Which one are you?

[Nepenthe]

Do you know how long it takes to freeze a dead turkey? It takes about 20 minutes in extremely cold weather. Imagine how long it would take to freeze a mammoth...

And since when do buttercups grow in Siberia, not too mention they found several other plants that DON'T grow in Northern Siberia in these mammoths.

Those articles you put up didn't prove anything, as a matter of fact the one about the moths it said that most experiements are fixed to be put in textbooks because it is too difficult to keep the moths still enough to take the pictures...ect.. lmfao....

[luke]

However, the Siberian steppes during the last ice age were not covered in ice and snow as they are now, nor was the ground frozen. The reason is that so much of the available water was locked up in the arctic ice pack -- primarily in North America -- that the subarctic steppes were much drier than today. As a result, the Siberian soil thawed to a greater depth and supported a richer variety of plant life. This included nutritious grasses. The stomach contents of preserved mammoths indicate that they fed on such grasses, as well as mosses, sedges, herbaceous pollens and spores, and fragments of willow and bilberry. Some rare poppies and buttercups have also been found in addition to small amounts of arboreal material such as larch needles, willows, and tree bark. Such variety indicates the mammoths lived in a variety of climates in Siberia. These ranged from dry and steppe-like to slightly wet to swampy to arctic/alpine.

Did my book learnin' about seven years ago, when I gave a shit. But these days, sheesh, what's the point of picking up a book on that nonsense when a simple search on an extensive web-site is more than enough to call bullshit on all of it?

[luke]

Nice phony internet laugh. Those articles were more than enough, and you know it. And any further argument is REALLY throwing yourself into denial.

Seriously. Heh. Even Wells is too chickenshit to try and defend that nonsense.

[shin]

Should I be impressed at the extent to which Dee's gone to embarass herself? It's actually inspiring if you look at it as an exercise in dedication to a cause.

[kmc]

I've been swayed, Dee is right. Jesus created the dinosaurs, Adam, & Eve because the Bible says so. It's all historically accurate, because the Bible says so. Because of that, evolution is wrong.

[Nepenthe]

Damn luke that is pretty funny, so what you are saying is that siberia's climate was much different and warm yet we find perfectly preserved mammoths, with buttercups still in their mouths frozen solid.......

Which was it luke, warm or cold?

How the fuck did they get frozen then? And preserved enough that the organs were still intact?

love this from your site:

Those who feel that their innocent faith in insect photography has been betrayed should consider the fact that most photos of insects in textbooks are probably staged; insects are, after all, small and difficult to photograph. The facts that peppered moths are sparsely distributed and, well, camouflaged also make them difficult to photograph.

hahahahaha

[Nepenthe]

Damn, mammoths must run around with perfectly intact buttercups in their mouths for days..months....

[Nepenthe]

years....

[shin]

[shin]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has made similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements before.

Last summer, he hit the headlines by calling for the assassination of leftist Venezuelan Present Hugo Chavez, one of President George W. Bush's most vocal international critics.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[shin]

The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days." Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from the Sun, and in addition 7 x 7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the Sun, or 50 times in all.

The light we receive from the Moon is one 1/10,000 of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that.

The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e., Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50, where E is the absolute temperature of the earth (-300ºK), gives H as 798ºK (525ºC).

The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed. However, Revelation 21:8 says "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulphur] means that its temperature must be at or below its boiling point, 444.6ºC.

We have, then, that Heaven, at 525ºC is hotter than Hell at 445ºC.

[Rit]

^
^
this was awesome.

[Galactus]

nymphofantasia said:

love this from your site:

Those who feel that their innocent faith in insect photography has been betrayed should consider the fact that most photos of insects in textbooks are probably staged; insects are, after all, small and difficult to photograph. The facts that peppered moths are sparsely distributed and, well, camouflaged also make them difficult to photograph.

hahahahaha

You really don't get that a lot of text books pictures are staged? Next I expect you to start in on how we never landed on the Moon...

[luke]

Well, here's what the dude who found the 1901 mammoth, and some other folks, have had to say about it:

"Our investigations confirmed his opinion. They proved that the animal had been preserved in the same way as Adams's mammoth, according to Toll, had been. In both cases the bodies had been enbedded in fissures of the diluvial inland ice. Then when the temperature fell the mud disappeared and the ice in which they were fast frozen had kept them, complete with their soft parts, in a state a preservation through the ages.

"Before I arrived at the site, Herz had partially dug away the hill of earth round the body, and so both the forefeet and the hind feet were exposed. These lay under the body so that it rested on them. When one looked at the body one had the impression that it must have suddenly fallen into an unexpected fissure in the ice, which it probably came across in its wanderings, and which may have been covered with a layer of plant-bearing mould. After its fall the unlucky animal must have tried to get out of its hopeless position, for the right forefoot was doubled up and the left stretched forward as if it had struggled to rise. But its strength had apparently not been up to it, for when we dug it out still farther we found that in its fall it had not only broken several bones, but had been almost completely buried by the falls of earth which tumbled in on it, so that it had suffocated.

"Its death must have occurred very quickly after its fall, for we found half-chewed food still in its mouth, between the back teeth and on its tongue, which was in good preservation. The food consisted of leaves and grasses, some of the later carrying seeds. We could tell from these that the mammoth must have come to its miserable end in the autumn."

Also:

"Lapparent attributes the extinction of the mammoth to a gradual increase in cold and a decrease in the supply of food, rather than to a cataclysmic flood." (Guthrie 1990)



And your humor at such an obvious fact- that insect photos in text books are staged- I really don't get. Are you denying that insect photos are hard to capture? The point of that chapter was that the insects HAVE been found doing this, and there ARE pictures of it...but for a tiny, convenient little close-up in a text-book, yes, you stage a picture. It's the common sense thing to do. You may as well be bitching about the computer-generated close-ups of cells in text books.

Look, I've posted the facts. This isn't something like arguing about some politician's hidden agenday, because there's nothing to be argued. THOUSANDS of biologists are out there making fools of the creationist pseudoscientists you treat with rock star adoration.

Here's a few fella's really reaming Michael J. Behe, but after that, I think I just might let it go. I've proved my point, which is that your wacky science just won't hold up outside of a Kansas courtroom. If anyone's curious as to what Tuaatha's talking about, just do a search on the talkorigins site, and you'll see tons of articles and links to books from really nerdy dudes taking a piss on creationist pseudoscience.

bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html

www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794;jsessionid=aaahKOEyWP6XxZ?fulltext=true

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/textbooks.html

www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

And my favorite:

www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

Yes, Michael Behe is a scientist, but is "Intelligent Design" science? If so, it will be the first science established without a single technical paper published for peer-review, including zero by Behe himself. For some reason he has decided to completely bypass professional review and go directly to a Darwin-doubting public.

and a quote that really sums Behe up:

"He's intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking..."- Spock

[Kensterberg]

shin said:

The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days." Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from the Sun, and in addition 7 x 7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the Sun, or 50 times in all.

The light we receive from the Moon is one 1/10,000 of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that.

The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e., Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50, where E is the absolute temperature of the earth (-300ºK), gives H as 798ºK (525ºC).

The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed. However, Revelation 21:8 says "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulphur] means that its temperature must be at or below its boiling point, 444.6ºC.

We have, then, that Heaven, at 525ºC is hotter than Hell at 445ºC.

This is absolutely priceless, Shin. Very, very well said.