Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

Originally posted by La Balance
fluoride is good for you?

Fluoride is only good for those people who believe in fairy tales like evolutionists do and fail to comprehend that the teeth and skin absorb fluoride more than the stomach. And get this; fluoride rots the teeth, not vice-versa! Yes, indeed the teeth absorb it as teeth grow out of the skin cavity, unlike other bones but who would know this but the evil ones who decided to place fluoride in our toothpaste in the first place? I suppose most evolutionists like to have their thyroid gland calcified and also their hypothalamus from being able to say ‘hello’, to their right and left hemispheres. If you like bone cancer and osteoporosis, become an evolutionist.

You should check out the sheer amount of opposition from the scientific community back in the earlier 1900's when they found out the water and toothpaste was going to be fluorinated. They said basically, that fluoride has NO health benefits and that it causes everything it is supposed to prevent and is very toxic (being a chemical by-product of Atomic energy production)

It's only accepted by most Dentists today even though there is no proof that Fluoride has any known health benefits. I'm sure the medical 'ghostwriters' would disagree with me though.

Here, check it out: THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION
video.google.ca...

Originally posted by Cinosamitna

Fluoride is only good for those people who believe in fairy tales like evolutionists do and fail to comprehend that the teeth and skin absorb fluoride more than the stomach. And get this; fluoride rots the teeth, not vice-versa! Yes, indeed the teeth absorb it as teeth grow out of the skin cavity, unlike other bones but who would know this but the evil ones who decided to place fluoride in our toothpaste in the first place? I suppose most evolutionists like to have their thyroid gland calcified and also their hypothalamus from being able to say ‘hello’, to their right and left hemispheres. If you like bone cancer and osteoporosis, become an evolutionist.

You should check out the sheer amount of opposition from the scientific community back in the earlier 1900's when they found out the water and toothpaste was going to be fluorinated. They said basically, that fluoride has NO health benefits and that it causes everything it is supposed to prevent and is very toxic (being a chemical by-product of Atomic energy production)

It's only accepted by most Dentists today even though there is no proof that Fluoride has any known health benefits. I'm sure the medical 'ghostwriters' would disagree with me though.

Here, check it out: THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION
video.google.ca...

I see you conveniently missed out my reply to your brittle ToE argument based on thermodynamics.

And what does evolution and water fluoridation have to do with each other? Are you trying to criticise evolutionary theory with a debate on fluoridation? Certainly a new approach...

Fluorine is an element found in nature, it may well be a by-product of the atomic energy industry (I actually thought it was from the aluminium industry but whatever), it is also found naturally, in rivers, oceans, tea, breast-milk. It is known to be toxic in very high concentrations (much higher than found in water supplies naturally and artificially), so is paracetamol, iron, iodine, and water but they still have uses.

In the UK, some companies just use the natural fluoride in the water supply (i.e. they add no chemical flouride), it can be found at up to 1ppm, which is level of artificial fluoridation in the UK.

If you bothered to actually read what I posted rather than assume what I said, you would see that I said it has good and bad points, it does harden enamel, it does cause dental fluorosis.

Systematic review of water fluoridation

Abstract

Objective: To review the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of drinking water.

Design: Search of 25 electronic databases and world wide web. Relevant journals hand searched; further information requested from authors. Inclusion criteria were a predefined hierarchy of evidence and objectives. Study validity was assessed with checklists. Two reviewers independently screened sources, extracted data, and assessed validity.

Main outcome measures: Decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth. Proportion of children without caries. Measure of effect was the difference in change in prevalence of caries from baseline to final examination in fluoridated compared with control areas. For potential adverse effects, all outcomes reported were used.

Results: 214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was 5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth. A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning.

Conclusions: The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects.

whole article here

Exactly as I stated.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by melatonin]

if theories had supporting evidence, they wouldnt be theories, they'd be considered facts or laws

Originally posted by IntergalacticHippy
if theories had supporting evidence, they wouldnt be theories, they'd be considered facts or laws

I don't think you actually know much about science do you?

edit: here's a linky to give a general explanation of how scientists use the words - 'theory', 'law', 'hypothesis'.

Theory, law, hypothesis

There are exceptions, string 'theory' is a bit of a misnomer and does attract criticism for its label as a theory.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't think you actually know much about science do you?

relax a little, or are you too relaxed because of all the melatonin...(sorry bad joke)

anyway, thanks for the link very clear, but i wasnt totally wrong, i dont think i merited a "I don't think you actually know much about science do you?" remark! It seems to me that that theories are based on evidence but are not necessarily correct. for example, and correct me if i'm wrong, evolution and creationism are both theories for the development of life on earth right? they cannot both be right its either one or the other, and in my eyes neither have been prooved beyond a doubt. I may lean towards one over the other but at the end of the day it's possible both are wrong.

Originally posted by IntergalacticHippy

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't think you actually know much about science do you?

relax a little, or are you too relaxed because of all the melatonin...(sorry bad joke)

anyway, thanks for the link very clear, but i wasnt totally wrong, i dont think i merited a "I don't think you actually know much about science do you?" remark! It seems to me that that theories are based on evidence but are not necessarily correct. for example, and correct me if i'm wrong, evolution and creationism are both theories for the development of life on earth right? they cannot both be right its either one or the other, and in my eyes neither have been prooved beyond a doubt. I may lean towards one over the other but at the end of the day it's possible both are wrong.

haha, sorry, I can be a bit abrupt at times, so do forgive me, a hangover from earlier posts

Well current theories are tentatively accepted as true, doesn't mean they are, of course; but they are consistent with the evidence and able to be falsified (well a good theory is).

True biblical creationism cannot fit ToE, there is no evidence for biblical creationism or any creator. There's no reason why ToE does not allow one to believe in a creator, it just restricts what the creator did, science is agnostic on such questions. Many christians accept ToE (as well as those from other faiths).

I think that ToE, the scientific theory of common descent and natural selection is beyond doubt, however, others would question this. I see no reason to invoke a creator, although I am agnostic.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
haha, sorry, I can be a bit abrupt at times, so do forgive me, a hangover from earlier posts

There's no reason why ToE does not allow one to believe in a creator, it just restricts what the creator did, science is agnostic on such questions. Many christians accept ToE (as well as those from other faiths).

I think that ToE, the scientific theory of common descent and natural selection is beyond doubt, however, others would question this. I see no reason to invoke a creator, although I am agnostic.
[edit on 10-9-2006 by melatonin]

No worrys, no offence taken, my original point was fairly pointless anyway. not really contributing usefully.

Good point about ToE tho, i think Stephen Hawking mentions this in a brief history of time if i remember correctly.

I believe you are correct in thinking that the scientific theory of common descent and natural selection has been proved beyond a doubt. Although it may be that the theory doesn't hold true for all life on earth, for there seems to be the occational anomaly. In humans for instance, there is not a clear lineage in our evolutional development and i think there is also and abnormal number of genes when it comes to modern human compared to our descendants.

Melatonin, in your ‘null’, I do find my ‘ALL’. Please see my responses below:

Yeah, the thousands of scientists all over the world totally forgot all about the second law, how stupid they are... The second law states that entropy in a closed system will increase, however, the earth is not a closed system. Do ordered snowflakes form? Do complex amino acids form from basic components a la Miller? Do plants grow every spring? Does an egg grow to a more complex adult? Has the second law been violated or maybe the second law doesn't apply to certain systems?

You are correct because scientists have to define the boundaries of the ‘closed system’. And in doing so they assume that temperature is isolated as some “quantity of energy”. That is the catch 22 because according to evolutionists, they assume that this process of randomness operates within a ‘closed system’ and there is no law which states scientifically that organisms must start off as an ameba and move to a more complex life form through work, energy or adaptation in an ‘open-system’. Thus the very laws which the scientists create have bounded them from seeing past the idea of evolution; that we are not bound to matter but the forces which operate behind matter decide conditions which are manifested in materialism and thus evolution. Goethe sciences were much more appropriate to understand these methods than what you are learning in physics class today. It’s not acceptable to have only ‘discursive’ thinking and why shouldn’t scientists today NOT accept where an organ of a living being originates, instead of asking what purpose it serves? Non-science is based upon the idea that all things serve a useful “purposefulness” whereas true science takes into account the fact that there does not have to be a system of intentions underlying the evolution of man in an ‘open-system’.
Let us apply this to your examples of a snowflake. Did you ask the question of where do the organs inside the snowflake originate, or did you only assume a usefulness of fitting it into a method of assumption that the randomness of the flake was brought out of the water, disregarding the other invisible forces? What I mean to say is that every single organism that is within organic nature must have a development of a particular form. Thus, an organism is an individuality which is also determining itself from a center. Think of it like a ‘self enclosed’ whole, as opposed to ONLY serving some purposefulness.

I see you conveniently missed out my reply to your brittle ToE argument based on thermodynamics.

I see you may have misunderstood my mentioning fluoride with ignoring you’re response. On the contrary, I plan instead to tell you something about this form of materialism and wish to offer another approach from your ideology which is based upon a fallacy of nothing less than the theory of ‘Atomism’; which you proudly express as the foundation of all your arguments, whether you know it or not. Certainly a scientifically minded individual is never so dense as to miss the point that things are not always as they first appear. Whether or not fluoride is not ‘too’ bad for our health seems to ignore that it has been dumped into the water supply regardless, and that is called forced medication, in case you may have missed my hidden approach in mentioning the fallacy here. Becoming too Philistine can lead us into taking illusion for reality and just as curry powder contains some promising future study for cancer treatment and various other health benefits does not mean we should be added it to our drinking water and although I have much evidence that curry is far better for our health than fluoride is, I do not see it being dumped into the water. So no matter if you think it helps the teeth or not, fluoride shouldn’t be dumped into our water supply and if I added curry to your water simply because I found some quack scientist who says it may help the teeth, would you call it a solid scientific theory? Could I depend on you to sort through all the scientists who seem to agree today, yet change their mind tomorrow?
As for your believing in evolution it also must presuppose that ‘everythingness’ as you can measure it with crude equipment comes out of ‘nothingness’ and somehow thus finds itself a theory so much better then those who tend to think that everything came from ‘everythingness’. Randomness or mutation also presupposes that the individual did not contain its own unique circles of possibilities and also circles of probabilities.
Btw, I want to inform you that baldness of the head is not so much a symptom of heredity or genetics but is often caused by un-natural higher education leading to other conditions which is often within the control of the individual. Pity, it’s a sure thing scientists have so much to learn and too bad we have so many walking around bald-headed on University campuses starting in the age when materialism was moving forward improperly. The human body to be thinking correctly means removing the ‘excess’ fluoride from our food, water and toothpaste is just the very beginning. Did you know that Christianity is a solid science of balancing between two opposing forces of ‘calcification’ and ‘softening’? Might we now apply a name to both being ‘Satanic’ and ‘Luciferic’, respectively? So your blood vessels are always calcifying and the blood is always softening this process. Thus the body tries to convert the blood vessels into nerves and the blood tries to keep the arteries from over calcifying and tries to convert them back into blood vessels. We must learn to understand how these opposing forces affect us, on the physical, spiritual and Soul levels. The balance between the two opposing forces can be said to represent a good working order – may we now call this good working order the ‘Christ element’? You see, most medicine today is in effect trying to balance out the forces of the two but the scientists are not looking correctly at the problem to begin with. For example, giving birch charcoal to a person who suffers from pleurisy is a known cure. The person who suffers from pleurisy suffers from having too much of the ‘Luciferic’ impulse in his soul body which leads to a form of mental insanity. This effect may not be detected physically, yet the effect is very real. Thus we use proper science by applying something ‘dead’ like charcoal which is very dense or ‘Satanic’ to cure him. Now, say someone looks tired and inactive, looking prepared for another stroke etc. This person suffers from having too much Philistine impulse (like a miserable old Professor, lol) and the cure would be to apply something of the scented, salt, and root which is very ‘Luciferic’ in nature. So Christianity can be explained in one sense as:

Physically: Satanic = hardening and calcification, growing old
Luciferic = softening growing young

In the Soul: Satanic = Pedantry, philistinism, materialism, dry intellect
Lucifer = Fantasy, dreaminess, mysticism or Theosophy (without reasoning),

In the Spirit: Satanic = waking up
Lucifer = going to sleep
Please understand that this is a very basic understanding of science and that illnesses today are caused by ignoring the forces making the effects and thus many in College campus’ today are bald at early ages due to improper higher learning of not balancing out these forces. So, are you seeing where I am going with this now? Look at your method of searching for an article without proper scientific study. It must be proved absolutely necessary to be used in the water supply and one does not need to be forced to comply because science says so. Now what if you’re allergic to curry powder and I stick this in your water supply? Why would you use quack-quotes and try to justify allowing curry to be added to the water supply? Did you watch the video link I provided? Fluoride is not slipping in the water supply by accident you know. Besides, the naturally occurring fluoride in the atmosphere which is ‘balanced’ already to keep you from getting too smart can likewise make you too dumb when it is added in excess amounts. You say the study claims that it hardness tooth enamel, yet I can quote literally thousands of studies where the opposite is true including the effect it has on the hips bone, thyroid, brain, blood and other parts of the body. It is not inconclusive – it is very conclusive but the question is what do you call proper science? If your scientific approach lacks the spiritual perspective, you become too philistine and you may as well be drinking fluorinated water and thus the reason why I brought it up in the first. I know a study which was conducted in Canada where the Toronto populaces were compared with those living in Vancouver. The study proves that in a city (Vancouver) where non-fluoridation of water is prime people have far less dental decay and even less trips to the dentist. Now, would you prefer me to quote all these studies? There are literally millions of hits on fluoride being toxic. There is 100% scientific evidence which proves it is not good for your health when added to the food, air and water by industry – unless in trace amounts by nature. So your study found no conclusive evidence yet how many scientists TODAY will claim it’s great for our teeth and continue to stay silent? Should we dare call that science and can you explain this huge discrepancy? Certainly there must be solid evidence that fluoride is good for the teeth somewhere, just as there should be solid evidence to support the theory of evolution, or is there any?

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Melatonin, in your ‘null’, I do find my ‘ALL’. Please see my responses below:

OK, problem is I accept the second law when applied correctly. In this case do you accept the null?

You are correct because scientists have to define the boundaries of the ‘closed system’. And in doing so they assume that temperature is isolated as some “quantity of energy”. That is the catch 22 because according to evolutionists, they assume that this process of randomness operates within a ‘closed system’ and there is no law which states scientifically that organisms must start off as an ameba and move to a more complex life form through work, energy or adaptation in an ‘open-system’. Thus the very laws which the scientists create have bounded them from seeing past the idea of evolution; that we are not bound to matter but the forces which operate behind matter decide conditions which are manifested in materialism and thus evolution.

Well, yes, the universe conforms to physical laws. One of those laws is 2-LOT which applies to closed systems. Many laws in physics are based on ideal systems and give approximations to the real-world when applied correctly. However, as we see from a simple snowflake, order does form from disorder within this open system we call the earth.

Depends what you mean by complexity. Is a snake less biologically complex than a four-legged lizard? Is man more biologically complex than a dolphin?

Goethe sciences were much more appropriate to understand these methods than what you are learning in physics class today. It’s not acceptable to have only ‘discursive’ thinking and why shouldn’t scientists today NOT accept where an organ of a living being originates, instead of asking what purpose it serves? Non-science is based upon the idea that all things serve a useful “purposefulness” whereas true science takes into account the fact that there does not have to be a system of intentions underlying the evolution of man in an ‘open-system’.

Sorry, I more teach than attend classes these days.

What is the purpose of a frog? A wasp? A daffodil? E. Coli?

Let us apply this to your examples of a snowflake. Did you ask the question of where do the organs inside the snowflake originate, or did you only assume a usefulness of fitting it into a method of assumption that the randomness of the flake was brought out of the water, disregarding the other invisible forces? What I mean to say is that every single organism that is within organic nature must have a development of a particular form. Thus, an organism is an individuality which is also determining itself from a center. Think of it like a ‘self enclosed’ whole, as opposed to ONLY serving some purposefulness.

No, a snowflake is an ordered collection of water molecules, it forms due to physical laws. How can a snowflake have a purpose? However, it does show that complexity/order can form from disorder apparently breaking 2-LOT when misapplied.

There are instances when entropy and order can increase together, suggesting that disorder and entropy are not interchangeable concepts.

I'll answer the rest of your tome in the morn...but I can answer a lot of the fluoride business by stating I agree that it should not placed artificially in water supplies purely as people should have a choice to consume such materials, not be forced to.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by bothered
A lot of my studies includes comparisons of footnotes, so to speak.
I find it hard to believe during America's strip mining era that nothing like a giant lizard was ever found. Sure to draw more nickels than a Gun Show.

But, when cast molding and white dyes are introduced into the mainstream culture, suddenly archeological finds crop up over night and an immediate business is formed.

Fossils have been found for a long time, it was not a recent invention. There are books from the 16th century that describe fossils and general opinion is that legends of dragons and others creatures are based on the presence of fossils. Aristotle, Xenophanes, and Herodotus described fossils over 2000 years ago. Da Vinci noted that fossils were old creatures.

Also, not all fossils are limestone-based. As I said, get yourself to a place were fossils are found, look for yourself. Those pesky fossils hide in all sorts of rocks.

Answer me this: Why, with a comet/meteor or whatever wiping out the dinasaurs on a large scale is there no H2SO4 presence that should have resulted. If I understand fossilization (which I may not, don't really want to), it is the replacement of one mineral, say Ca, with another. Under the presence of sulfuric acid which was supposed to have been introduced, there should have been a "quick setting", so to speak. Where better than 80% of the tissue should have been maintained.
This is not BS science, but is widely used this day as a time-advance study of materials to see if they are suitable for extended use.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
So no matter if you think it helps the teeth or not, fluoride shouldn’t be dumped into our water supply and if I added curry to your water simply because I found some quack scientist who says it may help the teeth, would you call it a solid scientific theory? Could I depend on you to sort through all the scientists who seem to agree today, yet change their mind tomorrow?

You seem happy to depend on the same sort of materialistic evidence when it suits your purposes. How do you think the experiments about fluorosis and other possbile negative effects of fluoride ingestion are found, by divination?

If you want to use science, use all the evidence, not just the studies that suit your position.

As for your believing in evolution it also must presuppose that ‘everythingness’ as you can measure it with crude equipment comes out of ‘nothingness’ and somehow thus finds itself a theory so much better then those who tend to think that everything came from ‘everythingness’. Randomness or mutation also presupposes that the individual did not contain its own unique circles of possibilities and also circles of probabilities.

Any actual evidence of this or is this just the sort of quack science you seem to criticise, or maybe just pure speculation?

Btw, I want to inform you that baldness of the head is not so much a symptom of heredity or genetics but is often caused by un-natural higher education leading to other conditions which is often within the control of the individual. Pity, it’s a sure thing scientists have so much to learn and too bad we have so many walking around bald-headed on University campuses starting in the age when materialism was moving forward improperly. The human body to be thinking correctly means removing the ‘excess’ fluoride from our food, water and toothpaste is just the very beginning. Did you know that Christianity is a solid science of balancing between two opposing forces of ‘calcification’ and ‘softening’? Might we now apply a name to both being ‘Satanic’ and ‘Luciferic’, respectively?

Hmm, yeah, OK. I wonder why it's mainly men who suffer baldness. What about all those female academics? I guess the evidence that baldness appeared with the advent of materialism is robust...

You can make up your own pseudoscience if you want, many do. Don't expect me to follow until you actually do some real science.

Do you think that science ignores the effect of the supernatural?

Did you watch the video link I provided? Fluoride is not slipping in the water supply by accident you know. Besides, the naturally occurring fluoride in the atmosphere which is ‘balanced’ already to keep you from getting too smart can likewise make you too dumb when it is added in excess amounts. You say the study claims that it hardness tooth enamel, yet I can quote literally thousands of studies where the opposite is true including the effect it has on the hips bone, thyroid, brain, blood and other parts of the body. It is not inconclusive – it is very conclusive but the question is what do you call proper science?

Well, I think science is pretty much well defined. It involves observation, formation of hypotheses, and experimentation. In this case the science shows that in very high doses, fluoride is toxic, at small doses, it is an essential mineral.

If your scientific approach lacks the spiritual perspective, you become too philistine and you may as well be drinking fluorinated water and thus the reason why I brought it up in the first. I know a study which was conducted in Canada where the Toronto populaces were compared with those living in Vancouver. The study proves that in a city (Vancouver) where non-fluoridation of water is prime people have far less dental decay and even less trips to the dentist. Now, would you prefer me to quote all these studies? There are literally millions of hits on fluoride being toxic. There is 100% scientific evidence which proves it is not good for your health when added to the food, air and water by industry – unless in trace amounts by nature. So your study found no conclusive evidence yet how many scientists TODAY will claim it’s great for our teeth and continue to stay silent? Should we dare call that science and can you explain this huge discrepancy? Certainly there must be solid evidence that fluoride is good for the teeth somewhere, just as there should be solid evidence to support the theory of evolution, or is there any?

I have just quoted a meta-analysis that used over 200 studies, they suggest that the evidence of negative effects, other than fluorosis, is minimal. It does help reduce decay, it can cause fluorosis. What more do you want me to say? We know it is toxic in high concentrations, that is known, it is not debated. So is water, paracetamol, and many vitamins. Substances have a dose-response relationship. Are you trying to suggest that natural sources of fluoride would not cause fluorosis because they are 'balanced'?

I don't know the canadian study, if I have time, maybe I'll hunt it down. There are many other variables for tooth decay; diet, SES, preventative dental behaviour, being the obvious ones, epidemiology is an imperfect science and this would be one individual study. Are people in Toronto more likely to be philistines, poor scientists, bald?

The study I quoted does say the studies found were of relatively mediocre quality. Even medicore studies are better than none and pure speculation.

You seem to be anti-science, yet want to use science to further your aims, you can't have it both ways. Why does my science need a spiritual perspective, will it help my formation of hypotheses, help my experiments work, what? Maybe it will help persuade reviewers to accept my manuscripts more readily....

[edit on 11-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by bothered
Answer me this: Why, with a comet/meteor or whatever wiping out the dinasaurs on a large scale is there no H2SO4 presence that should have resulted. If I understand fossilization (which I may not, don't really want to), it is the replacement of one mineral, say Ca, with another. Under the presence of sulfuric acid which was supposed to have been introduced, there should have been a "quick setting", so to speak. Where better than 80% of the tissue should have been maintained.
This is not BS science, but is widely used this day as a time-advance study of materials to see if they are suitable for extended use.

Why would we expect to find the presence of sulphuric acid due to an impact? We find evidence of an iridium layer at the KT boundary, which is known to be derived from cosmic sources. Surely the acid would react with some other element?

Here's a paper that talks about evidence of 'acid-rain' trauma...

rock.geosociety.org...

We generally find few fossils in the KT boundary anyway. How would this affect fossils before and after the impact?

[edit on 11-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by bothered
Answer me this: Why, with a comet/meteor or whatever wiping out the dinasaurs on a large scale is there no H2SO4 presence that should have resulted. If I understand fossilization (which I may not, don't really want to), it is the replacement of one mineral, say Ca, with another. Under the presence of sulfuric acid which was supposed to have been introduced, there should have been a "quick setting", so to speak. Where better than 80% of the tissue should have been maintained.
This is not BS science, but is widely used this day as a time-advance study of materials to see if they are suitable for extended use.

Why would we expect to find the presence of sulphuric acid due to an impact? We find evidence of an iridium layer at the KT boundary, which is known to be derived from cosmic sources. Surely the acid would react with some other element?

Here's a paper that talks about evidence of 'acid-rain' trauma...

rock.geosociety.org...

We generally find few fossils in the KT boundary anyway. How would this affect fossils before and after the impact?

[edit on 11-9-2006 by melatonin]

Excerpt from:

rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Since that time (1980) it has been realized that an oceanic impact, like that at Chicxulub could have much, dire effects.

In specific, the Chicxulub bolide struck a thick deposit of marine limestone (CaCO3) and underlying marine calcium sulphate (CaSO4 = Gypsum). This probably put large amounts of CO2 and sulfuric acid into the atmosphere within minutes. The CO2 would have produced an enhansed greenhouse effect, but the sulfuric acid would result in global cooling.
---------------------------
Let's try and clear things up a little. Which version of Evolution am I dealing with?
a) Steady-state evolvement
b) Multiple mass-extinction
c) Interbreading

The three I am somewhat familiar with. There are many differences in these theories, and I cannot carry out a supportive argument against all at once.

Originally posted by bothered

Excerpt from:

rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Since that time (1980) it has been realized that an oceanic impact, like that at Chicxulub could have much, dire effects.

In specific, the Chicxulub bolide struck a thick deposit of marine limestone (CaCO3) and underlying marine calcium sulphate (CaSO4 = Gypsum). This probably put large amounts of CO2 and sulfuric acid into the atmosphere within minutes. The CO2 would have produced an enhansed greenhouse effect, but the sulfuric acid would result in global cooling.
---------------------------
Let's try and clear things up a little. Which version of Evolution am I dealing with?
a) Steady-state evolvement
b) Multiple mass-extinction
c) Interbreading

The three I am somewhat familiar with. There are many differences in these theories, and I cannot carry out a supportive argument against all at once.

I'm trying to figure what is the point of bringing in the issue of the production of sulphates when we are focusing on the nature of fossils? The major reason we think of the KT boundary period as involving an extinction event is the fact we have fossils of dinosaurs below KT, but they do not occur above it. Something happened during that period.

There are numerous theories about exactly why dinosaurs died out, we have evidence of a major impact (it wasn't the first and won't be the last, it wasn't even the biggest), we also know that volcanic activity was high at the time. Some people talk of world-wide firestorms, acid-rain, increased CO2, global cooling, they are all being studied. What exactly caused the major extinction is still debated, but we know some of the major influences. The chances are it was a combination of factors.

But, again, why does this make you doubt the nature of fossils?

Lets make it simple, ToE is genetics over time. It can involve hybridisation but isn't dependent on it, it can involve different rates of genetic change, species are affected by mass-extinctions (we know of quite a few over the history of the earth). So, I suppose all three...

Just read the wikipedia page for 'evolution', I'm sure I would agree with most of it. Here's a link to a page with a good video of a royal society lecture from Steve Jones...

www.royalsoc.ac.uk...

[edit on 11-9-2006 by melatonin]

well one such thing is this:


I THINK THEREFORE I AM


?

NJOY

eLF

I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'll believe in Darwinian evolution. And you sir, must understand that what you perceive as human beings coming from animals sets yourself up to having to perceive you are nothing but an animal, coming from an animal, and to perceive this creates the very resemblance to your own thoughts. To prove Darwin’s theory of evolution you require evidence of the language of design and unless you can prove this language to me, I call it a theory and ‘great taboo’ science, thus the very title of this thread.

Haeckel remarks:
"This fact is of extraordinary importance. For we see that man, and generally every vertebrate, runs rapidly, in passing, through a two-leaved stage of formation, which in these lowest plant-animals is maintained throughout life" (Anthropogenesis).

This concludes what I have said earlier that there is no scientific evidence to prove the theory of evolution is anything more than a theory. Man never evolved from any lower life-form, as the lower forms of microbes, plants and animals have maintained this lower "two-leaved stage" and never advance beyond it. A plant remains a plant, a tree a tree, a cow remains a cow, an insect an insect and human remains a human!

Now premature baldness was a trend noticeable amongst those in the more affluent positions of higher education, particularly during the earlier 1900’s, where as before this time it was not so apparent. How many woman in the early 1900’s until this time, when this baldness trend was noticeably increasing, how many were holding very affluent positions such like men? The differences in the way the human being is educated determines not so much the health of the organism, but the inability for the organism to “hold onto” the falsehoods “which go against his inner truths” together in accordance with its life-force, thus leading to sickness. I am not anti-science any more than I am anti-gravity but I am not a foolish superstitious so-called scientist who only ‘believes’ in ANY result so long as it’s discovered by another scientist. Don’t you find it rather odd how many will stick up their noses to a religious person who only believes in a similar spiritual experience that another person has, yet here we have many so-called scientists today who accept ANY results at all, so long as it comes from another scientist!!! So who are more superstitious and can you see why I am not too much following Einstein’s theories and perhaps tend to side more with Tesla’s approach? As modern day scientists tend to be too much of the Sir Francis Bacon method, of throwing nature upon the rack and seeing what they can extract from her, I prefer the more Goethe style of allowing nature to gently whisper her secrets to us. Both are science but only one takes into account that man, as an entity can be within its own unique experience that is not bound by any sense of scientific “purposefulness”. Where as, you only accept in Darwin and Lyell I accept Haeckel’s approach in taking science further to serve the spirit also.

May be you are having difficulty in understanding what I am trying to tell you so I wish to provide an example, if only to now place it front of you more clearly. Would you happen to know why we humans have these clumsy, solid shoulder blades attached to our back? As you seem to support evolution as a form of science would you then say that these blades would have been once used for flying? When human beings are in a difficult situation we tend to want to fly away but we cannot do so. Instead, we force up the spinal marrow into the head, specifically the brain and then we begin to think. You see, bird do fly but they do not think, as everything that consists of thinking is found within their flying in the air, thus human beings think because we cannot fly. When you eat food in which the taste you crave, what happens to the human being? Does he not transform those sensations of taste into feelings? When you smell something repulsive, do you not wish to fly away, but yet you cannot do so, so you think instead. Thus, smell is also turned into thoughts. So what we people tend to think, is in reality the sensation which the animal experiences in their organs and that reaction those animals have, does not force them to think as humans do. This case would seem to suggest a pattern of “purposefulness” that since human being cannot fly, they are forced to think. Thus a Darwinist might assume that a since humans want to fly away, but we cannot do so, and since we have these shoulder blades which are clumsily attacked to our back, then we must have at one time required the usage of the blades to fly!! These same Darwinists, do they not also claim something similar to the tail bones of a human being? You see what they do is apply a sense of “purposefulness” to everything and thus they assume that the human must have evolved from needing the tail, into no longer needing it. But they fail completely to consider that the origins of the human being might have never needed the tail or blades to fly, just as they assume that the heart is a pump, when in actuality, the heart is a reflex of what goes on in the body, meaning it beats faster depending upon the circulation of the blood. The blood pumps the heart and not vice-versa, just as the shoulder blades are designed to make a man think, and were never designed to make a man fly, simply because it would have seemed to be more "purposefull", it does not make it so.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'll believe in Darwinian evolution. And you sir, must understand that what you perceive as human beings coming from animals sets yourself up to having to perceive you are nothing but an animal, coming from an animal, and to perceive this creates the very resemblance to your own thoughts. To prove Darwin’s theory of evolution you require evidence of the language of design and unless you can prove this language to me, I call it a theory and ‘great taboo’ science, thus the very title of this thread.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe we should call it a duck?

Of course humans are animals. We eat like them, we excrete like them, we reproduce like them, we fear like them, we breath like them, we die like them. We just have a bit more brain-power that some think separates us from them completely.

This concludes what I have said earlier that there is no scientific evidence to prove the theory of evolution is anything more than a theory. Man never evolved from any lower life-form, as the lower forms of microbes, plants and animals have maintained this lower "two-leaved stage" and never advance beyond it. A plant remains a plant, a tree a tree, a cow remains a cow, an insect an insect and human remains a human!

And all these species undergo genetic change over time, i.e. a basic mechanism of evolution.

The differences in the way the human being is educated determines not so much the health of the organism, but the inability for the organism to “hold onto” the falsehoods “which go against his inner truths” together in accordance with its life-force, thus leading to sickness.

Quite interesting that people actually live longer, healthier lives now than any time in past, especially when you consider religious belief was the norm and most were uneducated.

Should we see increasing baldness in female scientists soon?

What about those scientists that have a faith and accept ToE as a valid explanation of the origin of species?

I am not anti-science any more than I am anti-gravity but I am not a foolish superstitious so-called scientist who only ‘believes’ in ANY result so long as it’s discovered by another scientist. Don’t you find it rather odd how many will stick up their noses to a religious person who only believes in a similar spiritual experience that another person has, yet here we have many so-called scientists today who accept ANY results at all, so long as it comes from another scientist!!!

I think you misunderstand science. Scientists will generally not accept any results another produces. How do you think scince moves on if we can't disagree and falsify other scientist's theories?

May be you are having difficulty in understanding what I am trying to tell you so I wish to provide an example, if only to now place it front of you more clearly. Would you happen to know why we humans have these clumsy, solid shoulder blades attached to our back? As you seem to support evolution as a form of science would you then say that these blades would have been once used for flying? When human beings are in a difficult situation we tend to want to fly away but we cannot do so. Instead, we force up the spinal marrow into the head, specifically the brain and then we begin to think.

No, I don't think we evolved from some sort of flying mammal. Do you actually believe we consciously forced spinal marrow into our skulls to create a brain. How could we force it if we had no brain and no way to make a decision? If we could make such a decision, why did we need a brain.

You see, bird do fly but they do not think, as everything that consists of thinking is found within their flying in the air, thus human beings think because we cannot fly. When you eat food in which the taste you crave, what happens to the human being? Does he not transform those sensations of taste into feelings? When you smell something repulsive, do you not wish to fly away, but yet you cannot do so, so you think instead. Thus, smell is also turned into thoughts. So what we people tend to think, is in reality the sensation which the animal experiences in their organs and that reaction those animals have, does not force them to think as humans do. This case would seem to suggest a pattern of “purposefulness” that since human being cannot fly, they are forced to think. Thus a Darwinist might assume that a since humans want to fly away, but we cannot do so, and since we have these shoulder blades which are clumsily attacked to our back, then we must have at one time required the usage of the blades to fly!! These same Darwinists, do they not also claim something similar to the tail bones of a human being? You see what they do is apply a sense of “purposefulness” to everything and thus they assume that the human must have evolved from needing the tail, into no longer needing it. But they fail completely to consider that the origins of the human being might have never needed the tail or blades to fly, just as they assume that the heart is a pump, when in actuality, the heart is a reflex of what goes on in the body, meaning it beats faster depending upon the circulation of the blood. The blood pumps the heart and not vice-versa, just as the shoulder blades are designed to make a man think, and were never designed to make a man fly, simply because it would have seemed to be more "purposefull", it does not make it so.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]

Evolution doesn't work that way, we don't think or desire a trait and then develop it. Nature does the selection.

So, the blood pumps the heart and shoulder blades are designed to make us think.....OK....

Do you agree that other animals have the capacity for basic language and thought? Did you know that there is a parrot that can understand and make decisions, tell the difference between objects etc. There are dolphins and primates that can perform even more complicated behaviours.

I'm really beginning to wonder whether you are stringing me along here or is this an actual example of the 'chewbacca defense'?

[edit on 11-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I'm really beginning to wonder whether you are stringing me along here or is this an actual example of the 'chewbacca defense'?

While I can't say I know exactly what you mean by the Chewbacca Defense... the only thing I can think of is the ref. to Wookies pulling arms out of sockets when they lose at chess in the 1st (4th) movie.

But either way, I think I understand what you're feeling.

Welcome to my world.

Of course humans are animals. We eat like them, we excrete like them, we reproduce like them, we fear like them, we breath like them, we die like them. We just have a bit more brain-power that some think separates us from them completely.

I was hoping you would respond in this manner because it proves the basic assumption of you; for you confuse the very personality of a man, which includes his thoughts and emotions with his soul-ego, having the ability to use the “mind”. You once again “assume” that since these physical habits, or rather functions which include thoughts and emotions are in similar fashion to the animals, that it means we are ONLY animals, yet smarter animals. As flesh and blood, we certainly are similar in the organic sense but to call us mere animals is very insulting to those people who have learned how to raise their consciousness to higher levels. So, without writing too esoteric, I wish to advise you on a very basic concept that few scientists can deny today, after sitting and speaking with me face to face.
Now, as human Beings who start off small and fragile and grow older and eventually die, we have undergone a complete alteration in our physical bodies. We can scientifically say that we are not the same person as we were when we were 3 years old. We can say this by scientifically verifying that every part of our body, including the thoughts and emotions have changed within our lifetime. In fact, we have completely different cells in the brain, the skin, all organs, and so there is nothing that connects us to our Soul-Ego except that idea that “I am I”, or “I AM”. Now of course no scientist denies that we do grow older and tend to look different and as such we also change our personalities. But how many people mistake their own personalities for “themselves”.
What I mean is they say “I am George, or Mike, or Mary and I am a writer or a Chemist and if I am not my personality, than I have nothing!”
This response I have heard from people very commonly and it is not that they are inherently incorrect but rather they do not realize they are in control of their own personality. So, the personality itself is defined as the sum total of all your thoughts and emotion, whether they be positive or negative. Thus, we Human Beings – unlike the animals - can control these thoughts and emotions, or desires over time with practice. If we CAN CONTROL these thoughts and emotions then it means we are NOT BOUND by them and thus, we are MORE THAN them, see? If we are not our thoughts and emotions, than what ARE WE? Can you tell me this, dear Professor?

And all these species undergo genetic change over time, i.e. a basic mechanism of evolution.

You say genetic change but without defining what exactly this entails? Are you using this genetic change as a method of proving some language of design which says that human beings came from Monkey-like creatures? I’m still awaiting the evidence.

Quite interesting that people actually live longer, healthier lives now than any time in past, especially when you consider religious belief was the norm and most were uneducated.

This is true but in which nations and what does religious believe ‘being a norm’ have to do with using herbs, instead of RX medications? Certainly, when Edgar Cayce and Roy Rife spoke of using light and sound to heal us, we must find this method used today for cancer victims? Hmm, seems to me that the materialism scientific approach is to study the human organism like a little guinea pig, and while they radiate people and kill both the cancer and the healthy cells, they have the nerve to call it a treatment! Instead, of understanding the body does the healing and they “HOPE” he body will do this in every instance. Yet, they disallow any quack science which says try some apricot seeds, or try some laetrile, or try taking vitamin and mineral therapy during the chemotherapy. Nay! They want to see the effects on the guinea pig and taking FOOD would interfere with the study of the pig! Take a look at Russia today and tell me that their life expectancy has increased! Also it has much to do with politics. Allergies are also getting worse today and many people cannot even bare sitting in a room with a slight touch of perfume, thus many are far weaker today, looking very pale-skinned do to lack of natural salts, healthy fats found in the foods etc. Vaccinations are also a great form of population control, as they tend to cause ‘oversensitivity’ in the young and old – take a look on the package of this witch potion and tell me we should be taking something developed in caterpillar eggs, just because it’s cheap than using chicken eggs. But diet and spirituality is the prime cause of longevity and hard physical labor in other nations today can also lead to premature death. Thus, unless you study this in a balanced approach, you cannot claim that modern science has helped longevity, or anything else.

I think you misunderstand science. Scientists will generally not accept any results another produces. How do you think scince moves on if we can't disagree and falsify other scientist's theories?

Really? I guess you exclude those ghost-writers who seem to say that vitamin-E is great today and then decide that it is bad tomorrow. What about the ADA which says fluoride should be added to toothpaste, are they an example of pure science at it’s best? At least Henry Ford, before the foundation was corrupted by the Fabian Collectivists knew how to run a car on healthier oil but somehow science today seems run up to the highest bidder, so to speak.

No, I don't think we evolved from some sort of flying mammal. Do you actually believe we consciously forced spinal marrow into our skulls to create a brain. How could we force it if we had no brain and no way to make a decision? If we could make such a decision, why did we need a brain.

Well what makes you think we humans have no instinct? We have the sensitivity of crystals, the sensibility of plants, the instinct of animals but we also have MIND – not the brain but “MIND” itself to ask “who am I”, which animals do not have. The brain and the mind are not the same thing but to use mind we have a choice – either you wish to be animal like a Darwinist, or you choose to use ‘MIND’ and free yourself from the illusion of matter being all that is real.

Evolution doesn't work that way, we don't think or desire a trait and then develop it. Nature does the selection.

If nature does the selection, “natural selection” than how come humans have proven that ‘survival of the fittest’ only applies to the animals? If humans are only mere ‘smarter’ animals who were under the law of survival of the fittest, than how come Apes are still looking like Apes today and jelly fish are still Jelly-fish? Obviously, humans survived interpedently from mere natural selection and we are not evolving from lower forms of life.

Do you agree that other animals have the capacity for basic language and thought? Did you know that there is a parrot that can understand and make decisions, tell the difference between objects etc. There are dolphins and primates that can perform even more complicated behaviours.

What does memory and instincts coming from the brain have to do with the abilities coming from MIND? The ability to control, thoughts and emotions comes from the human mind and a dog can learn many things but they do this out of instinct and adaptation using the brain, they are not using MIND as Super-substance. A cow or an ape has never done it, and it shall NEVER DO IT.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
I'm really beginning to wonder whether you are stringing me along here or is this an actual example of the 'chewbacca defense'?

While I can't say I know exactly what you mean by the Chewbacca Defense... the only thing I can think of is the ref. to Wookies pulling arms out of sockets when they lose at chess in the 1st (4th) movie.

But either way, I think I understand what you're feeling.

Welcome to my world.

It's from episode of 'south park'

en.wikipedia.org...

Even worse is that I'm being double-teamed here, haha.


@cinosamnita - I'll respond tomorrow.