of a sphere.


Quote
I forgot to look at the links. I'll look at them and respond.
Don't bother. My point was that every fossil represents a transitional step in life on Earth (unless it was a dead end)


Quote
its been proven false over a 150 years. I doubt the education system is that slow. Also if it is that slow then why don't you vole tree to tear out those pages in you local school?
I wasnt taught embrion similarity as proof of evolution. I was taught, though, how the aparent diferences of species become less so when all our focus goes to its basic structure. So, I have nothing to volunteer on.

Quote
It takes a sophisticated system to use the sun's energy. Like photosynthesis and vitamin sythetization. If I pour gas on the front seat of my car and light it will it run?
The seas have incredibly complicated current systems, and all arise due to diferent albedos, light incidence angles, temperature and salinity. All those are ultimatelly solar powered. Energy is the source of all negative entropy. If you dont pour gas on your car will it run?
Besides, abiogenesis is not strictly related to evolution. Evolution only refers to the mechanisms by how organisms change and speciate.



Quote

You only kick the can down the road. What was the first universe and how did it started?
That wasnt my point. And how do you know that this primordial universe isnt eternal? You are setting up a false dichotomy there. Not everything non-designed is random, indeed, the tendency is that non-designed objects are incredibly complex preciselly because they haven't been designed.

Quote
Because there's a limit to how fast a man could run. I'm not sure if Usain Bolt (appropriate name) has reached that limit or not but I'm sure he's close to it.
My point was that there is no older river (I actualy didnt check, Im just following you on this) because it is the older river. Why is it the older river? Why is Usain Bolt the fastest man? Because he is, and if he wasnt, someone else would. If we were a species of slugs, there would still be a fastest slug in the world. Just as there is a fastest cheetah in the world. And a slowest one.


Quote
Every legend has some truth to it. Humans may be imaginative but we can only build upon what we observe.
So all religions have some truth to it, including those that preceded yours, the ones that consider your religion a heretical branch, including those who praise JuJu up the mountain who's penis gives birth to the rivers, or the Buddhists who say there is no God, or the deists who say God is dumb and didnt knew what he was doing?

Quote
It's amazing that one mistake could ruin a entire post. And yet cells more complicated than the space shuttle evolved?

Complicated by what measure? I dont know any cells that can keep a radio downlink with Earth while on space. Complexity is a term of information theory, and if you want to apply it to matter, be my guest, but then the complexity of anything made of common matter is simply a function of its mass. So, no. There isnt any cell more complex that the Space Shuttle.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.