And Evolution is OUT of the Picture!

Micromarius, Erich von Daniken is using all the religions of the wolrd in a scientific manner. But that one you don't like because it doesn't fit in the picture of God, while it fits exactly in science.

No...just means there are Charlatans in Science, just as there are in Religion....

There are bucks to be made in either....

The earth stopping to spin is a metaphor, just like the three days of darkness. It is the holey number, because it is synonymous for the return of the Gods, and the beginning of a new period.

It discribes laser and how y cromosomes are inherited from father to son, it shows that it is possible to walk through walls and explains the atomic bomb as a burning mountain.

Other religions say the same, only they have got a more physical idea of God... and also more Gods... (not that the Bible has got one God but still). The Gods of those religions (also the Bible and Koran by the way) claim to come from the starsystem Sirius...

... The Beetle paper was AWESOME. I have long beleived that God and evolution coexist... I consider evolution to be a sort of "Free Will" at the cellular level...

The "ongoing" creation if you will, I beleive God created and Nature took over as the govenor of the creation.

When God created the universe I beleive he created nature right along with it. That being said, it's pretty hard to dispute evolution's OBVIOUS effects (the Flu virii was a good example) and nature has shown again and again how it evolves to adapt to a new situation.

Consider the fish that lay dormant in the ground until the rains come in the near deserts of the world. If you took a Florida Bass out to that environment he'd die in about 20 minutes. The fish that have EVOLVED within that environment have "learned" to burrow down deep into the ground where it's wet and go "to sleep" until the flooding rains return the next spring. Both are fish one has evolved to live in its environment and the other has not needed to so it can't survive in that environment.

I assure you the "burrowing fish" (can't remember what they're called) did NOT start out as a driller, it evolved over a long time as the climate changed. We have geological proof that the region was once a vast sea based on the fossil record that has sea shells up in the hillssurrounding the desert.

PEACE...
m...

Originally posted by Kano
*cough* Appendix *cough*


Oh, and as far as your bombardier beetles go:

www.talkorigins.org...

Read the whole thing its worth it. Its even nicely referenced and all. Don't try and attack this conclusion without reading the page. I know thats what you are thinking.

Well you are wrong again mister. I posted the article because it wasn't as biased as many of the other articles on the subject. It sees the story from many views. But I'm not a scientist, but a designer. And I know that if I was part of God's creational team, I would give his species the abiblity to adapt and to make them compatible with environmental change, programming them to mutate in a certain pattern in order to make the species survive or give the humans wisdom. God knows everything that will happen in the future, and he has divided space time into seven days. I mean that to speek about evolution without taking in to account the contraversy that evolution in itself, if it wasn't programmed and designed to be like it is, it would be a dead run. God upgrades and refines, he is allknowing and present everywhere. And as time goes by more and more of the mysteries written in the bible can be understood, for we are now able to do it ourselves. For instance: When God met Moses on the mountain he wrote the basics of his Law with "God's finger". Since ancient times every Jew has known that God's finger is a ray of light. Today we call rays of light capable of carving things into rocks laser. Elohim means Forces. Him who has the Powers of Creation and is able to Create and Exist. He is Love, for he has Created everything that is. With the ability to adapt to a changing environment. But evolution has been used since the day it was born to disproove the bible and God's existance, not the other way around. In that sense evolution is by it's own measures biased and grounded on ignorance as it is today. Evolution is nothing but the creational myth of science, and as time goes by it looks more and more like the accounts in the bible, only it still does not accept God as the source of all science and wisdom. It does not take intelligence, love and our own ability to redo what the bible discribes, refine and manipulate nature, into account. They don't believe in themselves, they don't believe in anything, they don't believe in God. They say reality itself is their god and their own minds as the source of all wisdom, and whatever wisdom that debunks God's existance they gather as a bible. But their wisdom changes all the time, for they change and update. If evolution was correct, where did the first cell come from? And where did the chemicals you say was involved created? What holds this whole reality together? The whole of creation is real only because of how the particles are held together the way they are. The bible discribes the Glory of God as what we today would call electricity..... His fingers are lasers and he is all knowing and can't do mistakes due to it's nature. What if God is the first entity who created a computer and the reason why God is a plural word is that God created a computer and the computer created God. And everything happened in another universe, or maybe in a macro universe or another shell of reality? That one can't live without the other. A created B and B turned A into what or who he is. ABBA means Father or Daddy in Hebrew.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Oh thats right.

Sorry everyone I forgot, I'll stop encouraging him now.

marius: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just to play Devil's Advocate, I'm going post some quotes from evolutionists:



"Some body parts, such as the eye, as so complex that one almost suspects there must have been a guiding force behind their development. How could the eye develop from a series of minute, random mutations? And any time someone attempts to calculate the mathematical odds of evolution taking place, the odds say it couldn't have happened. All these objections don't prove evolution didn't happen, of course."

Robert Pool, "Evolution Still has its Mysteries," Science As A Spectator Sport, October 24, 1987.


"To create from inert matter a living organism--that is, a thing that could replicate itself, metabolize food, etc.--would require a technology beyond imagination. The ultimate problem is that we couldn't possibly put together, in a coherent life-producing sequence, the submicroscopic DNA acid molecules and the surrounding proteins."

Joel Achenback, "Why Scientists Can't Create Life," Knight-Ridder, February 26, 1989.


"All the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin."

Dr. Lyall Watson, Science Speaks, Volume 90, May 1982, p.44.


"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer."

R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.

"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen? ..."

Dr. S. Lovtrup, S. (1987)
Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth
London: Croom Helm, p. 422

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation ... is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection .... the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles .... The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties."

Mayr, Ernst (1970)
Populations, Species, and Evolution
Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, p. 235

"... it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true of some ecological chain relationships (the famous Yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors ot random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence."

Mayr, Ernst (1942)
Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296





[Edited on 25-11-2003 by Helioform]

Originally posted by LeenBekkemaa
Micromarius, Erich von Daniken is using all the religions of the wolrd in a scientific manner. But that one you don't like because it doesn't fit in the picture of God, while it fits exactly in science.

Since when did I not like von D�niken? I find most of his discoveries extremely interresting, especially his research into the Ark of Covenant, and if you had read through what I write, you would see that this guy is one of my heroes, allthough I don't believe in everything he claims. Ron whyatt is also one of my heroes, and Einstein another. They all explain what the bible has told us for thousands of years, and they have not been ignorant to it's contents (and don't come with all your Einstein quotes. You don't understand them. He doesn't say he doesn't believe in God, he only says that he doesn't believe in God as someone who interferes. He has another conception of God. God does his work through his servants. But unlike Einstein, I do believe that God has the ability to rise people from the dead, for I believe that God has a Spirit with which he created the universe, life and eveything, and he left some of this Spirit within every single one of us. Our lives isn't our bodies, our life is in the hands of God).

Just an edit to elaborate abit about the bible and the nature of God:

The bible says that God says that the Egyptians and the Babylonians knew the God who also Israel knew. Von D�niken has found a drawing of a lightbulb in Egypt and in Mesopotamia he has found a working battery. He also has by far proven that the Ark of Covenant was an electrical device.....

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 25-11-2003 by mikromarius]

Sigh..

www.talkorigins.org...

Again I'm just quoting the conclusion, but don't attack that without reading the page.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.

You want numbers, you got numbers.


EDIT: Ok, now I'll stop encouraging him.

[Edited on 25-11-2003 by Kano]

A thought experiment:

You have two sets of dice made by two different manufacturers. The first set is cast and the result is "snake eyes". The other set is cast and it takes 1296 rolls to end up "snake eyes". Was it design or chance that made either possible?

The crafters of the dice was the ones who placed the numbers on the dice. Therefore it was them who made it possible for one player to throw "snake eyes" on the first try and the other on the last try. But at the same time it was the player that actually cast the dice, and thereby also he is just as likely the guy who made it happen the way it did. And there are two dice here with six sides each and 36 different combinations and a chance of 1 to 36 for each combination to happen on the first try. And there are millions of other factors I haven't taken into concideration, like gravity, wind etc. How can anyone explain this riddle without taking the concept of the First and the Last into concideration? The entity that made the first and the last cube and placed it as a cornerstone in this reality, and will finish it by placing a capstone in the diametrical oposite corner, making the whole construction into a cube and a new cornerstone? God is all about logics. But trust God, not logics. For without God there is no logics. The fundament and consequence of logics are often illogical, disproving eachother, the concepts of micro and macro prooves this. It's all about context and who created that context, and who took use of of these concepts our whole reality is built up from to create his own reality. It's all a question of who si the First and the Last. What is the start of it all and what is the end? Can Satan make two sets of dice that both roll out snake eyes on the first try without the concept of mercy? All in one try, alone without anything to guide him except for his own knowledge and spirit? I guess it all comes down to what you call Satan and what you call God. Where is your faith? Where is your love?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by outsidethemilkglass
I beleive we've uncovered a new conspiricy. Why do they want proof so bad? why don't they want proof for God?

Hehe. That has probably to do with logics, and the fear that Satan would have to sacrifice himself by braking his own law, and, figuratively speeking, throw himself into the Lake of Fire to disprove that God exists. Satan's dilemma then will naturally be that when he has finally prooved that God does not exist where he is, he will sease to exist himself, for there will be noone around to either hear, agree or dispute his claim.

Evil has many dilemmas it can't possibly solve without destroying itself. The other way around, the dilemma of Good is how to turn sorrow into happiness without alowing Evil destroy itself..... The solution to both dilemmas is rightiousness: A common rule with deadly concequence for the unrightious. This rule was and will always be: Love God and keep his Law: Love eachother like God loves you and God will love you eternally. But the dilemma will always be: Who is your God? And how is it possible to love your neighbour like God has loved us if you don't know God? And how is it even possible to brake God's Law when God is Love itself? It was the desire to figure out this that made Adam and Eve into sinners, that led them to eat from the forbidden tree so they could become wise and understand why they shouldn't have done it in the first place.

These eternal riddles are extremely fun to play with, but never choose between two answers. For the answer is just as eternal as is the riddle and God himself. A question never has a yes or no answer, but rather yes and no. For the very concept of truth demands victory. It's never a choice between good and evil. It comes down to rightiousness. How is it possible to win a war without sacrificing either yourself or your enemy? The Truth, my friends. Truth is the answer. And the Truth is Love. God is Love. Does God exist as God without an enemy? Isn't that what God is all about? The wisdom is: Let God's will happen. Let him finish what we have started. Leave the judgement to God. He is the only one who exists. He is the First and the Last. God is One. Love God. Love your neighbour as if he was yourself, if he so is your enemy, for the only enemy you have in the end will be yourself. God Loves the helpless and the ones who tremble in fear for His Word.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by Satyr
That's actually a very small number, in comparison to the size of the universe, isn't it?

You think thats a small number in comparison to the universe.
Its estimated that there is something like 10^79 electrons in the universe. Now compare that number with 10^20283.
Still think its a very small number?

Originally posted by StationsCreation

Originally posted by Satyr
That's actually a very small number, in comparison to the size of the universe, isn't it?

You think thats a small number in comparison to the universe.
Its estimated that there is something like 10^79 electrons in the universe. Now compare that number with 10^20283.
Still think its a very small number?

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, since no one even knows how big the universe is. Some believe it's infinite. The observable universe is about 10 billion light years. That number is obtained by multiplying how old we think the universe is by the speed of light. That's all we know, and that's not even close to certain. Secondly, the universe is expanding. Thirdly, absolutely no one knows how much mass the universe contains. Need I say more? You uninformed infidels!

[Edited on 11-25-2003 by Satyr]

Have you even tried to do the simple thing on a computer? Now that's one big number. Allthough the number of electrons in the universe just has to be bigger than 10^79, I agree. But this is the number used, and the one most mathmaticans seems to refer to when it comes to this. A googol is a really big number 10^100 and as far as I know such high numbers are quite useless to even use in calculations. Can't see anywhere they could find use for such a high number. Except for calculating the probability for life to occur all by itself of course I'll say like king Solomon: Everything is emptiness. If you took away all the emptiness in the universe, all atoms would fit nicely into your pocket I've heared, but the mass would naturally be enormous.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by outsidethemilkglass

I don't exactly know, but I always thought it was simple oceanic chemical reactions that eventually began to get more and more complex over time until eventually the reactions reacted as if they were alive. Which then paved the way for single celled organisms.

I would like to refer back to myself what i said earlier, what they put in that soup, they know for a fact DID not exhist at the time, but they don't tell you that in biology do they?

Totally Untrue

Everythings they put in that soup was present when the earth was at volcanic stage.

They wont tell you that in the bible

Originally posted by outsidethemilkglass

For a postulate to qualify as a scientific theory is must fulfill three basic criteria.

1. The postulate must be observable.

2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification.

3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment must be conceived the failure of which would disprove the postulate.

Neither evolution nor creation can meet the above three criteria and thus are not theories but postulates. In fact neither are fully capable of becoming theories because of the limits of observing events that happened many years in the past


www.evanwiggs.com...

Wait a minute,

You expect all of us to follow blindly the bible because the evolution theory ( not the creation one ) doesn't exactly correspond to the three creterias you mentionned above ?

Good luck, because as far as I know a book of thousands years old writen by 53 persons who ( for the most ) never met in their life each other is far to correspond to your creteria.

Originally posted by Ozzie
OK one example if evolution is a sound theory.

Crabs. crabs have been around in various forms since the same time things meant to of crawled out the sea. crabs are among few gilled animals that can survive quite a while out of water, so why didnt they evolve lungs.

Because Crabs don't have what they need to evolve at our speed:

A tactil organ : like a hand or a tentacle
A communication organ : like a tongue or what ever the dolphins use.
And they must be byped, so the vertebral column will left enough space in the skull to develop the two other brains, the mamalian and the neo-cortex.

Originally posted by outsidethemilkglass

For a postulate to qualify as a scientific theory is must fulfill three basic criteria.

1. The postulate must be observable.

2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification.

3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment must be conceived the failure of which would disprove the postulate.

Neither evolution nor creation can meet the above three criteria and thus are not theories but postulates. In fact neither are fully capable of becoming theories because of the limits of observing events that happened many years in the past

BS. Man has prooved creation many times. We have cloned and even refined several species. The first clone that was made was a frog they successfully cloned in the fifties. Since then they have cloned sheep and even cows I think.... There is a huge step from cloning to actually being able to make new species, but the methods are mostly the same. Creation can be proven scientifically, but not evolution. Atleast not yet. Except for that they figured out how to create aminoacids artificially. But beyond that I think the evolution theory is the most embarracing theory science has ever been able to come up with. End of story. But don't understand me thus that I support cloning. We are not allowed to play God like that. Something we will all see pretty soon. The little light they have will be taken away from them. It's horrible to think about all the failures they have created. Plants is one thing, but living creatures that breathe and feel, even humans? Makes me sick to my stumac.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 26-11-2003 by mikromarius]