It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in


posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown

You said that naturalistic pertains to that which is non-supernatural.

This of course would depend completely on perception. Imagine that there is a Super Scientific God in the sky (which I believe in) who in his perception is natural and even may come from a family that would consider themselves "natural."

Yes in the context I used it that is what I meant. I do not contend that nature is the only thing that exists. Rather, nature is the only objective standard we have because the supernatural has never been reliably observed.

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:24 PM

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by platosallegory

so how do ID folks propose intelligent design works?

I say it works like this.

Evolution is a program. Wether it's designed by God, an advanced civilization or the universe is a natural quantum computer, I don't know. What I do know is evolution is a program and everything about it screams program.

First, you have to go to the source of Darwin's theory which is Darwin himself. Darwin thought there were these intermediate steps because evolution in his mind was a random process.

So these intermediate species would evolve until a strong enough species evolved and survived through natural selection. This is why Darwin was surprised to see well defined species and not total chaos.

In other words to get from A to B Darwin wanted to see A1, A5, AB2, B3 then B. Instead he saw A then maybe AB2 then B. He saw well defined species in transition and not intermediate steps.

This is a product of design. You don't need intermedite steps and the reason you have these links between species is because they share the same code. I've designed a few websites in HTML and I would copy and paste old code when I was designing a new code. So code can share the same tags but produce different designs. It's like Microsoft 2000 and Microsoft XP. They share the same code because they come from the same designer, Microsoft.

Bill Gates said:

"DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."

So 10 websites can share the same code (HTML) but have different designs.

With code you have errors. This is what people call mutations. Most time you have to go into the code and change the error but sometimes the error looks okay and you decide to incorporate it into the website. This would be a helpful mutation.

These are random but they are a product of the code.

The errors occur because the code is being run over and over again and this is what happens with DNA. It's being transcribed over and over and sometimes that transcription process is faulty and you get an error.

If we knoew the code we could fix the error just by changing the code. Because we are looking for Darwin's theory we have to try to fix the errors through medicine and surgery.

We know DNA has things like stop and start tags just like you would see in source code. For instance we know the start of a comment almost always starts with GT which corresponds to /* and AG which corresponds to */.

I think we need to look within Junk DNA. Junk DNA also screams code because as a Designer you don't throw away old code because your not using it, you store it in case you need to use it again. This code would be stored in introns.

You can also store the code within Junk DNA and it would be ideal. You can transmit the code and keep it hidden because of all the noise.

If I wrote:


If you look at this it is meaningless unless you have the key to read the code.

The key is 4-5-2-3-6

With the key you can find the name FRANK.

So DNA has not only the code but also a key to read the code.

Here's some articles on Junk DNA:

"Junk DNA" is actually the "software" that allowed complex organisms to evolve, according to an Australian molecular biologist.

Professor Paul Davies thinks the best place to look for a message from ET is Junk DNA

Professor Paul Davies, from the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, believes a cosmic greeting card could have been left in every human cell.

"If ET has put a message into terrestrial organisms, this is surely where to look," said Davies.

A computer could be used to find obvious attention-grabbing patterns within these stretches of DNA, he said. If a sequence of junk units of DNA were displayed as an array of pixels on a screen and produced a simple image "the presumption of tampering would be inescapable".

Again, I think Darwin's theory of evolution is a fantasy and the Intelligent Design theory of evolution is correct. Darwin falsified his own theory.

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

This is not the case because evolution is a program and not the wishful thinking of Darwin and those who follow him.

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown

Yes in the context I used it that is what I meant. I do not contend that nature is the only thing that exists. Rather, nature is the only objective standard we have because the supernatural has never been reliably observed.

Yes, but it is this other world that I find fascinating. If some of us didn't, then we may never explore the concept of other universes, or parallel universes.

What damages brainstorming for many of us is when a dogmatic religious stance comes in.

It makes it safer to discuss God or the Source if we can keep it out of the realm of dogma.

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by thesdoc

Originally posted by stander
Abiogenesis comprise two parts: ABIO and GENESIS. "Abio" is made of A,B, I and O that somewhat fused together and formed the word "abio," which doesn't make sense -- unless I have a very thin dictionary.

Hello, I am not judging or taking sides here, I just wanted to point out that the abio part has a very well defined and non-ambiguous meaning.

A - BIO means without life. A is "a" negative in ancient greek. Bios (Βίος) = life (ζωή).
Abiogenesis (Αβιογένεσις) = Birth without life. So the term is used to define the moment life emerged out of lifeless organic matter.

O Stokos.

ABIO is not surely a randomly formed prefix, but "abio" is not a standalone word you would find in the Greek dictionary (if it is there, then point me to it), whereas "genesis" is, specifically in the English dictionary. That's what I meant. So if "abio" is not a standalone word, it cannot lead you to the text that deals with the origin of life on this planet. The word "genesis," which comes originally from Greek as well, can be applied though: you run into the first book of the Bible called "Genesis" and learn that life started in the oceans of this planet, which agrees with what the science theorize about. But unlike the idea that Nature had some instrument still uknown to science to form self-replicating biochemical structures, Genesis implies that life was introduced to the H2O environment by an intelligent mind -- not necessarily by the Biblical God -- if you read between the lines.

[edit on 5/21/2009 by stander]

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 07:35 PM

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown

Evolution is fact, if anyone out there could prove that it was indeed not fact then you deserve fame and fortune. If evidence was found to prove that evolution is false under lab scrutiny then it would be welcomed with open arms into the scientific community.

That depends on what thread you're in eh existence?

Here is just a sample of the evolution of your opinion.

"Don't get me wrong, im not saying its 100% fact.- ExistenceUnknown"

Or this one was gracious of you.

"In other words Scientific Theory is the Politically correct way of saying "Fact". That's the beauty of science. It will not claim anything a fact if there is a .000000001 chance that something could prove it wrong.- ExistenceUnknown

Fact is my friend, you were wrong then.

"Why do people think there are no transitional fossils?



Tiktaalik - existence unknown. "

and you're wrong now.

My question is why do you continue to believe things the most corrupted congressionally found guilty, incompetent keystone cops of science their are in all the sciences in the first place?

Ill make this bold a statement, that their is not one transitional fossil they have ever found they can say in honesty, is unequivocally absolutley, proof prima facie evidence to represent the sideshow for the evolution of Darwin and his deliberately daft theory of evolution.

Ambulocetus = debunked

Archaeopteryx = debunked as an extinct bird and another was fraud

Tiktaalik = this one was a complete joke, and yes, tiktaalik = debunked

It would seem evolution is like a super sneaky stealth ninja cat, that only moves when you’re not looking.

existence unknown, would have us believe the transitional forms found recently are also the genuine article but as you have seen in the article by the NY Times and the free republic, the same ass backwards approach to science is applied as you will read in the article.

Speculation, interpretation, celebration, and disemination with the same terminally self righteous arrogance and religious zealotry darwinist are famous for in addition to the same short memory when they are reminded of it.

Tiktaalik: Our Ancestor?
Apr 11, 2006
by Frank Sherwin

With the continued invalidation of the corrupt theory of neo-Darwinism in the eyes of many, and school boards nation-wide taking a favorable look at intelligent design, it is not surprising that evolutionists are scrambling to enact damage control. Enter an alleged “missing link” that some are saying reveals one of the greatest changes in the field of zoology.

The New York Times (NYT) reports that the recent discovery of a large scaly creature in Canada is “a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans” (Wilford 2006). National Geographic News (NGN) crows that “fossil hunters may have discovered the fish that made humans possible.” (Owen 2006). But before evolutionists start celebrating, they should keep in mind that Tiktaalik roseae is incomplete. Scientists as of yet unable to determine what the hind fins and tail might have looked like. Paleontologist Neil Shubin states, “We’ve really only begun to sort of crack that spot [the small rocky outcropping 600 miles from the North Pole where Tiktaalik was found]” (AP 2006).

Also noteworthy, is the use of diffident language by the secular reporters and scientists when discussing Tiktaalik. For example, NGN says this creature “may” be a missing link. While the NYT states that changes in this creature “anticipate” the emergence of land animals. One may anticipate leaving the house, but he is still in the house.

He was told by one of the posters, that what he was using to substantiate his claim, would be proven a pathetic portrayal of another piltdown parody. Yet this is the so called intellectual body politic the so called "science community" that is begining to show us why they fight so hard to keep their monopoly hold on science in public schools but what is even more hystrically ironic, is that they have the audacity to say ID is not science. hehe

Gee, guys, just what do you think you are?

the alternative?

Beginning with just the raw chemistry alone, Living things would have to have acquired, a plethora, a veritable cornucopia of complex systems we observe today. But the acquisition of all the interdependant and super complex, supporting biological systems and components for every NEW beneficial system an increase of information is undeniably required.

Biological systems require this new information if the theory is true. This again, evolutionist posit their assertions, assuming the theory is already true. They have done this for so long and with so many ideas that an entire construct of bad science For every postulated evolutionary advance that you write you name it as ‘natural selection’.

Natural selection, however, adds no information whatsoever.

It only reduces it.

If you are trying to invoke mutations, then all known ones are a loss of information. If you contend that reducing the information in populations is evolution in action, then don't quit your day job and above all don't become an entrepreneur because, If you really believe that the ‘downhill’ process of natural selection can take you further ‘uphill’, then what you believe mutations can achieve that ‘lose’ information,, is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but who thought he could make it up on volume.

It is a common assumption for neoD’s to assume that just because something is/was beneficial, must mean a random genetic mutation was “discovered” and exploited the benefits.

Take the bacteria that degrades nylon for instance:

There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.

2. All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.

3. All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random origin of these genes—the chance of this happening is exceptionally low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp, and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.

This explains why the most current data and latest information for DNA has rocked the Darwinists where they are scrambling to save their theory yet again. This time the new buzz words we will hear are the "Engines of Adaption" or just another mechanism someone makes up as they go and then they wonder why we look so ticked off when a darwinst says " Clearly, you just don't understand the way evolution works" making you wonder how he got the latesr memo for this weeks new representation presentation.

Ask yourself, honestly, do we really need to spend all this time trying to find this kind of fossil crap anyway? What benefit does it have when ALL of it is wrong and much of it is fraud with a Science and their Scientist's garnering all the respect and prestige, of a used car salesman and just as well educated. They aren't doing all this for the benefit of science people.

They are doing it to marginalize religion. I challenge you to check out science blogs in Biology and you will find they spend more time mocking creationsist, Christians and ID'ers and very little Science is talked about unless you vist the "How to debate creationists" or the "contradictions of the Bible" sections they all seem to have. I ask when did science become so obsessed with religion? Do they get any work done or is this lemur the best they got?

I see you used the old nylon bacteria canard.
You really do need to brush up on your theory existence, your material is way "out of style" and they don't even use that example anymore. try the 2nd chromosome with the fused centromere in the middle proving we have the same common ancestor to chimps. I love ripping on that one because I never liked Ken Millers counterfeit christianity

4. The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons. This is most remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The probability of this happening by chance in all four antisense sequences is about 1 in 1012. Furthermore, the EIII gene in Pseudomonas is clearly not phylogenetically related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their ancestry). Also, the wild-type pOAD2 plasmid is not necessary for the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the antisense strands.

Some statements by Yomo et al., [Yomo T, Urabe I, Okada H (May 1992) “No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 89 (9): 3780–4.] express their utter consternation at the findings:
“These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.

“The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.
“Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.”

It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop codons for each sequence. This would be about the simplest way that the antisense strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly likely that the transposase genes are involved.
Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).

This is just one of many well thought out refutations to the nylon eating bacteria that was forced fed sugar and nylon. Isn't margarine one molecule away from being vinyl?

5. The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers. This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.

6. The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.

P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources—such as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively. Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids).The chromosome of P. aeruginosa has 6.3 million base pairs, which makes it one of the largest bacterial genomes sequenced. Being a large genome means that only a relatively low mutation rate can be tolerated within the actual chromosome, otherwise error catastrophe would result. There is no way that normal mutations in the chromosome could generate a new enzyme in nine days and hypermutation of the chromosome itself would result in non-viable bacteria. Plasmids seem to be adaptive elements designed to make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome.

Now, to look at stasis in bacteria: P. aeruginosa was first named by Schroeter in 1872. It still has the same features that identify it as such. So, in spite of being so ubiquitous, so prolific and so rapidly adaptable, this bacterium has not evolved into a different type of bacterium. Note that the number of bacterial generations possible in over 130 years is huge—equivalent to tens of millions of years of human generations, encompassing the origin of the putative common ancestor of ape and man, according to the evolutionary story, indeed perhaps even all primates. And yet the bacterium shows no evidence of directional change—

stasis rules, not progressive evolution.

Stay tuned,, Next we take on Bacteria eating citrate and exposing the lenski lie of lame experiments

[edit on 21-5-2009 by Con Science]

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
You would like me to give a 2+2 = 4 dissertation on this, using facts so you can stump me, but it doesn't work that way.

I do not stump people.

It was simply the honest question...

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Either you have access to higher consciousness or you do not.

There is no clear definition of consciousness, never was and never will be. Nobody really knows where it begins and if there is higher one then ours...

How you can discuss existance of higher consciousness without knowing your own, the one the dog has, or a plant or the rock ?

What defines who has access and who does not ?

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
It would be like trying to explain the laws of physics to a 3 year old.

Try me...

What makes you think that where you are now I was not some 30 years ago ?

Exploring other worlds and playing with perception of this one is not the end of all things, been there, done that

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 12:23 AM
Im glad there are many posts on the history channel website debunking the claims that this is earth shattering news.

Also has anyone found it interesting that the scientists involved in the discovery knew they would have to keep it top secret. Wonder why they thought that.

[edit on 22/5/2009 by theflashor]

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by platosallegory

Thank you for your intellegent and obviously knowledgeable answers and input. The perspective you put on evolution is much more feasible and easy to believe. I have never been able to accept Darwin's theory, it simply does not hold water.

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:16 AM
thanks to those who tried to explain how ID works. But the answers i got wasnt what i was lookinG for. I'll try put it another way.

If i went back in time what would i see at the point the designer designed a new species? I mean would there be nothing then a puff of smoke and a new species would appear? is that what i would see?

thats what i mean by "how does it work?"

[edit on 22-5-2009 by yeti101]

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:25 AM
One thing I have noticed is that there does seem to be a presupposition amongst people who believe in the THEORY of evolution that anyone who disagrees is somehow just an uneducated person. On this I beg to differ. Of course it is true that there are many yokels running around saying evolution this and God that but the opinions of the people here who think that this particular THEORY is asinine appear to actually be WELL educated people, and I count myself as one of them.

I understand that you think you are being scientific - you've been trained to think that way in grade school - but we have all gone through this phase as well. And if you study more you will find that you have been trained to believe in an asinine lie. Wake Up - evolution is really a ridicules theory that has proven false virtually every time. The main players such as Piltdown man are always proven false under scrutiny. In reality the opinion of an evolutionary biologist is far from biased and untainted.

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:12 AM

Originally posted by yeti101
If i went back in time what would i see at the point the designer designed a new species? I mean would there be nothing then a puff of smoke and a new species would appear? is that what i would see?

Basically YES

That is what would you see.

Magic man, ooops, sorry, designer, just making things happen as his ass gets bored from time to time ...

Isn't that just dandy

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:14 AM
Late to the contest... But hey!

Guys, this is a LEMUR.

You would think this marvelous panel of 'superstars' that were gathered to decipher the significance of this fabulous looking fossil would have noticed that this animal was buried intact (mostly likely alive
) and accompanied by enough companion fossils to provide JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE of Velikovsky's catastrophism theory.

Darwin was exposed as a (data manipulating) fool over 50 years ago when Velikovsky published his Earth in Upheavel book.

The thing you just have to love about Absurdists (what some of you might refer to as 'scientists'
)... Is that they NEVER seem to let the facts get in the way of their theory.

PS. You guys that think you believe in evolution... If you're not too busy... Could you possibly show me the evolution (using Darwin's gradualist, 'survival of the fittest' paradigm
) of a new species that has actually been recorded by 'science'.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by golemina]

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:29 AM
Since I am not responding to this "Con Science" person due to his ridiculous debate tactics, I will leave it to say to the rest of you that anyone who digs through past posts to find things to justify their reasoning without at least linking to the original thread is a buffoon.

I will not defend myself to this guy, but if anyone would like some clarification on the quotes that he has mined feel free to ask. (if anyone even cares.)

The fact that he is still responding to my posts after I told him I would not debate him anymore says wonders.

At this point I will be placing "Con Science" on ignore as to remove any temptation to engage him in debate. I hope that whatever he continues to dig up from my past posts can be discussed with me in civilized way so I can defend myself if need be. Otherwise I hope most of you recognize this dishonest approach that he is taking.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:02 AM
reply to post by Con Science

Nicely put

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:12 AM
How can any human being look their selves in the mirror and say " yep, I evolved from a Lemur Monkey!"
I can't understand why anyone would want to belittle themselves like that.

These so called "scientist" are giving good science a bad name. Quite frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves.

I'll be sure to tune in to the History Channel on Monday though...........I've been looking for a good laugh!

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by HolydarknessVA

It's not just the "Bible thumpers", to use your bigoted term, who believe Darwin was full of sh!t. It's just a theory, their is no proof, and I seriously think there will never be proof unless some animal or human suddenly makes a transition to another species. If evolution did indeed happen, then I believe it would be over a longer period of time than it is shown, maybe tens or hundreds of millions of years. Who knows? Did you ever hear of modern man's skulls, tools or other artifacts being found dating modern humans millions of years ago and then conveniently thrown out or hushed up in order to stay withing the realm of the accepted theories? Try reading "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. The book is about 828 pages of detailed research on anomalous archaeological finds and the politics involved with presenting these finds to the scientific community. Or try Zecharia Sitchin with his theories about the Annunaki. Sitchin's theory is exactly like Cremo's and Darwin's in this respect: It's just a theory, it's not proof.

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:38 PM

Originally posted by yeti101
thanks to those who tried to explain how ID works. But the answers i got wasnt what i was lookinG for. I'll try put it another way.

If i went back in time what would i see at the point the designer designed a new species? I mean would there be nothing then a puff of smoke and a new species would appear? is that what i would see?

thats what i mean by "how does it work?"

[edit on 22-5-2009 by yeti101]

Watch the video the one where Richard Dawkins gets stumped in a long pause. Not for the reasons you might think but to listen as he explains evolution. Then ask yourself if everytime he says "Now that was back 350 million years ago when if you were there back then, you would have seen "something like" a fish coming on the land and becoming mmm something like an amphibian" .

If that is having more of a theory than ID has, it is only because they made up a story to tell while ID may just be interested in the facts.

If I am looking to know the truth, Ill take the truth you have no idea rather than a theory that just makes stuff up as they go and passes it off as "fact" then says it is the only one theory we got so lets keep making up more lies because ID doesn't explain how it works doesn't mean we don't know someone put it there.

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:52 PM

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
Since I am not responding to this "Con Science" person due to his ridiculous debate tactics, I will leave it to say to the rest of you that anyone who digs through past posts to find things to justify their reasoning without at least linking to the original thread is a buffoon.

And anyone who calls someone a buffoon for not leaving a link to the page on the thread and the post they said it when they actually did, is a ??


"In other words Scientific Theory is the Politically correct way of saying "Fact". That's the beauty of science. It will not claim anything a fact if there is a .000000001 chance that something could prove it wrong.- ExistenceUnknown

Yeah, all the quotes are right there in that same thread and that one specifically right to the exact post.

See for yourself

Now what were you saying about someone being a buffoon?

I will not defend myself to this guy,

That's ok, but don't mind if I defend myself ok, I have a more notorious reputation to live down and I don't need anyone embellishing it for me.

See, I wasn't attacking you existence, I was quoting what you said with a link for verification and of contextual similarity showing you to be confused about what think is a fact.

You took it personally.

Did I say something untrue? Did you not say those things about the TOE being a fact in another thread arguing it wasn't? I seem to remember you were and I never forget a poster who says one thing in one thread and another about the same thing in another thread.

Part of debate is "anything you say, can and may be used against you"

The fact that he is still responding to my posts after I told him I would not debate him anymore says wonders.

Yes, it does!

It says that even though you say you will not debate me, you will anyway by talking to others ABOUT me and what I say, rather than directly to me. May we expect you to speak in third person next?

Otherwise I hope most of you recognize this dishonest approach that he is taking.

Oh I am sure they do and I am sure they are coming up with the right conlusion about whose honesty is to be cautious of.

Proving dishonesty or even intent will be required but I think I have already done that where the kind of honesty you are using about me is,, errr no so honest but I can handle it. I have had worse said about me and sometimes it is even true.

The fact is existence, I will be more than happy to debate you in a civilized manner one on one where you have your tender sensitivites regarding my alleged "dishonesty" moderated by the most professional moderators on any forum where the traffic is anywhere near as large as this and still get fair treatment, justice and protection.

Imagine the marquee existence!

The lemur, nothing but another dead lemur or the missing link of evolution!

Call it what you like I don't care, but if you are going to want a more formal debate about this sillyness they say is a missing link of any significance at all,

then Bring it

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Con Science]

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:38 AM
reply to post by 5thElement

I am sorry, I just discovered this post of yours. I will try to explain it as simply as I can as you would know exactly what I am talking about if you had ever experienced what I am saying.

But as you don't understand, then I can take it that you have never come close to being in my shoes, 30, 40, 50 years, or not.

There is a divine connection that goes beyond prayer (I don't pray). Have you ever heard of universal awareness or consciousness flow?

Probably not, or you look at it with contempt as it doesn't fit any scientific model that you can relate it to. I would expect that.

There are individuals like myself who have an innate awareness beyond most people. A consciousness flow that connects us with what is going on and what is in the energy of the world. I have conversations with the Gods just as that gentleman who wrote the "Conversations with God" books (cannot remember his name).

You will then predictably take it down the MPD road and would again be incorrect.

As much as you would like to "nail" it with logic, wording, and neurological science, it is very difficult to explain, and cannot be explained easily doing it your way. I think you posted on my thread: Are Atheists Mostly Left Brained?

I won't take up this thread trying to explain it further, but if you are a person who is more comfortable with logic and facts based answers only, you will try to critique it in a way that makes sense to you so you can feel like you have the upper intellectual hand, and one that will most likely attempt to discount my perception. It won't work, so why don't we leave it at that?

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:19 PM
nordics (annuaki) made us;evolution is an impossible unless u r a virus -_- then and only then u will mutate; animal kingdom and us were made by intelligent species. also dolphins, whales, cows were brought from other planets ; spirit can evolve yes not the body (container)

new topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in