USMC when i deploy can i bring personal rifles or pistols? - Page 4




 
--
 
February 14th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Their are a lot of anomaly's with the so called dating system used in paleontology. Explain this: how did Lucy "the worlds largest Tyrannosaurus" leg bone (which broke when being airlifted out of the dig site) contain red blood cells and soft marrow? Do you believe soft tissue survives for 65 million years. This is only one such case to contemplate. I simply don't assign a date, since I or nobody else I know was their. Something to think about.
February 14th, 2015  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
Their are a lot of anomaly's with the so called dating system used in paleontology. Explain this: how did Lucy "the worlds largest Tyrannosaurus" leg bone (which broke when being airlifted out of the dig site) contain red blood cells and soft marrow? Do you believe soft tissue survives for 65 million years. This is only one such case to contemplate. I simply don't assign a date, since I or nobody else I know was their. Something to think about.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50

I watched it until I saw the very evident christian confirmation bias propaganda. They didn't even come to a conclusion in the video, just speculation...big difference between "possible" and "absolutely proven through rigorous hypothesis, repeatable testing, and consistent conclusive evidence"...
February 14th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
I watched it until I saw the very evident christian confirmation bias propaganda. They didn't even come to a conclusion in the video, just speculation...big difference between "possible" and "absolutely proven through rigorous hypothesis, repeatable testing, and consistent conclusive evidence"...
The point is that whole age thing is speculation. Whether 60 billion years or 6 thousands years. To date no firm conclusion has been reached regarded the soft tissue. You can goggle it to death and you'll hear educated guesses and speculation from all sides. No body has proven anything other than it's doesn't fit the established model.
--
February 14th, 2015  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
The point is that whole age thing is speculation. Whether 60 billion years or 6 thousands years. To date no firm conclusion has been reached regarded the soft tissue. You can goggle it to death and you'll hear educated guesses and speculation from all sides. No body has proven anything other than it's doesn't fit the established model.

Age thing on what? There is some very good science from many fields spanning archeology, biology, chemistry, geology, etc that provide very compelling evidence (literally mountains of it) for a pretty solid timeline of the Earths age, its' ages, and how life evolved over that time. It isn't 100%, but just because it isn't doesn't mean we throw our hands up and say "well we can't prove it to an absolute certainty and noone was there to see it so ...oh well". The more we dig, the more we find out...some things may be challenged, and that's the great thing about it...it is okay to say "wow, I was really wrong about my theory, it just doesn't work because the science and evidence doesn't support it, let's try something else"...bottom line, being wrong about a detail doesn't cause the entire system to come crashing down...it actually leads to another path that has the potential to be a great breakthrough.
February 14th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
Age thing on what? There is some very good science from many fields spanning archeology, biology, chemistry, geology, etc that provide very compelling evidence (literally mountains of it) for a pretty solid timeline of the Earths age, its' ages, and how life evolved over that time. It isn't 100%, but just because it isn't doesn't mean we throw our hands up and say "well we can't prove it to an absolute certainty and noone was there to see it so ...oh well". The more we dig, the more we find out...some things may be challenged, and that's the great thing about it...it is okay to say "wow, I was really wrong about my theory, it just doesn't work because the science and evidence doesn't support it, let's try something else"...bottom line, being wrong about a detail doesn't cause the entire system to come crashing down...it actually leads to another path that has the potential to be a great breakthrough.
.

This is the kind of thing that could go on and on. However I'll try and be brief. The statistics for evolution have questions and they have gaps to complete the single celled algae to human continuum. Yes evolution exist look at dogs, all originated from some common wolf - fox ancestor. But did the 1st living cell which is more complex than the most sophisticated computer spontaneously generate, given some lightning, and primeval soup? I choose to believe this is highly unlikely. I'm a scientist - engineer by trade. Believing in evolution as the sole driving force for the diversity of life takes faith as does believing in the Bible. As for the age of the earth the Bible nowhere states 6000 years.
February 14th, 2015  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
.

This is the kind of thing that could go on and on. However I'll try and be brief. The statistics for evolution have questions and they have gaps to complete the single celled algae to human continuum. Yes evolution exist look at dogs, all originated from some common wolf - fox ancestor. But did the 1st living cell which is more complex than the most sophisticated computer spontaneously generate, given some lightning, and primeval soup? I choose to believe this is highly unlikely. I'm a scientist - engineer by trade. Believing in evolution as the sole driving force for the diversity of life takes faith as does believing in the Bible. As for the age of the earth the Bible nowhere states 6000 years.

Simply because there are gaps and they don't have a 100% solution doesn't mean that they aren't onto something.

They have been able to create conditions similar to those of the early earth and found in a fairly short amount of time chemical compounds becoming more complex when introduced to sunlight, water, temperature variance, etc which produced amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

"One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[1] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. Bernal shows that based upon this and subsequent work there is no difficulty in principle in forming most of the molecules which we recognise as the basic molecules of life from their inorganic precursors. The underlying hypothesis held by Oparin, Haldane, Bernal, Miller and Urey, for instance, was that multiple conditions on the primeval Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized the same set of complex organic compounds from such simple precursors. A 2011 reanalysis of the saved vials containing the original extracts that resulted from the Miller and Urey experiments, using current and more advanced analytical equipment and technology, has uncovered more biochemicals than originally discovered in the 1950s. One of the more important findings was 23 amino acids, far more than the five originally found.[2] However Bernal rightly shows that "it is not enough to explain the formation of such molecules, what is necessary" he says "..is a physical-chemical explanation of the origins of these molecules that suggests the presence of suitable sources and sinks for free energy".[3]"

  1. Miller, Stanley L. (1953). "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions". Science 117 (3046): 528–9. Bibcode:1953Sci...117..528M. doi:10.1126/science.117.3046.528. PMID 13056598.
  2. Parker, ET, Cleaves, HJ, Dworkin, JP et al. (March 2011). "Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (14): 5526–31. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.5526P. doi:10.1073/pnas.1019191108. PMC 3078417. PMID 21422282.
  3. Bernal J.D. (1967) op cit p.143


If they were able to do that in a lab over the course of one week...I would imagine over the course of several hundred million years a it is absolutely reasonable to hypothesize that a self replicating, single celled organism is conceivable.

Also, evolution isn't the sole driving force for the diversity of life, it is a byproduct of it. The environment and natural selection is the driving force behind the diversity...
February 14th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
Simply because there are gaps and they don't have a 100% solution doesn't mean that they aren't onto something.

They have been able to create conditions similar to those of the early earth and found in a fairly short amount of time chemical compounds becoming more complex when introduced to sunlight, water, temperature variance, etc which produced amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

"One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[1] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. Bernal shows that based upon this and subsequent work there is no difficulty in principle in forming most of the molecules which we recognise as the basic molecules of life from their inorganic precursors. The underlying hypothesis held by Oparin, Haldane, Bernal, Miller and Urey, for instance, was that multiple conditions on the primeval Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized the same set of complex organic compounds from such simple precursors. A 2011 reanalysis of the saved vials containing the original extracts that resulted from the Miller and Urey experiments, using current and more advanced analytical equipment and technology, has uncovered more biochemicals than originally discovered in the 1950s. One of the more important findings was 23 amino acids, far more than the five originally found.[2] However Bernal rightly shows that "it is not enough to explain the formation of such molecules, what is necessary" he says "..is a physical-chemical explanation of the origins of these molecules that suggests the presence of suitable sources and sinks for free energy".[3]"

  1. Miller, Stanley L. (1953). "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions". Science 117 (3046): 528–9. Bibcode:1953Sci...117..528M. doi:10.1126/science.117.3046.528. PMID 13056598.
  2. Parker, ET, Cleaves, HJ, Dworkin, JP et al. (March 2011). "Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (14): 5526–31. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.5526P. doi:10.1073/pnas.1019191108. PMC 3078417. PMID 21422282.
  3. Bernal J.D. (1967) op cit p.143


If they were able to do that in a lab over the course of one week...I would imagine over the course of several hundred million years a it is absolutely reasonable to hypothesize that a self replicating, single celled organism is conceivable.

Also, evolution isn't the sole driving force for the diversity of life, it is a byproduct of it. The environment and natural selection is the driving force behind the diversity...
I try to present you with anther outlook is all which you prefer not to consider, it's not my job to persuade you. I ‘m an engineer. Let me tell you what science is, it’s not a hypotheses about possibilities. Coulombs law, Maxwell’s equations, Amperes Law, Lenz’s Laware all electro-magnetic principles and laws that can be proven in a laboratory setting time and time again thus allowing them to be into the realm of hard science.
Producing amino acid in a primordial soup that may or may not duplicate conditions that once existed on earth is a long shot from saying these acids grouped themselves into complete and complex single living cells that can duplicate and form positive random mutations simultaneously at a given instance in time to create advancement in species. It should be noted that few if any positive mutations have yet to be recorded or do we simply add on a few more million or billion years. The statistics against enough positive random mutations to have occurred are quite high to account for the all the different categories phyla of creation. But I’m sure if you dig deep enough you will find those who differ. I realize this may go against the grain of some convention wisdom; after all we are trained in evolution starting in grade school.
February 14th, 2015  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
I try to present you with anther outlook is all which you prefer not to consider, it's not my job to persuade you. I ‘m an engineer. Let me tell you what science is, it’s not a hypotheses about possibilities. Coulombs law, Maxwell’s equations, Amperes Law, Lenz’s Laware all electro-magnetic principles and laws that can be proven in a laboratory setting time and time again thus allowing them to be into the realm of hard science.
Producing amino acid in a primordial soup that may or may not duplicate conditions that once existed on earth is a long shot from saying these acids grouped themselves into complete and complex single living cells that can duplicate and form positive random mutations simultaneously at a given instance in time to create advancement in species. It should be noted that few if any positive mutations have yet to be recorded or do we simply add on a few more million or billion years. The statistics against enough positive random mutations to have occurred are quite high to account for the all the different categories phyla of creation. But I’m sure if you dig deep enough you will find those who differ. I realize this may go against the grain of some convention wisdom; after all we are trained in evolution starting in grade school.
I don't think anything productive is going to come out of this, to each his own.
February 14th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
I don't think anything productive is going to come out of this, to each his own.

Ditto my friend,
February 14th, 2015  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
We have now established the origins of the marines.

This thread was about if recruits are allowed to bring their own firearms, it seems they aren't. However, Mike said something here. A service member is entitled to purchase his own firearm (the 2nd Amendment) is he or she allowed to "use" his privately purchased firearm? Let say a soldier is buying a different handgun than is issued the US military, is he allowed to use it? Now the US military is issued the Beretta 9mm, but what if he buys a S&W MP, can he use it as long as it has the same caliber?

Science is not about theories, it's is about methodology, there are 18 steps required to be called science. The minimum usage of these steps is 6 steps, the methodology will push the scientific theory further.

in geology, the method of dating strata is the Ar/Ar. This method is also used by paleontologist.
 


Similar Topics
Springfield Sniper Rifle vs. K98 Sniper Rifle
RE & Separation Codes