The page on the slowing of c wasn't scientific in any sense of the word. They attacked the scientist and his curve, not the data, or its method of collection. The data STILL EXIST, even though they were misrepresented. Yes, the curve stated by that particular scientist was falsified, but the data he cited to create the curve (even though he didn't use it it all) is still accurate. Just because the scientist who discovered the fossils of the so-called "Java Man" falsified the evidence to make it appear human doesn't mean that he never found any fossils at all, now does it? And as for the speed of light ceasing its decay, try measuring with an orbital clock. If atomic vibration is slowing at the same rate as c, then of course you wouldn't measure any change since the 1960's. That's when people started using atomic clocks.

Ah, the English peppered moth. That's the name I was looking for. You have no evidence that it was a mutation that caused the change in color. To say that it is a mutation, you have to assume that all traits came from mutation, which would be Evolution. That would be reasoning in a circle. With the bacteria, there's no way to know that the gene for the immunity wasn't present in the original bacterium, and that the only change was that it became dominant. The nylon bacteria: can't proove that the substance doesn't exist in nature (universal negative), and can't proove that the enzyme to break it down doesn't serve some other purpose. Sickle-cell: No evidence it's a mutation. Lactose tolerance: same deal. Artheriosclerosis: Yet again, no evidence. HIV: Can you guess what I'm gonna say here?

All of this is based on the assumption that the gene is/was created by a mutation, when there are obvious other possibilities. That's not basing conclusions on observational evidence.

That other site is laughable. My response:

Long-period comets still don't explain why there are still comets. There is no known method of replenishment, there's no evidence of this "Oort cloud", and even if a comet has a period of a million years, it still couldn't possibly last more than 100 million.

My moon dust argument still works. Just because one scientist used flawed methods doesn't mean that the conclusion he reached was incorrect.

Look, any evidence you supposedly have, you have to assume that it supports Evolution. I have yet to see any that can be taken only in that way. The only way you can proove that Evolution is possible is by reproducing the process.

The links on that site are even funnier. I still say that there is no evidence that anything stated in the Bible did not happen, and that there are no contradictions. But we tried starting a thread on that, and nobody was interested in it, so...

"Just because the first scientist to believe that the Moon should be covered with a thick layer of dust made incorrect assumptions, overexagerrated his data, and was thusly proven wrong, that doesn't mean that it isn't true."

"just because the whole data set for the shrinking value of C is either flawed, unreliable, or ignored in his calculations, doesn't mean he's wrong."

It's the old " because you can't disprove it, it must be true" fallacy in reverse.

Heh. I have a teriffic bargain for you. Just pay cash, and in small bills.

Falsified data on Java Man? That old lie? (I wonder when it'll begin to sink in that the guy who wrote your source of info is a bit free and loose with his quoting, sources, and factual data...)

The truth is here: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html

As for the Oort cloud.. I don't know how much evidence you could possibly need, since we've found the Kuiper belt and at my last count at least 60 Kuiper belt objects, and the Kuiper belt was essentially the inner part of the Oort cloud.
We've also seen what are essentially Oort clouds around other stars, thanks to Mr. Hubble.

Oh, and if "atomic vibration" were slowing down - your own unproven assertion, btw - since atomic vibration is indicative of heat and changes in matter, I could see this wreaking havoc on a whole lot of things, not least of which is ionic and covalent bonds, and the tendency of matter to stay in one shape and solids not to suddenly evaporate.

Oh, btw and totally unconnected, that old saw about glass flowing like a liquid, and that's why old buildings' windows are thinner on top? It's wrong, too.

------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.

One feels compelled to point out that Dubois did not support Darwinian Evolution, but instead supported his own theory, which is apparently rediculously complex. The only evidence of a "Java Man" was a skull cap (well, and a femur which was 39' away, but that was decided to be from a gibbon). Dubois also discovered fragments of an apparent human jaw, which he hid, in order to protect his theory. There are also charges that he hid obviously human skulls, 60 miles away from the site, but they are less convincing. You can't decide that an animal was bipedal from a skull cap. There were other fragments found in other locations, but there is no evidence that they're even connected, or, if they are, there's not enough evidence to draw a solid conclusion. And Homo Erectus wasn't any sort of missing link either. Look up "Homo Erectus Never Existed?", Geotimes, October 1992, p. 11. And, as the skull of the skeleton of the supposed Homo Erectus is almost identical to that of "Java man", it would make sense that they may be the same species.

Don't judge a book by it's cover. Buy the thing, or check it out at your local library. I've mentioned the name a couple times. Just dig for it.

Ah, ah, ah. What you ASSUME are Oort clouds. What can you REALLY see? Tell me when you can zoom in close enough to see the individual comets. Or even when you can do so in OUR supposed Oort cloud. Check "The Nonexistance of the Oort Cometary Shell", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, Dec. 1974, pp. 385-301. The reason it is believed to exist was a mathematical error. Well, that and the fact that it's the only way to preserve the idea that the system is gigayears old. Also see "Halley's Comet is Quite Young", Nature, Vol. 339, 11 May 1989, p. 95. As for the Kuiper Belt, ooh, 60 comets orbiting our star. You'd need thousands more than that to account for and Oort cloud.

But everyone was born you say. It's a simple fact. Walk into a maternity ward sometime.

Oh, I don't dispute that babies tend to congregate at such places. But I've never witnessed one of these so-called "births". Most damningly, I can't remember it ever happening to me. You'd think I would remember such a tramatic and life-changing event, wouldn't you? And yet, nothing. Not a trace of it, not an inkling.

Various misguided souls have tried to prove my birth to me, but I've handily refuted them every time.

1.) The hospital where this alleged birth took place doesn't even exist. You can travel to the town of Sunnyside and look for the hospital. You won't find it. Over the years, people have come up with complex theories as to why it isn't there anymore, such as "it was torn down". But what proof do they have? Absolutely none. Surely, if the hospital where I was born doesn't exist, I couldn't have been born, could I?

2.) The pictures that exist of me as one of these babies are obviously either falsely classified or hoaxed. Again, why can't I remember ever taking any of them? And isn't it nice that none of these pictures are from that mythical hospital? (Some have used the fact that my father has more hair in these pictures to suggest it had to occur at a certain point in time, but the catastrophism theory of hairloss fits all the facts better.)

3.) This birth certificate claims to include both feet and handprints of mine. But just look at them, and look at my shoes. Can you conceive of a point in time when my feet were ever that small? I certainly can't, and who would know better than I?

4.) The entire birth concept is against my belief system. Have you ever heard one of these "doctors" describe it? Disgusting! And clearly a physical impossibility.

Assuming the universe was created all that is, was and is yet to be sprang into existance at the same moment, and it is through our perception of time that we see events. They can't actually happen in order, or they would be unfolding, or evolving. Right? *Gasp*

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"

Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net

"The data set for the shrinking value of C is not flawed or unreliable. It WAS, however, completely ignored in the mans calculations. Someone could still take the existing data and make the correct calculations."
Except that it IS unreliable, given that the measurements were taken using different techniques, (they couldn't measure atomic fluctuation in the 18th or 19th or early 20th centuries, so they used other methods to guess the speed of light), and the disparity of the data is probably caused by changes and refinements in measuring techniques (and a paltry 2 measurements using the same techniques do NOT a reliable data set make.)

As for Dubois.. the article clearly states that he though the fossil was some sort of supergibbon.

As for the Oort cloud, comets, etc... I se again that NONE of your sourcedocuments were published within the last 10 years... wonder why? The Kuiper belt was confirmed SINCE then. Again, the use of outdated and obsolete data HURTS your case, rather than strengthening it. Get with the times.
Granted, that we don't have photos of the Oort Cloud or the Hills Cloud. Comets less than 40 miles in diameter would simply not show up even in the best telescopes at those distances. The fact that these comet clouds are "theoretical" does not mean that
they are based on wild guesswork and groundless speculation. Computer simulation, as already mentioned, matches the short-period comets to the
Kuiper Belt. Similar studies of long-period comets, even from the 1950s, pointed to their origin in the Oort Cloud. All in all, a great deal of computer work has been done in supporting and refining the above models. The astronomical community treats them, at the very least, as excellent working hypotheses.

Benningfield (1990, p.32) lists some interesting evidence which suggests that vast comet clouds exist around other stars, and which is the most reasonable explanation for the images returned by the Hubble, but we shall not pursue the matter further. The point has already been made. The creationist must prove that there are no reasonable sources for comet replenishment.

The reason we've only found 60 or so KB objects is due to numerous reasons, primarily:
1) They're small, not very bright, and very far away.
2) We haven't been looking very long.
3) We haven't been looking very hard.

Oh, and since you obviously misread or ignored my last post about comet periods entirely... Comet West's orbital period has been calculated at 500,000 years. This means, my friend, if it's gone around more than once before it was discovered, it HAS to be older than a million years, and then obviously the solar system must also be older. If it's on its last legs (using the data you proposed that a comet can last only a 100 or so trips, which is dubious data at best, taken from small samples and once again using OLD sources), then West (and the Sol system) must be at least 50,000,000 years old. (or was it 1000 trips, making the Sol System 500,000,000?) You see, the most fatal flaw in the short-lived comet theory is that it only really talks about short-period comets, (Halley, or Encke, for example) which were once long-period comets, but were nudged into their present orbits by gravitational interaction with, most likely, the Jovian planets.

------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.

cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/lists/TNOs.html

------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.

Well, you have to admit that what you say is possible, being that you are a robot, or some other such construction, and thus never grow. The probability is extremely slim, though. You can not proove otherwise without having an autopsy performed on your body, at which point you will be dead, so it would defeat the purpose. If someone hypnotized you, or in some other way helped you retrieve the memory of being born, then you could just say that the memory was planted. You could also witness a birth yourself. You can deny the evidence all you want (pictures, certificates, etc.), but when it comes down to it, you have to accept that which is most probable (well, not HAVE to, but probably should). This is irrelevant to my case, however, as I have yet to see any evidence that shows that Evolution (as defined by Darwin) did, or even could have, happened that's anywhere near as conclusive as certificates or pictures mentioned. It's all based on assumptions that what you find can ONLY be explained by Evolution. Whereas you have much evidence against you, that can only be explained away as a huge conspiracy, I have very little evidence against me, which can be explained as misinterpretation.

Daryus:

If I understand you correctly, you're using yet another definition of evolution, this one being "the change from one state to another". That's not the Evolution we're arguing about.

1of2:

Well, then it comes down to which one of us is using the correct method to proove something. And I AM using old data. Gathered over two or three centuries. And no, I don't accept the answer you offer, as I don't believe YOU have the correct answer to give.

As for the methods used to measure c, margin of error was accounted for in the recent calculations.

"and a paltry 2 measurements using the same techniques do NOT a reliable data set make."

If a straight line fit is required, obtain only two data points, eh? So how about seven sets of two? I say again, the same scientist using the exact same equipment a couple of decades later got a decrease in results greater than experimental error could possibly account for IN SEVEN SEPERATE CASES. Explaination?

Well, another species of ape, then. As I said, he still hid fossils to protect his theory. I believe that's what started this particular argument over Java man.

Well, if my data's obsolite, why don't you post a more recent document disprooving it? Might work better than your just claiming the data's wrong, simply because it's old. Sometimes the data doesn't change, even over decades. Look at Piltdown Man. That had EVERYONE fooled for 40 years. Archie has for 125! A paper written in 1929 about how Archie was a fake still stands six decades later.

And yet you still assume that it's there, with no evidence? Aren't you jumping the gun just a bit? Planets' gravitational fields would tend to expel comets from the system, anyway.

Actually, I didn't see that edited post. What I do is I get online, load the page with the posts on it, load the response page in a seperate window, then get offline to write my response. I then get back on to post my message, and go somewhere else, without hitting reload to see if anyone has posted in the interim. When I first got the message page, you hadn't edited your message yet. I wouldn't even have noticed it if you hadn't pointed it out. The comet you mentioned would have to last 10,000 trips to make the system the age you say it is, and typical comets are destroyed after only several hundred.

And I did post evidence that atomic clocks are slowing, and thus vibrations as well. Here it is again:

By atomic clocks, the orbital speeds of Mercury, Venus, and Mars are increasing, and thus the gravitational constant should be changing. No study has shown any variation in it. This would also defy the law of energy conservation, as energy increases and all other orbital parameters remain the same.

Also, if atomic frequency is decreasing, then five properties of an atom (e.g. Plank's Constant) should be decreasing. Statistical studies of past measuremente of at least four of these show a change of the proper direction and magnitude.

It would also bring radiometric dating methods in line with other methods, and explain why no isotopes have half-lives of greater than 50 million years.

You may be confusing the vibration caused by radioactive decay (as used in atomic clocks) with molecular vibration caused by temperature. And even if they are the same, things would tend to solidify, not evaporate.

The decrease in c could also explain redshift. The redshifts of galaxies tend to differ by fixed amounts. This would indicate that galaxies can only travel at specific speeds (similar to electrons in an atom only being able to exist at specific energy levels). That really doesn't make much sense, unless redshift is not, in fact, caused by speed, but by the decrease of c. This theory would predict that the redshifts of certain distant galaxies will undergo abrupt decreases. If galaxies are not, in fact, moving away from us, then the big bang will fall (with a big bang). A decrease in c would also mean that binaries in distant galaxies should appear to orbit in slow motion.

I give up. Why IS old glass thinner at the top?

False. Typical SHORT-PERIOD comets are destroyed after several hundred (assuming the depletion rate is constant and your depletion data is accurate, neither of which are confirmed), since they are closer to the sun more often, and are moving fairly slowly, as well as interacting closely with the larger planets, because they're inside the planets' orbits for so long. Typical LONG-PERIOD comets have a far slower rate of erosion, since their exposure to the destructive elements of the inner solar system is far less.

The reason the comets in the Oort cloud aren't ejected is because they're out of the range of most planetary gravitational attraction. at about 1.5 ly, isn't much to nudge them, except a tug from an occasional passing star.
Comet Life
1. Oort cloud (for ?? orbits)
2. *Nudge*
3. Kuiper Belt (for ?? orbits)
4. *Nudge*
5. Long-period comet (for 1-10,000 or more orbits)
6. *Nudge by Jupiter or other Jovian
7. Short-period comet (100's of orbits, depending on size and composition.
8. Collision, capture, ejection (into long-period again), or burnout.

And then, of course, one must remember that "old comets don't die, they just fade away" and become meteors and/or remnants, because the STONE bits aren't likely to be fizzled away by the sun's heat.

Still, one thing:

"As for hybrids, you may as well say that a dog that was half St. Bernard and half Chiwawa was a new species. It's possible that the two are capable of reproducing, but only under unusual circumstances. Or it's possible that they're the same species, just with very different appearances.."

You were joking here weren't you? I'm just not getting this point. Are you claiming that different breads of dogs are different species? Cause I thought that hybrids had to be different species, and since SB's and Chiwawa's ARE the same species, then that's hardly a new species. A child born of a black and white parents wouldn't be a hybrid, or a new species. An ass on the other hand...is.

"Sickle-cell: No evidence it's a mutation. "

Okay, what other explanation is there? Your other arguments about mutation revolve around the fact that the gene would have existed originally. So, what changed with the colour of the moth then? Did it always have the ability to change colour? And when the industrial revolution hit did the moths suddenly go 'hey ho, trees getting dark, better activate my "make my colour black" gene so that I don't stick out as much.' Or was there a variation produced by chance that caused a moth to be born melanic, which was then passed onto succeeding generations, as their new colour allowed them to surive better, so they reproduced more successfully, and gradually replaced the original peppered coloured moth? Right, that makes sense. That is called 'disruptive selection'. Selection as in "natural selection". As in "evolution".
Since it has been proved that these are the same species (they can interbreed with no trouble), then what is your explanation? Do we all have latent genes that can get activated by environmental pressures? Do our genes store information for thousands of different possible designs for every possible environmental outcome?

BTW, all genes appear to mutate naturally at a constant rate. In animals typically one or two mutations for each 100,000 genes in each generation. Certain agents increase this natural rate: high-energy radiation (X-rays, ultraviolet light, alpha and beta particles and neutrons) and certain chemicals(formaldehyde, mustard gas). And nearly all are harmless. Some are harmful. And a very small number are useful. Of course, under 'natural selection', you wouldn't notice the harmless ones, the harmful ones would not survive for very long (talking in generations here. Sickle cell is an unusualy case due to it's hepl preventing maleria), and the useful ones would allow the animal to mate more successfully that it's competition, and should take hold.

Talking in millions of years, that's a very few actualy useful evolutions that have to take place to produce the effects we've seen.