Questions for Evolutionists

[crispybits]

Serious question for any of the creationists, you guys believe in the literal truth of the story of how God made Adam, then made Eve, then despite it being forbidden they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil because the devil came along as a snake and tempted Eve, and then God threw them out of Eden right? (the story goes on from there, but it's the Adam and Eve creation and life in Eden chapter I'm asking about)

[DoomYoshi]

Serious question for any of the creationists, you guys believe in the literal truth of the story of how God made Adam, then made Eve, then despite it being forbidden they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil because the devil came along as a snake and tempted Eve, and then God threw them out of Eden right? (the story goes on from there, but it's the Adam and Eve creation and life in Eden chapter I'm asking about)

These questions have their own thread. No trolling here.

[Lootifer]

Seriously Player; You are a real bright boy, just deceived like a fool if you think that Hydrogen cars are my invention.



“IT IS the fuel of the future—and always will be,” sceptics joke. And in recent years it was hard not to chuckle: fuel cells and other promising hydrogen technologies looked like they would remain little more than science-fair projects.

But a series of alliances suggests that things are looking up for the lightest of all elements. Carmakers are increasingly worried that building battery-powered cars will not be enough to meet tough emissions and fuel-economy standards. So hydrogen is once again gaining credibility—and the R&D dollars that could finally make it a reality.

Late last month, for instance, Toyota and BMW revealed plans to cooperate on hydrogen fuel cell research. Only days earlier Ford, Daimler and Nissan had announced they would team up in a push to bring their own fuel cell technology to market as early as 2017. “This technology has the biggest potential for emission-free driving,” said Thomas Weber, Daimler’s chief technologist.

Carmakers have been toying with the technology for years. In the mid-1990s hydrogen power was seen as a revolution in the making. The big draw was the fact that the gas could either be burned in an internal combustion engine, much like gasoline, or used in a fuel-cell stack. And the only thing to come out of the exhaust pipe would be water vapour.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpet ... wered-cars


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-piMEZ2WcQU

Holy Guacamoley batman. What are you talking about?

The hydrogen engine was discovered, widely known about, and in no way restricted at exactly the same time as the petroleum based internal combustion engine was developed. You know how I know this? Because they are essentially the same thing... Both electrolysis of water and the ICE were developed from about 1860 onwards.

The hydrogen engine has not been developed in advance of the petroleum based ICE for two very obvious reason, neither of which is a conspiracy:

• - Abundance of oil; sure its a scarce non-renewable resource, but theres still a huge amount of it. Lots of oil = cheap oil (when compared to renewable electricity generation) - funnily enough this is starting to change now as oil become more scarce; a bizzare coincidence that e-vehicles and h-vehicles are being developed at the same time right?

• - The relatively low volumetric energy density of hydrogen [compared to petroleum] and the resulting cost in compressing it down to competitive volumetric energy density levels (even when compressed to 700 times standard atmospheric pressure; gasoline is still 6-7 times denser than hydrogen)

I can rattle off the energy cost equations showing you exactly how un-competitive h-vehicles are right now; but its not worth the time since you will likely ignore it anyway.

[Viceroy63]

And knowing that, you still find it difficult to believe that there exist a process of turning wood into coal? That this process has been around for a while and the technology was suppressed? That it is now, all some kind of a lie conspiracy from the Christian Science Institute?

I don't get you at all! (Viceroy63 scratches forehead in confusion.)

And let me just say that Cost is not the issue here, because in a hypothetical alternate universe I could be the one in your place trying to explain to me the expense of drilling for oil and converting it into fuel, over the cost of our modern cars and planes that run on, "Water!"

And that I am the nut ball for thinking that fossil fuel could be a reliable source of world energy?!

We use fossil fuel because that is what the masses who don't know any better are told to do. The same thing for Nuclear Energy. The sheeple do not make the choice. Any technology invested in and made to work would work eventually; And cheaply. But it would not line the pockets of the elite filthy rich who are going to make sure that they stay filthy rich be insuring mass ignorance. Like in the case of the theory of "Evolution!"

[DoomYoshi]

Let us make an assumption: Information wants to be free. Now this isn't the greatest of assumptions in metaphysical terms, but it is surprisingly accurate for figuring out the cost of suppression of information. My point is: it is easier to spread information than it is to suppress it. Thus, given two hypotheses a)information has always been known but suppressed and b)information does not exist; I am going to go with b). If such a process existed, how is it possible that it has been kept secret this whole time? This isn't the X-Files telethon is it? No, this is the era of Wikileaks. This is the era in which all Nazi, USA and USSR documents pertaining to the WWII are Public Domain.

However, this has nothing to do with anything because: COAL IS NOT A RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPE! Carbon dating has nothing to do with how long coal takes to form.

[tzor]

Btw, you ever notice how hell is always a lot more descriptive than heaven? The lake of fire, the gnashing of teeth etc etc
So, what about heaven? How does it look like? Is this ever revealed?

Most descriptions of hell are generally used to sort of describe something like a parent would tell her child, "you don't want to go there."

Anyone who might have a clue about heaven basically flat out gives up on describing it.

From this we can conclude that it is easy to under-describe a really horrible thing and get away with it, but you never want to under-describe a really wonderful thing.

[tzor]

And knowing that, you still find it difficult to believe that there exist a process of turning wood into coal?

Well there is a process of turning wood into charcoal, does that count?

No, I don't think it does either.

[Viceroy63]

Impossible I say; That's impossible and I won't believe you even if you showed me the youtubes videos and the links and the photos just like you do to me. I dare you to prove it and show me the link so I can debunk that statement. Yeah! I dare ya.

[PLAYER57832]

The problem with evolutionist regarding the Biblical model of creation: It's not that they won't believe in God creating everything, it's that evolutionist are incapable of understanding the words of the God. They can't believe. Why? Because the Bible is spiritually written and spiritually discerned. And the unsaved person cannot understand it. But saved people have the mind of Christ and we are given ability to understand. (1 Corinthians 2:10-16, paraphrased for the simple).

The only way to understand and gain knowledge, is to believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and rose from the grave 3 days later, conquering death and sin. And freeing you from the wages of your sins (past, present & future), which is death (spiritual death forever).

The choice is eternity in Hell, where there is gnashing of teeth, pain, suffering, darkness and no ability to escape. Or eternity in Heaven, where there is peace, no tears, no suffering, joy, no crying, singing.

Chose now... Don't delay.

The real problem is that most people who accept the basis of facts for the theory of evolution are Christian.. perhaps not worldwide, simply because Christianity is outnumbered in many areas, but definitely here in the US.

Try again... as in try actually answering something to do with evolution. The biggest problem with most young earth "debates" are as above, they don't have anything to do with what evolution actually says or people who accept science actually think.

[Lootifer]

And knowing that, you still find it difficult to believe that there exist a process of turning wood into coal? That this process has been around for a while and the technology was suppressed? That it is now, all some kind of a lie conspiracy from the Christian Science Institute?

I dont know, google didnt turn up much when I typed in artifical coal... However... can you please provide me the source of information that shows artificial coal made in the way you outlines was radio dated and gave an age of 20 million years?

My stuff I can back up (water electrolyses into H2 and O2, ICE works, oil has historically been cheaper extract per unit of energy than renewable electricity generation (wind/geothermal/hydro), etc etc). Can you please now back up you claim? Note: the Christian website is fine, im just looking for information; however I cant listen to youtubes at work

And let me just say that Cost is not the issue here, because in a hypothetical alternate universe I could be the one in your place trying to explain to me the expense of drilling for oil and converting it into fuel, over the cost of our modern cars and planes that run on, "Water!"

You are not fuelling it with water. Water/Hydrogen/Oxygen is just a transitionary part of the process; much like a battery in electric vehicles. You are fuelling it with electricity (to electrolyse the water); this electricity I presume is coming from renewable sources (since fuelling it with fossil fuels would be contradictory to your argument). So you can directly compare the cost of renewable electricity generation + the cost of the mechanisms to get that electricity into the hydrogen cars fuel tank vs. the cost of producing oil + refining it + mechanisms to get it into your existing fuel tank.

Currently it is cheaper to do the latter; though seemingly that is changing, hence why e-vehicles and h-vehicles are having more research put into them.

We use fossil fuel because that is what the masses who don't know any better are told to do. The same thing for Nuclear Energy. The sheeple do not make the choice. Any technology invested in and made to work would work eventually; And cheaply. But it would not line the pockets of the elite filthy rich who are going to make sure that they stay filthy rich be insuring mass ignorance. Like in the case of the theory of "Evolution!"

Eh I am sure there has been some exploitation of market power by big oil and big govt in a manner that you suggest; however it is fairly insignificant compared to the aforementioned cost argument. Oil has been plentiful and cheap to pull out of the ground for roughly 100 years. This is an undisputable fact.

[PLAYER57832]

Towards the end of World War II, the Germans were on the verge of incredible discoveries and inventions. Planes that could fly at super sonic speeds. Missiles that can deliver bombs to nations across the Atlantic Ocean and to any part of the world for that matter. Bombs that could lay waste of whole cities with a single explosion and Submarines that would only need to surface for the loading up of solid food substances. These submarines would take the oxygen that they need directly from the water and the left over hydrogen gas would be more than enough to power the submarines' hydrogen engines.

Needless to say that this technology conveniently disappeared to a world ruled by Oil tycoons and banking barons. Only now when humanity is at the ends of it's ropes does this technology resurface to the fore front of science and technology in hopes of resolving our current energy crisis. A crisis which I might add was created by greedy corporations willing to do anything for the almighty dollar. Including the suppression and hiding of technologies that would benefit all of mankind!

I can present a few far less far-fetched scenarios.. such as why Los Angeles has a great freeway system instead of subways (General Motors, in particular is implicated, to get Californians would by more cars).and why hemp/marihauna was originally outlawed (because of the threat to timber companies using tree pulp)

Seriously... you don't have to invent things.

Seriously Player; You are a real bright boy, just deceived like a fool if you think that Hydrogen cars are my invention.

Maugena covered most of it, including that I first heard of hydrogen powered cars back in 1988 or so. (likely before, but being charitable), I am female (my job title of "mom" sort of gives that away , and a few other things.

No, the invention to which I was referring was your spinning of real events. There is no question that the petroleum, car and even coal industries have gone to great lengths to refute any opposition, to stifle a lot of potential competition. I gave a couple of pretty well documented examples. I can also remember a time when you could make a fairly decent chunk of change by inventing alternative fuel engines and then selling them to GM or Ford who would then sit on the patents... one that ran on chicken manure comes to mind, just as an example. However, the funny part about your scenario is that they have a patently vested interest in encouraging folks to dispute science, particularly global warming. Its no cooncidence that so many young earthers are also climate science doubters. No cooincidence at all.

And the real issue is that you don't have the basic science understanding to get why your coal scenario is wrong... and we don't really have the time to teach you much more, given that you refuse to even acknowledge anything that comes close to truly challenging your ideas.

[Lootifer]

Coal is said to take 20 million years to form. Yet, If I take a piece of wood, in a tube, add trace elements of clay and water, seal it in a vacuum, bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months; Presto... that piece of wood is now 100% coal. That newly formed coal, when tested by scientist to determine it's age, wow, you guessed it. They determine it's 20 million years old.

I need to see the supporting information for this claim. Even the creation website that talks about coal does not suggest the artificial coal goes from having current levels of c14 (from source wood or plant material) to c14 levels that would imply age of 20 million years.

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: the rest. Shame on you!

Wait what part = "the rest"?

I'd like the record to reflect I had not seen this before I "for shame"ed you in the other thread.

Great minds?

Heaven includes not wearing shorts nor underwear--and everyone accepts this as normal.

Leaving this part out is shameful

SHAME ON YOU.

[BigBallinStalin]

I sense coordinated trolling...

[nietzsche]

I declare an alliance with Viceroy.

We will smack you all and only kill each other when you are all dead.

See http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p4076976

[Viceroy63]

*logarithmic



I was curious about that laboratory created coal, so I googled it. Can anyone guess what the top hit was?

It was Creation Worldview Ministries. I've never heard of this group before, but I might suggest that they're not exactly impartial.


The only other reference to actually being able to create coal in a lab, was a link to Conservapedia, where their source was, you might have guessed it, Creation Ministries International.

Towards the end of World War II, the Germans were on the verge of incredible discoveries and inventions. Planes that could fly at super sonic speeds. Missiles that can deliver bombs to nations across the Atlantic Ocean and to any part of the world for that matter. Bombs that could lay waste of whole cities with a single explosion and Submarines that would only need to surface for the loading up of solid food substances. These submarines would take the oxygen that they need directly from the water and the left over hydrogen gas would be more than enough to power the submarines' hydrogen engines.

Needless to say that this technology conveniently disappeared to a world ruled by Oil tycoons and banking barons. Only now when humanity is at the ends of it's ropes does this technology resurface to the fore front of science and technology in hopes of resolving our current energy crisis. A crisis which I might add was created by greedy corporations willing to do anything for the almighty dollar. Including the suppression and hiding of technologies that would benefit all of mankind!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ljhGUia9Yk

Through out history we see this same pattern repeated over and over again where the good of the many is sacrificed for the financial benefit of a few. Turner and his car was an excellent example of this. The creation of the modern car was some 30 or 40 years ahead of it's time and the big 3, Ford, GM and Chrysler, were not able to keep up with the possibility that this car would change everything. So they stole his ideas and his patents and I believed even had the guy killed. But the point is that the car was suppressed and never heard of again. The Big 3 went on to rake in the billions of dollars in profits based on the ideas of a nameless inventor.

But some would rather believe that it is the "CMI" (Creation Ministries International) who are the one's with out scruples. Go figure?

http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/in-the- ... y.all.html

The same thing has happened with the discovery that Coal can be artificially created in a laboratory. It's just common sense because if this is true then an entire industry is put out of work and thousands (Thanks for the correction stranger) are left unemployed and in need of finding new careers. But the ones who really lose out are those few owners and captains of industries who dig the coal out of the earth and have an invested interest in continuing to do so.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PILlP_yDZ2o

Unlike the diamond industry which was also once believed to be unreproducible except by millions of Years of pressure and heat, the coal industry is not a luxury but a necessity for the heating of peoples homes so the people would have to pay if they want power. Now we know that Power is actually one of the most if not the cheapest commodity in existence. So why do the light bills still come so high?

The fact is that making "artificial" coal is a process that has been with us since the great depression. Even Before Nazi Germany Ingenuity. So how come we don't hear about this? Could it be that these damn religious nuts like "CMI" are to blame for concealing the matter in the first place?

The following can be read at...
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed006p64
Journal of Chemical Education, 1929

And knowing that, you still find it difficult to believe that there exist a process of turning wood into coal?

Well there is a process of turning wood into charcoal, does that count?

No, I don't think it does either.

I am re-posting this comment because there is simply no mention of "Charcoal" in the 1929 article of the Journal of Chemical Education! What is mentioned in the second sentence is, "Bituminous Coal." Now, I went ahead and Google searched "Bituminous Coal" and "Charcoal" to see what I could see? About the two different coals if in fact there is a difference. While I understand that tzor did answer his own comment, I would like to post this comment and expand on it, in case anyone is thinking along the lines that we are confusing two types of Coals???

Let me remind everyone that the article is talking about the creation of "Artificial Coal" and even goes on to compare "Artificial Coal" to "Natural Coal" found in the earth. And no where is this article discussing Charcoal. The article itself is documented evidence of something that happen almost 100 years ago and not in recent findings. So the fact that most of us are hearing of this for the first time is due to some actions of men to suppress this knowledge and there can be no other plausible explanation because mankind is an inventive creature and would have figured out a way to invent something out of this even way back then unless actions were in fact taken to suppress such inventiveness in man.


Bituminous Coal

Bituminous coal or black coal is a relatively soft coal containing a tarlike substance called bitumen. It is of higher quality than lignite coal but of poorer quality than anthracite. Formation is usually the result of high pressure being exerted on lignite. Its composition can be black and sometimes dark brown; often there are well-defined bands of bright and dull material within the seams. These distinctive sequences, which are classified according to either "dull, bright-banded" or "bright, dull-banded", is how Bituminous coals are stratigraphically identified.

Bituminous coal is an organic sedimentary rock formed by diagenetic and sub metamorphic compression of peat bog material. Its primary constituents are macerals vitrinite, and exinite. The carbon content of bituminous coal is around 60-80%; the rest is composed of water, air, hydrogen, and sulphur, which have not been driven off from the macerals. Bank density is approximately 1346 kg/m³ (84 lb/ft³). Bulk density typically runs to 833 kg/m³ (52 lb/ft³). The heat content of bituminous coal ranges from 24 to 35 MJ/kg (21 million to 30 million BTU per short ton) on a moist, mineral-matter-free basis.

Within the coal mining industry, this type of coal is known for releasing the largest amounts of firedamp, a dangerous mixture of gases that can cause underground explosions. Extraction of Bituminous coal demands the highest safety procedures involving attentive gas monitoring, good ventilation and vigilant site management.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bituminous_coal


Charcoal

Charcoal is a light black residue consisting of carbon, and any remaining ash, obtained by removing water and other volatile constituents from animal and vegetation substances. Charcoal is usually produced by slow pyrolysis, the heating of wood or other substances in the absence of oxygen (see pyrolysis, char and biochar). It is usually an impure form of carbon as it contains ash; however, sugar charcoal is among the purest forms of carbon readily available, particularly if it is not made by heating but by a dehydration reaction with sulfuric acid to minimise introducing new impurities, as impurities can be removed from the sugar in advance. The resulting soft, brittle, lightweight, black, porous material resembles coal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcoal

Now; While the Process of creating Charcoal may sound a lot like that of creating Artificial Coal, here is a more modern Article I found describing the very Artificial Coal mention in the 1929 article...

Abstract
The artificial coals (AC) or coal models were prepared from sawdust, lignite and cork by the method of hydrothermal carbonification. The specific techniques used to study their pyrolytic behaviour were thermogravimetry, Gieseler plastometry and differential thermal analysis (DTA). The principal conclusions drawn are:

Conclusion
1.
(1) The initial stage of pyrolysis of AC can be considered to be governed by an overall reaction of first order, as in the case of natural coals.

2.
(2) All caking types of AC showed quite low softening points (75–210 °C), the values for sawdust AC being lower than those for the cork AC. The latter showed fairly sharp peak values of the temperature of maximum fluidity, but the sawdust AC showed only a range of temperatures of maximum fluidity, the upper limit being less than the maximum fluidity temperature of the cork AC. However the temperatures of resolidification were consistently high, namely 425 °C and above, thus bringing in a significant point of similarity with natural caking coals.

3.
(3) The value of maximum fluidity was very high for one AC sample, exceeding 27000 dial div./min. Such a high value is rare for natural caking coals. With the latter, no correlation could be observed between the caking properties and maximum fluidity. Hence the role played by the stability of the plastic mass may be the more dominant factor in the caking process.

4.
(4) From the comparison of the softening temperatures and the temperatures of active decomposition of the AC, it is inferred that the process of initial softening of coal may be physical in nature.

5.
(5) The AC indicated an overwhelming exothermicity in their primary pyrolysis, thus behaving like the natural coals studied under similar experimental conditions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6176900296

To me it sounds like AC (Artificial Coal) has a lot more in common with "Natural Caking Coal" than with "Charcoal." The process is nearly identical and as mention in conclusion # 4. is simply an act of physics and not millions of years to produce.

It is clear to me that we are talking, "Apples" and "Oranges" or should I say "Artificial Coal" (like Natural Caking Coal in the earth) and "Charcoal."

[Lil_SlimShady]

[Viceroy63]

I declare an alliance with Viceroy.

We will smack you all and only kill each other when you are all dead.

See http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p4076976

LOL

[Lootifer]

Er, nice story you got there VIceroy, but if you had asked nicely I could have confirmed for you that you can make coal in a lab. My university degree is in fact chemical and process engineering, and a decent amount of ongoing research at the time I was studying was into biodiesel - or artificial diesel.

What is your point though?

Firstly (and most importantly, please reply to this point rather than the second point below) artificial coal does not imply in any way that natural coal is "young" (i.e. post-flood); in fact its meaningless to the argument. You should be bringing up arguments to support the debunking of carbon and other radiometric forms of dating.

Secondly (and please only respond to this after you have addressed my first point) the reason artifical coal has been ignored [since 1916 or whatever your article states] is because of one very important fact: The energy cost to produce artifical coal is greater than the energy output of it. I.E. why waste time making a fuel, when the initial fuel (electricity/combustion heat/whatever) required to make it has a higher energy content than the product fuel; the only time this is reasonable is when you plan on using the product for something other than a fuel (e.g. plastics make great lunch boxes).

[Viceroy63]

My point would answer both of your questions.

To say, as Timminz wrote, that because the source of the information was some Christian Organization makes it invalid is incredibly ignorant. The source should only matter if the Organization in question already has a reputation for falsifying information. The whole thing was to show that the person who brought this up, while he did not post a source at all should not be so easily dismissed just because an initial search show a religious source.

And I might add again that the cost effectiveness of the process is not the issue because any technology heavily invested in will eventually be made to work, and work at a profit. Otherwise there would be no satellites in orbit if they only considered the cost of putting that payload into orbit. The fact that some technologies are not very well known is not only due to ignorance on part of the masses who accept what is given them but to greed as well by those who would keep certain things to themselves for their benefits only.

The Young earth or Old earth issue was never the point.

[Lootifer]

My point would answer both of your questions.

To say, as Timminz wrote, that because the source of the information was some Christian Organization makes it invalid is incredibly ignorant. The source should only matter if the Organization in question already has a reputation for falsifying information. The whole thing was to show that the person who brought this up, while he did not post a source at all should not be so easily dismissed just because an initial search show a religious source.

So let me get this stright: The whole artifical coal thing was just to point out that christian organization sources should not be immediately dismissed? Thats fine, seems a little over the top, but ok.

And I might add again that the cost effectiveness of the process is not the issue because any technology heavily invested in will eventually be made to work, and work at a profit. Otherwise there would be no satellites in orbit if they only considered the cost of putting that payload into orbit. The fact that some technologies are not very well known is not only due to ignorance on part of the masses who accept what is given them but to greed as well by those who would keep certain things to themselves for their benefits only.

The underlined is not true if you actually read what I said: energy cost is what im talking about (not monetary or anything else). Energy cost will never made to be profitable; i.e. perpetual motion is impossible.

[PLAYER57832]

The source should only matter if the Organization in question already has a reputation for falsifying information.

Exactly why we don't consider your sources reputable.

[nietzsche]

I got this Viceroy.

Lootifer, we all know that Australians can't even use a calculator. All you do is play with your kangaroos.

So back off, and go to the gym or kayaking because it's clear you don't know what you are talking about.

[Lootifer]

I got this Viceroy.

Lootifer, we all know that Australians can't even use a calculator. All you do is play with your kangaroos.

So back off, and go to the gym or kayaking because it's clear you don't know what you are talking about.

You're just grumpy because BBS found the secret sugar inlet into your supposed never ending candy floss machine in the fun-room!

[tzor]

To say, as Timminz wrote, that because the source of the information was some Christian Organization makes it invalid is incredibly ignorant. The source should only matter if the Organization in question already has a reputation for falsifying information. The whole thing was to show that the person who brought this up, while he did not post a source at all should not be so easily dismissed just because an initial search show a religious source.

Well yes and no. Your first point that because the organization is "Christian" that it is invalid is a good one. A lot of important scientific discoveries was made by Christian Organizations.

But your second one is dead wrong. Whether or not an organization has been caught falsifying information is immaterial. (Clearly if they have been we can throw their "evidence" out the window.) The real question is their expertise in the field and how they approach science. Unfortunately, many of your Christian Organizations approach science backwards. They start off with the bible and try to find evidence that might support their interpretation of that Bible. This is problematic in two ways. The first way is man's ability to see things that aren't there. We are hard wired to see patterns even when no such patterns exist. The second is to pre-weigh the evidence in view of the desired result. Evidence that favors the position may be weighted more than evidence that does not even though both may be equal in number.