ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Sethbag]

The spirit molecule is actually called the midichlorian. ;-)

[Anonymous]

And Frank, are you going to admit that in light of the fact that the face of the land is also being changed by phenomena other than erosion, your erosion argument against geology is a fail?

[_Franktalk]

Well I have to hand it to you. I guess you found me out. I guess I have to admit I don't know every obscure thing in the universe.

Has anybody figured out how to find truth? I mean truth you can hang your hat on. Something you can take to the bank. Something that your mother would be proud of hanging above the fireplace. Something that does not grow old and die. Like an old friend ready to give you comfort in times of need.

Does anyone here think that truth comes from peer reviewed articles?

If so explain this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... early-days

[_moksha]

So what about Franktalk's calculations?

Calculations

Human DNA X % difference = # of nucleotides that are different
(3 X 10^9) X .04 = 120 X10^6

Number of possible combinations in 120 X10^6 nucleotides with 4 nucleotide combinations per site
4^(120 X10^6) = My calculator did not go that high. So I used 4^1000 which
Is 1.148 X 10^519 Much smaller number but my calculator could handle it. Using this smaller number makes the job of evolution much easier.

Per generation number of mutations
DNA size X mutation rate X population = mutations in population
(3 X10^9) X (1.8 X10^ -8 ) X (1 X 10^6) = 5.4 X10^7 mutations

Possible combinations / mutations per generation = # of generations required
(1.148 X10^519) / (5.4 X10^7) = 2.125 X10^511 generations

Years in generation X required generations = years required
20 X (2.125 X10^511) = 4.25 X10^512 years required to make man

Now the universe according to science is 14.5 X10^9 years old.

[_Franktalk]

But, the question then becomes do you understand this image? For example, could you derive the equation for V_out using first principles (of voltage loops and conservation of charge)? If not, then you're just posting images from Physics without understanding them.

I Guess you got me. I don't know a thing about differential amplifiers.

Well, except for all the time I used them in the forty years I spent in the electronics industry.

[_keithb]

Well I have to hand it to you. I guess you found me out. I guess I have to admit I don't know every obscure thing in the universe.

Has anybody figured out how to find truth? I mean truth you can hang your hat on. Something you can take to the bank. Something that your mother would be proud of hanging above the fireplace. Something that does not grow old and die. Like an old friend ready to give you comfort in times of need.

Does anyone here think that truth comes from peer reviewed articles?

If so explain this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... early-days

If you're referring to my post, I wouldn't say that what I was talking about was really that obscure. If you had any formal training in Physics, you would have picked up how to derive circuit equations in an Electronics class and even (if you had paid particularly close attention) in the second semester E&M course.

My point was simply that, if you are posting something like that on a message board -- presumably to impress the other posters with the complexity of the picture -- you should at least have a very general understanding of what it is that you're posting.

On another note, let me explain a little about how science works to you. See, there are many, many men and women out there that DO understand the intricacies of circuit diagrams -- even much better than I do. There are many people that have devoted entire careers of 40+ years to understanding them. In my very basic understanding of how they work, I wouldn't presume to lecture these experts on the topic of circuitry.

Similarly, there are people that have devoted careers to the study of Geology. They have published their findings -- in the form of text books and journal articles -- and they know vastly more about the topic than either you or I. For a similar reason, I wouldn't presume to lecture them about their findings -- say in the form of some off-the-cuff calculations that I posted on a religious message board. Frankly, it's somewhat disrespectful.

[_keithb]

But, the question then becomes do you understand this image? For example, could you derive the equation for V_out using first principles (of voltage loops and conservation of charge)? If not, then you're just posting images from Physics without understanding them.

I Guess you got me. I don't know a thing about differential amplifiers.

Well, except for all the time I used them in the forty years I spent in the electronics industry.

First off, using something and understanding something are two different things. Many people use a computer on a daily basis without understanding the first thing about how it works.

Second, no need to take offense. I have a doctorate degree in Physics, and I work daily with people that have doctorate degrees in Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, etc. Even so, I would say that I personally don't know everything that there is to know about circuit design (although I'm sure that I could pick it up quickly if I wanted). And, I will also guess that you know considerably less about it than, say, my colleague with an EE doctorate degree that designs MR receiver coils for a living.

[_Sethbag]

Well I have to hand it to you. I guess you found me out. I guess I have to admit I don't know every obscure thing in the universe.

You have a very bizarre way of conversing. You toss out loads of off-the-cuff math, have a protein image as your avatar, and mention books you claim have in-depth discussions about topics almost nobody thinks about much (such as what happens to river-borne sediments once they hit the sea), and yet as soon as I call you out on such a basic flaw as in the case of your "Erosion disproves Geology" argument, you try to play victim of someone who will only converse with you if you know everything in the universe?

Has anybody figured out how to find truth? I mean truth you can hang your hat on. Something you can take to the bank.

No. Does that bother you? Nevertheless, the scientific method is the best method for finding truth about our universe that we've yet found.

Something that your mother would be proud of hanging above the fireplace. Something that does not grow old and die. Like an old friend ready to give you comfort in times of need.

Are you willing to believe falsehoods if they are comforting?

Does it comfort you to know, since I'm now telling you so, that you will win the lottery next week and all your financial needs will be thus met for the rest of your life? Does the fact that there's no good reason to believe what I've just said render this more or less comforting to you?

[_Chap]

A:

Just study erosion enough and you will find that our dating methods are completely wrong.

B:

... [on certain assumptions about the rate of erosion of soil by all US rivers it would take] 11.75 x 10^6 years to erode the United States.

How does B prove the point made in A?

Finally I get the answer:

My statement that the entire United States would erode away in less than 20 million years on inspection causes problems with geology.

So that is all he has. Basically it's an argument like this:

There was a time this morning when I was in the bathroom: at that time I checked my fluid loss rate as being about 0.5 kg in 30s.

So that means I am losing mass at a rate of 1 kg/min

My mass is about 90 kg.

Therefore in 90 min all of me will have run down the toilet.

So there is a problem with physiology.

But of course there is no problem with physiology: urination is a temporary condition.

Other posters have already pointed out to Franktalk that geologists have concluded (after a couple of centuries of study and debate) that the surface of the earth is not a static thing, but is constantly changing - plate movement and erosion are just two of the processes that mediate that change. Like urination in physiological terms, the Mississippi is a temporary phenomenon in geological terms. Once it wasn't there. One day it won't be there. Same goes for all other small and large-scale features of the earth. So?

[_jon]

Nor does Frank take into account sedimentation and the build of silt and other deposits. So while one part of the US erodes, another part grows.

Franks premise appears to be nonsense by any rational measure.