S0PH1ST3S

He replied with this. when atheist try to explain the lack of intermediate forms in the evolutionary profile of man from African apes, they make the bold claim that the changes from ape to man happened over billions of years due to the ''microness'' of the changes per year. Now my good friend as you progress into time, the genetic information increases along the evolution profile. so if you take a snapshot of time axis from the time T0, the African ape popped up in the profile to the time Tn when the first human popped up, the genetic information between these time boundaries increases and the rate per time ( gradient) increases or decreases depending on how fast the ''mythical'' mutations responsible for speciation change are occuring. there my friend you have the mathematical model of a continuous monotonic function of time. the none existence intermediate genetic information violates its continuity. You have have just received your first lesson in mathematical modelling. Go into this formulation and formally disprove me and i thank you and go away less stupid than before. thk you very much for the typo correction above (this keyboard is dealing with me) . it should read the Green's function for the d alembertian is simply( simply is used to infer that it reduces to something less complex and intuitive) . i used this to communicate parabolically that he who is struggling with fundamentals cannot understand advanced stuff in a particular field of study. as for your explanations on functions above, you sounded like a new convert friend of mine who before receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit tried to speak in tongues. that is utter rubbish and I suggest you edit or remove it altogether in order not to lose face before some math or physics friends of yours who may stumble on this comment thread. Go to a library, borrow a text book of elementary calculus ( I recommend to you books my favourite author , Prof. TM Apostol ) and acquaint yourself with a formal theory of functions or go to MIT opencourseware and get free lectures in first year college calculus. . The iconoclast 12:07 PM +George Forsyth what you explained was adaptation and adaptation does not lead to speciation. grass eating mouse becoming meat eating mouse is not evolution but adaptation. that is still a mouse. 

It does. Oddly enough he started not responding after I was able to get two others to ask the same questions. (( Also caught this same person claiming to be a Physicist after looking back in his comments yesterday) But it is curious...at some level you have to know that you are twisting random knowledge to fit personal criteria...and then to use it as a way to bully through a dialectic? How would one take himself seriously academic wise? I mean this thin line of misunderstanding is prevalent everywhere. It makes no sense to be self serving, at least to me. Thank you guys for helping me out. Please feel free to define any of the stuff he has stated if you have the knowledge.

Hello. I stumbled over this bit of information and was hoping for a little cross-checking. I have no opinion on what he is implying, I simply am interested in whether there are errors in the method since I have been excited about the discovery of a Homo Neanderthalensis burial site with flowers. -Here is the Link to the Site http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/alien_watchers06.htm I also posted the main points without the rhetoric below. -Scientists accept they have accurately calculated the age of Neanderthal bones by using this Radio Carbon C14 method. -C14 is a type of carbon formed in the upper atmosphere when cosmic radiation particles bombard it. It forms radioactive carbon dioxide and from the atmosphere in minute quantities through photosynthesis passes into plants and animals and so is absorbed by all living things along the food chain. Natural carbon C12 is also present in all living things but in much greater quantity. The ratio of C12 to its minute cousin C14 is constant in all living things (today one C14 atom to one billion C12 atoms). -Scientists have accepted the assumption that C14 has been forming in the atmosphere constantly and continually for millions of years and that its build up which they calculate would have taken 30,000 years has reached its constant saturation point (the radiocarbon reservoir) and that as much C14 is now decaying as is being formed. Once a plant or animal dies it stops taking in C14 and it starts to decay at the above rate while C12 stays the same. -* C14 absorbed into any living thing during its life time starts to decay once it dies. * Half its amount of C14 decays away to nitrogen gas in about 5,700 years. * Half of the remaining half decays away in a further 5,700 years and so on until immeasurably small. -Calibrations given to the C14 Clock: 5,700yrs after death 50% of C14 remains = 150 c14 counts per second after 11,400yrs 25% of C14 remains = 75 C14 counts per second after 17,100yrs 12.5% of C14 remains = 37.5 C14 counts per sec after 22.800yrs 6.25% of C14 remains = 18.7 C14 counts per sec after 28,500yrs 3.12% of C14 remains = 9.8 C14 counts per sec after 34,200yrs 1.56% of C14 remains = 4.9 C14 counts per sec -Libby’s theory he found to his surprise a considerable discrepancy in his measurements; that apparently, radiocarbon was being created in the atmosphere somewhere around 25% faster than it was becoming extinct. Since this result to him was inexplicable he put it down to experimental error. -Richard Longenfelter found, ’There is strong indication, despite the large errors that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25%’. -Other researchers have since confirmed this finding including Hans Suess, of the University of Southern California in the Journal of Geophysical Research and V R Switzer writing in Science. -Professor Melvin Cook Professor of Metallurgy at Utah University reviewed the data of Suess and Lingenfelter and reached the conclusion that the present rate of formation of carbon 14 is 18.4 atoms per gram per minute and the rate of decay 13.3 atoms per gram per minute, a ratio indicating that formation exceeds decay by some 38 per cent. -Cook went one step further by taking the latest measured figures on radiocarbon formation and decay. He calculated them back to the point at which there would have been zero radiocarbon. In so doing he is in effect using the radiocarbon technique to date the Earth’s own atmosphere. His resulting calculations showed that the atmosphere is only around 10,000 years old! -Many researchers have shown that the C14 in the atmosphere is ’still’ increasing at between 25 to 38% more than is at present decaying. When we calculate back the equation to zero point of C14 in the atmosphere using this increasing 25-38% present ’greater build up of decay ratio’ in the atmosphere we find we get a starting date for the C14 build up process in the atmosphere by cosmic ray bombardment of only c10,000 years ago. This would have the effect of drastically reducing the amount of C14 that was present in the atmosphere and thereby reduce the amount absorbed by living organisms during their life times. When reading these reduced amounts it would create an artificially, much older dying date when using the present wrongly calibrated C14 clock setting. Scientists calculate Neanderthal disappeared some 32,500 years ago according to present dating by C14, when applying the erroneous assumption that C14 saturation has already been achieved. To arrive at their date of 32,500 years ago the C14 reading in the Neanderthal bones would have been c 2% of original ratio, achieved by a C14 clock count reading of c 6 counts per second. If we now rework this date using the short 10,000 year period of C14 build up and the 2% of original ratio ( 6, counts per second ) used in the evolutionists original calculation. Then a Neanderthal who had died say 4,400 years ago would have absorbed C14 from the atmosphere that had only been building up for 5,600 years. Then at death the Neanderthal would only have absorbed 18.67% of the scientists anticipated full 100% saturation amount of C14. If absorption into the atmosphere started 10,000 years ago then 4,400 years ago absorption would have been in operation for 5,600 years, if saturation takes 30,000 years then 5,600 years would be 18.67% of 30,000 years. This would give a false calculation for the year of his death showing erroneously that he had been dead for 14,286 years at the time he died. It is ridiculous to think that the atmosphere of the Earth is only 10,000 years old as the science evidence suggests. Agreed, but the truth can often more incredible than fiction. There is now new evidence that we shall be considering that although the atmosphere is old the absorption of C14 has possibly only been going on for the last 4,400 years; that the C14 penetration and absorption into our atmosphere was inhibited prior to this time and that when the protection ended the Earth’s climate also changed radically.

Yeah, I read all night and you are right about Green's Function. Also I can't find what he is relating the epsilon too.

Would anyone have references I can research upon my own time as to not take up any of yours? This is one of the strong points he continuously argues. I was merely confused and thought it was still up for debate, yet leaning towards discrete. However your post Was extremly helpfull. Thank you.

I know this out of scientific context, and maybe it is just because I'm young...But I find this peer-checking completly and utterly beautiful. green function of the d' Alembertian is but a Dirac delta distribution in space-time ?

I really don't know guys, I need concise explanations on what these are and how they are attributed/applied. This guy is contributing to the dis-beleif in evolution. That wouldn't be the main problem except he uses physics, theology, and evolution in a horrible woo-woo fashion. Please explain sir? Please explain! I value any contribution! I seam to be an idiot, would you by chance elaborate? And I thought we were leaning toward time as discrete and not continuous? http://www.researchgate.net/post/On_the_central_inconsistency_in_physics_between_the_old_continuous_formalism_and_discovered_in_the_last_century_ubiquitous_discreteness_in_Nature

I found a person using mathematical formulas as a way of bullying through his argument, but as you can see he posts them ambiguisly without defining. Please help? Is he missinterpeting formulas? The iconoclast Yesterday 12:40 PM +George Forsyth sir fossil records violates the mathematical formulation of the evolutionary process. I guess that is too much for you to grasp. i wild suggest you visit your EPSILON DELTA DEFINITION of continuity you learned in your first year in college. you can't talk yourself out of this. there are no intermediate fossils. time is a continuum The iconoclast 3:04 AM +Zgg Why don't you impress me by stating and proving formally atleast three claims. that form the basis for any radioactive dating technique. As for speaking in tongues, the spiritually dead like you interpreted that as drunkenness so it will be useless for me to waste time explaining to someone struggling with elementary euclidean geometry how the green function of the d' Alembertian is but a Dirac delta distribution in space-time. when i mentioned Youtube i mean you should watch videos and see for yourself how God works through his people. i fear very much that you will not see even if you were shown anything for all atheists are living in denial. However only those who have eyes can see. I am aware these are physics related as well but I wanted to hear it from mathematicians since you are the masters of formulas. Also last statement I want checked is The iconoclast 12:38 PM +George Forsyth Just show me sir. it baffles me that evolution is a continuous function of time yet the function has values only at the end point of any closed interval of length say two billions years while we struggle to find any value in between. A continuous function of time will have many intermediate values than boundary values but that is not what is observed The mathematical model of evolution is very inconsistent with the formal definition continuity of functions. Thanks.