<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mark Twain and creationism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224</link>
	<description>Cutting straight to the point</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:43:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: El Duderino</title>
		<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/comment-page-1#comment-26697</link>
		<dc:creator>El Duderino</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:11:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224#comment-26697</guid>
		<description>Micheal Loonie
How is what I wrote different from what you believe?
Or does my observation that evolution can not be scientifically proven make me a &quot;troll&quot;?
BTW I have no dog in this fight.  I couldn&#039;t care less how things about, just so long as they did. In fact I think the whole debate is kind of childish.  You with your science, which you BELIEVE, the creationist, with their scriptures, which they believe, arguing over something none of us will ever know for sure; why does anything exist and where did it come from to begin with. Michael may answer with all the alacrity of a precocious four year old that there was this primordial ooze and protein rich blah blah blah and five billion years later Rosie leaves the view.  Great, I&#039;ll buy that, with two provisos: 1. Prove it. 2. Tell me where did the atoms that made up the ooze come from?  Until you can prove your theories and come up with a plausible ontological explanation, all your petulant rants, no matter how &quot;scientifically&quot; based are merely assertion of your faith over that of the creationist, at least the creationist have music at their shindigs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Micheal Loonie<br />
How is what I wrote different from what you believe?<br />
Or does my observation that evolution can not be scientifically proven make me a &#8220;troll&#8221;?<br />
BTW I have no dog in this fight.  I couldn&#8217;t care less how things about, just so long as they did. In fact I think the whole debate is kind of childish.  You with your science, which you BELIEVE, the creationist, with their scriptures, which they believe, arguing over something none of us will ever know for sure; why does anything exist and where did it come from to begin with. Michael may answer with all the alacrity of a precocious four year old that there was this primordial ooze and protein rich blah blah blah and five billion years later Rosie leaves the view.  Great, I&#8217;ll buy that, with two provisos: 1. Prove it. 2. Tell me where did the atoms that made up the ooze come from?  Until you can prove your theories and come up with a plausible ontological explanation, all your petulant rants, no matter how &#8220;scientifically&#8221; based are merely assertion of your faith over that of the creationist, at least the creationist have music at their shindigs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rahel</title>
		<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/comment-page-1#comment-26581</link>
		<dc:creator>Rahel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 04:37:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224#comment-26581</guid>
		<description>I see no contradiction between the idea of evolution and the idea that God created the universe.

Evolution may be one of many engines that God used, and still uses, in the universe&#039;s creation. Who are we to say that it can&#039;t be? That&#039;s limiting God!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see no contradiction between the idea of evolution and the idea that God created the universe.</p>
<p>Evolution may be one of many engines that God used, and still uses, in the universe&#8217;s creation. Who are we to say that it can&#8217;t be? That&#8217;s limiting God!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Lonie</title>
		<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/comment-page-1#comment-26574</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Lonie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 23:56:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224#comment-26574</guid>
		<description>Sean and Duderino,
Sorry, you are wrong.

At its basis the Theory of Evolution states that organisms reproduce by descent with variation, which is an observable fact.  Much of Darwin&#039;s writings consist of documenting this.  More organisms are born, hatched or otherwise come into existence than can survive, as anyone who has looked at the egg mass laid by a frog can see.  The next generation will be propagated by those who survive the hazards they face, such as predation and parasitism.  another fact.  That&#039;s what natural selection is, if you don&#039;t like it take it up with The Lord, since that is the way Nature works and, if you want to postulate that He created Nature, that is the way He made it.

As for dinosaurs contemporary with humans that is hokum.  Rocks are layered, and which are earlier and which later can be worked out by geologists without any assumptions about the evolution of organisms.  All dinosaur fossils are below all human fossils stratigraphically, by a wide margin.  Therefore dinosaurs and humans were not contemporaneous.  End of story.

Now to confirm this we now have radiometric dating by means of radioactive isotopes (other than Carbon-14).  These confirm that the last dinosaur fossils are older than 65 million years old, and that the earliest human fossils are no more than about three million.  And that is using a very generous interpretation of human, to include species of genus Homo that could not be regarded as modern humans at all.  So this confirms the conclusions of stratigraphy.

As for the silly idea of a Young Earth, radiometric dating shows that rocks exposed on the Earth&#039;s surface have ages up to 3.8 billion years old.  Anybody who wants to contradict this had better have his new and improved theory of nuclear physics ready to present, because the same ideas that tell us that nuclear bombs explode and nuclear power plants produce power tell us that those rocks ar that old.  Nuclear physics has been well tested and is accurate.  You got a problem with that?

I suspect that I have been responding to trolls, but felt the need to do so anyway.  Creationism is bunk.  If you believe The Lord created the universe, He designed the universe&#039;s living organisms to change over generations by evolution, including among its mechanisms natural selection.  Get over it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean and Duderino,<br />
Sorry, you are wrong.</p>
<p>At its basis the Theory of Evolution states that organisms reproduce by descent with variation, which is an observable fact.  Much of Darwin&#8217;s writings consist of documenting this.  More organisms are born, hatched or otherwise come into existence than can survive, as anyone who has looked at the egg mass laid by a frog can see.  The next generation will be propagated by those who survive the hazards they face, such as predation and parasitism.  another fact.  That&#8217;s what natural selection is, if you don&#8217;t like it take it up with The Lord, since that is the way Nature works and, if you want to postulate that He created Nature, that is the way He made it.</p>
<p>As for dinosaurs contemporary with humans that is hokum.  Rocks are layered, and which are earlier and which later can be worked out by geologists without any assumptions about the evolution of organisms.  All dinosaur fossils are below all human fossils stratigraphically, by a wide margin.  Therefore dinosaurs and humans were not contemporaneous.  End of story.</p>
<p>Now to confirm this we now have radiometric dating by means of radioactive isotopes (other than Carbon-14).  These confirm that the last dinosaur fossils are older than 65 million years old, and that the earliest human fossils are no more than about three million.  And that is using a very generous interpretation of human, to include species of genus Homo that could not be regarded as modern humans at all.  So this confirms the conclusions of stratigraphy.</p>
<p>As for the silly idea of a Young Earth, radiometric dating shows that rocks exposed on the Earth&#8217;s surface have ages up to 3.8 billion years old.  Anybody who wants to contradict this had better have his new and improved theory of nuclear physics ready to present, because the same ideas that tell us that nuclear bombs explode and nuclear power plants produce power tell us that those rocks ar that old.  Nuclear physics has been well tested and is accurate.  You got a problem with that?</p>
<p>I suspect that I have been responding to trolls, but felt the need to do so anyway.  Creationism is bunk.  If you believe The Lord created the universe, He designed the universe&#8217;s living organisms to change over generations by evolution, including among its mechanisms natural selection.  Get over it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Warmongering Lunatic</title>
		<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/comment-page-1#comment-26572</link>
		<dc:creator>Warmongering Lunatic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 23:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224#comment-26572</guid>
		<description>Um, no, they don&#039;t use radiocarbon for dinosaur fossils.  They use multi-chemical dating methods, like uranium-lead dating.  And these do not depend on constant ratios; they instead depend merely on the constancy of the laws of chemistry and physics.  

For example, zircon and lead do not chemically combine in crystals, while zircon and uranium do.  So if you find lead atoms in a zircon crystal, you&#039;ve found uranium that has radioactively decayed into lead.  So the amount of lead plus uranium in a zircon crystal is equal to the amount of uranium that was originally incorporated into the crystal.  Since we know the half-life of uranium, measuring the ratio of uranium to lead in the crystal tells you how long the uranium has been in the crystal, and thus how old the crystal is.

Another example is potassium-40/argon-40 dating.  Argon, a noble gas, doesn&#039;t chemically combine with anything.  Potassium readily combines with lots of stuff.  So all the argon-40 in a sample is decayed potassium-40; with the half-life known, the ratio of undecayed potassium-40 to argon-40 tells you how long ago the mineral formed.

Anyway, there are dozens of specific versions of this general dating method, good for different time windows, and the results from them are consistent with each other.  Accordingly, under the assumption that the natural laws of the universe have not radically changed over time, we can be quite confident in the accuracy of radiometric dating.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, no, they don&#8217;t use radiocarbon for dinosaur fossils.  They use multi-chemical dating methods, like uranium-lead dating.  And these do not depend on constant ratios; they instead depend merely on the constancy of the laws of chemistry and physics.  </p>
<p>For example, zircon and lead do not chemically combine in crystals, while zircon and uranium do.  So if you find lead atoms in a zircon crystal, you&#8217;ve found uranium that has radioactively decayed into lead.  So the amount of lead plus uranium in a zircon crystal is equal to the amount of uranium that was originally incorporated into the crystal.  Since we know the half-life of uranium, measuring the ratio of uranium to lead in the crystal tells you how long the uranium has been in the crystal, and thus how old the crystal is.</p>
<p>Another example is potassium-40/argon-40 dating.  Argon, a noble gas, doesn&#8217;t chemically combine with anything.  Potassium readily combines with lots of stuff.  So all the argon-40 in a sample is decayed potassium-40; with the half-life known, the ratio of undecayed potassium-40 to argon-40 tells you how long ago the mineral formed.</p>
<p>Anyway, there are dozens of specific versions of this general dating method, good for different time windows, and the results from them are consistent with each other.  Accordingly, under the assumption that the natural laws of the universe have not radically changed over time, we can be quite confident in the accuracy of radiometric dating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sabba Hillel</title>
		<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/comment-page-1#comment-26571</link>
		<dc:creator>Sabba Hillel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 22:26:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224#comment-26571</guid>
		<description>In any case, both the &lt;i&gt;creationists&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;evolutionists&lt;/i&gt; misunderstand what is going on.  Technically, G-d could have just created the universe with this message already on my screen.

The whole point of &lt;i&gt;creation from nothing&lt;/i&gt; is that G-d could have created the universe with all the animals in their herds, etc, the trees fully mature, and everything in its place.

The &quot;fossil record&quot; would be part of the creation of a mature Earth.  In any case, science cannot deal with what came before until we can go back and look.


For an analogy, consider a model ship built with the &quot;rivets&quot; in place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In any case, both the <i>creationists</i> and <i>evolutionists</i> misunderstand what is going on.  Technically, G-d could have just created the universe with this message already on my screen.</p>
<p>The whole point of <i>creation from nothing</i> is that G-d could have created the universe with all the animals in their herds, etc, the trees fully mature, and everything in its place.</p>
<p>The &#8220;fossil record&#8221; would be part of the creation of a mature Earth.  In any case, science cannot deal with what came before until we can go back and look.</p>
<p>For an analogy, consider a model ship built with the &#8220;rivets&#8221; in place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FrankGBoston</title>
		<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/comment-page-1#comment-26570</link>
		<dc:creator>FrankGBoston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 21:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224#comment-26570</guid>
		<description>I want to know where monkeys came from. What did they evolve from? 

If monkeys didn&#039;t evolve, then God must have created them also, along with humans (or, God created monkeys and then had us evolve from them - smile). 

So, trace back. What is the last animal that evolved, before God decided to create the &quot;next&quot; one. Did some animals evolve from the other animals (and plants and bugs) that God created? 

If some animals evolved, and others were created, why did God choose to meddle with some but not others? 

If no animals evolved, then they were and are all created. So, there is God, creating new viruses and bacteria, just to get around antibiotics and our immune systems and kill us. A vengeful God. 

I prefer to think of a loving God who supports evolution and doesn&#039;t go around creating things to make us miserable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want to know where monkeys came from. What did they evolve from? </p>
<p>If monkeys didn&#8217;t evolve, then God must have created them also, along with humans (or, God created monkeys and then had us evolve from them &#8211; smile). </p>
<p>So, trace back. What is the last animal that evolved, before God decided to create the &#8220;next&#8221; one. Did some animals evolve from the other animals (and plants and bugs) that God created? </p>
<p>If some animals evolved, and others were created, why did God choose to meddle with some but not others? </p>
<p>If no animals evolved, then they were and are all created. So, there is God, creating new viruses and bacteria, just to get around antibiotics and our immune systems and kill us. A vengeful God. </p>
<p>I prefer to think of a loving God who supports evolution and doesn&#8217;t go around creating things to make us miserable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: madbob</title>
		<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/comment-page-1#comment-26567</link>
		<dc:creator>madbob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 19:30:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224#comment-26567</guid>
		<description>sean - 
You are making the joke, like Mr. Twain of old, no?
50k years is a mere tick o&#039; the clock in the scheme of history.  Try 65M years or more, and even the margin of error becomes meaningless.  
We should all take whiskey&#039;s advice - Christianity is about faith, not interpretation of the written word.  
Accept science - the application of which makes this electronic conversation possible.  Amen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sean &#8211;<br />
You are making the joke, like Mr. Twain of old, no?<br />
50k years is a mere tick o&#8217; the clock in the scheme of history.  Try 65M years or more, and even the margin of error becomes meaningless.<br />
We should all take whiskey&#8217;s advice &#8211; Christianity is about faith, not interpretation of the written word.<br />
Accept science &#8211; the application of which makes this electronic conversation possible.  Amen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/comment-page-1#comment-26566</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 19:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224#comment-26566</guid>
		<description>In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, &quot;Let there be light!&quot; And there was still nothing, but you could see it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, &#8220;Let there be light!&#8221; And there was still nothing, but you could see it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill H</title>
		<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/comment-page-1#comment-26565</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 19:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224#comment-26565</guid>
		<description>Billions and billions of years ago God said let there be light and there was a very, very big kabooooom!



When Eve said to Adam &quot;Here hold this while I slip into something more comfortable&quot; the world became far more interesting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Billions and billions of years ago God said let there be light and there was a very, very big kabooooom!</p>
<p>When Eve said to Adam &#8220;Here hold this while I slip into something more comfortable&#8221; the world became far more interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224/comment-page-1#comment-26564</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 18:52:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yourish.com/2007/05/29/3224#comment-26564</guid>
		<description>I know for a FACT that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. 

I sat in the classrooms of several.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know for a FACT that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. </p>
<p>I sat in the classrooms of several.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
