What they won't say about Evolution.

Well isn't that a nice retreat. Using such logics, no theory can ever be disprooved, only disregarded. Correct?

Besides, using a highly reknown philosopher to simply say that "the exception confirms the rule", is rather lame I think. People has been saying that for ages. Don't need a philosopher to tell us that. I would like to add a sentance to the above: "when the exceptions become the rule, it's time to reevaluate"

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by Camelop�rdalis]

Andi it is also interresting to add, when talking about Karl Popper, that he originally denounced the theory of evolution, while he years later said sorry, that it had been a mistake to step on the toes of the scienific schools of "the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science". Uppon which he finally added: "Their hypotheses can in many cases be tested".

Wonder what he answered when his shrink asked him the famous question: "What do you REALLY feel?"

Originally posted by silQ
well that's pretty hypocratical of u, ya bible thumping worm.

Are you just trying to make a fool out of yourself or is there a point to these insults?

if u believe in creationism, then ur basicly throwing up what ur priest told u.

Well that's quite a special way to put it. In your simple mind, christians don't think for themselves, they don't seek knowledge and they don't look at what science teaches us. Fortunately this is just the case in your simple mind, reality is the opposite.

me, who got all the information from multiple books, journals, and articles written by prominant scientists, or u who got creationism from ppl who've read 1 false book or have heard from 1 lying priest.

[sarcasm]
Ah so you got all the information from multiple books, that's great man!
Yeah we christians don't really like to read multiple books, one book is hard enough for us.
[/sarcasm]

Man you're such a joke.
How about adding some books about communication and discussion to your library as well?

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by Jakko]

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis
Well isn't that a nice retreat. Using such logics, no theory can ever be disprooved, only disregarded. Correct?

Besides, using a highly reknown philosopher to simply say that "the exception confirms the rule", is rather lame I think. People has been saying that for ages. Don't need a philosopher to tell us that. I would like to add a sentance to the above: "when the exceptions become the rule, it's time to reevaluate"

Did you read the article? Did you read my post? A theory can be disproved by falsification. The theory predicts certain things and if those are not found to be true, the theory is falsified.

I quote the article: "In a word, an exception, far from �proving� a rule, conclusively refutes it." Did you get the idea that he said "The exception confirms the rule."? Not from the article I linked to at least.

Originally posted by silQ
well that's pretty hypocratical of u, ya bible thumping worm.

That's great dude! Well if I'm a worm, then you would be that incredibly sticky stuff that comes out of me mouth, right? SilQ?



"It's not what enters your mouth that makes you unclean, it's what comes out of your mouth that makes you unclean" (Jesjuah)

Yes, and BTW, SilQ, you don't need to bother replying. I found the button. I actually found your quote in another post by another member. What is it with the mods in this part of the forum?

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by Camelop�rdalis]

Originally posted by Jakko
Are you just trying to make a fool out of yourself or is there a point to these insults?

well he did call me a ,"a stone cold idiot, the world would never get anywhere if it were filled with close minded people like you," so yea. there's a point.

Well that's quite a special way to put it. In your simple mind, christians don't think for themselves, they don't seek knowledge and they don't look at what science teaches us. Fortunately this is just the case in your simple mind, reality is the opposite.

yea ok....this is basicly true for any1, f00, but i'd never expect for some1 who base their lives on a lie would see this.

Ah so you got all the information from multiple books, that's great man!
Yeah we christians don't really like to read multiple books, one book is hard enough for us.

glad to see that u've finally came to ur senses.

Man you're such a joke.
How about adding some books about communication and discussion to your library as well?

Ladies first.

don't worry camel. i didnt forget about u.

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis
That's great dude! Well if I'm a worm, then you would be that incredibly sticky stuff that comes out of me mouth, right? SilQ?

First of all, i didn't call u a worm. i called that other guy a worm but ok.
Secondly, that sticky stuff isn't me. it was the stuff leftover from what u did with all those little camels last night

Originally posted by amantine
Did you read the article? Did you read my post? A theory can be disproved by falsification. The theory predicts certain things and if those are not found to be true, the theory is falsified.

OK, sorry, I misunderstood your original post, sorry. Still, it is rather interresting that the man who introduced the idea of falsification originally had strong objections against the Theory of Evolution, don't you think? And the way he later excused himself the way he did, only shows how deep this pimple on the arse of science, the Evolution Theory, goes. We're talking about a lot of alot of prominent scientists whose honors will be rediculed since they believed in this fairytale, based on observation, not science. Did you know that there is a mouse who has more in common with elephants than it's nearest class brothers? It even has a trunk.

Originally posted by silQ
well he did call me a ,"a stone cold idiot, the world would never get anywhere if it were filled with close minded people like you," so yea. there's a point.

He called you a stone cold idiot, because you are unable to snap out of your simple mindframe and realize that there's more to Christianity than what you have experienced in your (not so pleasant?) "christian" period.

You call him a worm because (?) he calls you an idiot.
See the difference? His insult was based on something, your reply is that of a little kid.

Not only do you not show any proof or links to support your opinion, you also act as if everyone who does not share your opinion is an idiot.

With all respect, we can't help it that your church sucked, and that you have failed to understand what christianity is all about.

An evolution vs creationism debate is tricky enough without your (mostly) ignorant input.
If you would actually read peoples post, you might understand that creationists as well as evolutionists both have very good points, and that they both try to gain knowledge through this discussion.

Your attitude is the opposite of this, unable to back up your arguments, sarcasm everywhere, insults everywhere, arrogance everywhere.

You seem to ignore peoples points. Why? Are their posts too long? Do you even understand what they're talking about?
Since you're the one who read all the books, why can't you make a slightly informative or even interesting post?

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by silQ
well he did call me a ,"a stone cold idiot, the world would never get anywhere if it were filled with close minded people like you," so yea. there's a point.

He called you a stone cold idiot, because you are unable to snap out of your simple mindframe and realize that there's more to Christianity than what you have experienced in your (not so pleasant?) "christian" period.

actually, i had a really pleasent "christian period." i went on retreats, made cool friends, sang hymns. it was all good. until i learned the truth.

[quote[You call him a worm because (?) he calls you an idiot.
See the difference? His insult was based on something, your reply is that of a little kid.
Not only do you not show any proof or links to support your opinion, you also act as if everyone who does not share your opinion is an idiot.
actually, i did show links and proof. guess u got frustrated when ur reading level is below 2nd grade. don't worry. get hooked on phonics. it'll help u read this stuff a lot faster and then, u can talk with the big boys.

An evolution vs creationism debate is tricky enough without your (mostly) ignorant input.
If you would actually read peoples post, you might understand that creationists as well as evolutionists both have very good points, and that they both try to gain knowledge through this discussion. Your attitude is the opposite of this, unable to back up your arguments, sarcasm everywhere, insults everywhere, arrogance everywhere.

again, if could read my later posts, u'll find them a lot more informative and a lot less insulting. but with ur reading skillz, i don't blame u.

You seem to ignore peoples points. Why? Are their posts too long? Do you even understand what they're talking about?

actually, i just try to debunk their claims. but that's ok.
if getting passionate about the truth is a crime, then i'm guilty.

P.S. i will stop insulting all those who oppose the truth if u guys stop trying to insult me.

This is off topic, but needs to be said. Don't fight insults with insults, you're giving us all a bad name. If SilQ upsets you that much, click on the ignore button. Don't resort to name calling. We're supposed to be better then that. That's what our Tora teaches us, and what Jesus taught us through example. And the Bible states that you're to try to live His life. So...Would Jesus attack SilQ?

I can tell you flat out, no He wouldn't. He would persuade(sp?), through gentleness and kindness, SilQ to stop the insults and focus on the issue. I'm not seeing that here, and it saddens me.

It's not that he upsets me, it's just that I think people like Silq don't belong on forums like this.
Everyone on here is quite serious and mature and I really apreciate how people respect eachother even when they don't agree with eachother.

Places like this are just hard to find on the internet, and it's too bad people like Silq distort interesting discussions like this.

I realize that all my last posts were off topic, and I apologise for that I'll stay on topic in my next posts.

Originally posted by junglejake
So...Would Jesus attack SilQ?

He would probably have called him hipocrite, a foolish and blind man, a serpent, and a brood of vipers, just like he used to call his enemies over and over. Infact, if Jesus had been a member here at ATS, he would have been banned long time ago. No kidding.

On the other side, Jesjuah was by far more rightious than myself, so who knows, maybe he had reminded himself of Solomon's words which say: "Do not reprimande a fool, for he will come to hate you. Repremande rather the rightious, for he will surely love you!"

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by Camelop�rdalis]

Let's continue back on topic. If you have issues with various members you may u2u, use the ignore function or stop going to threads they begin to post on.

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis
He would probably have called him hipocrite, a foolish and blind man, a serpent, and a brood of vipers, just like he used to call his enemies over and over. Infact, if Jesus had been a member here at ATS, he would have been banned long time ago. No kidding.

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

He would have followed the rules and laws of wherever he was. And calling someone blind and foolish, a hypocrite(I have no idea how to spell that word, which is why there are 3 spellings in this thread alone), is acceptable here. He only called Peter a serpent, and Peter was a follower of His. He held his followers to a higher standard, as I think we should do as well.

EDIT: Well, by serpent, I meant when he said "Behind me, Satan". Serpent and Satan are intermingled throughout, and I did the same with my post. Sorry about any misinterpretation.

[Edited on 5-8-2004 by junglejake]

The correct spelling is hipocrite. And he never called Peter a serpent, but that's another thing. He commanded Satan who at the time tried to possess every single one of his disciples. Jesjuah finally allowed Satan to enter Judas Iscariot. It was the politically correct Pharicees Jesjuah time and again called serpents.

But don't misunderstand me. I agree with your post fully, only want to show "What would Jesus do?" by showing you what he actually did. The Courtyard infront of the Temple was in many ways the equivalent of ATS back then. It was where they discussed politics and religion, dogma and the Law. Jesjuah himself was cast out from many synagogues and places where people discussed stuff. Jesjuah would have been cast out from many boards today. That I'll promise you.

He was often cast out because of his offencive way of speaking. Which was even prophecied. He was supposed to offend.

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by Camelop�rdalis]

Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

However, after spending a lifetime looking for evidence of evolution within molecular structures, biochemist Christian Schwabe was forced to admit:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist, I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message (1986, p. 280, emp. added).

Jonathan Marks, � has pointed out the problem with this �similarity� line of thinking.

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases�A,G,C, and T�only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7).

Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are �one-quarter human�? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human�except perhaps DNA. Marks went on to concede:

A chimp�s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human�s. One human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome that is fused in humans contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans .

GO READ THE ARTICLE FOR THE FULL INFORMATION!
I told y�all to go LOOK UP APOLOGETICS AND DR. BERT THOMPSON. He actually cites EVOLUTIONISTS for his writing�
�he and other doctorates of various science fields write things for this site because most science magazines REFUSE, when you can look up everything he writes about what other people say�sigh. www.apologeticspress.org...


[Edited on 11-5-2004 by jlc163]

The correct spelling is hypocrite. Wouldn't you check that if you were going to assure people you had the correct spelling?

Originally posted by Kano
The correct spelling is hypocrite. Wouldn't you check that if you were going to assure people you had the correct spelling?

Well, not really. And you obviously haven't read Henrik Ibsen's Peer Gynt in Norwegian well enough, have you? If you had, then you would have understood the incredible correctness with my spelling of hipokrite. Hypocrite just doesn't make any sense. Just like speak. It's speek. But then again, it's nuclear, not niukular. But kano is canoo or kanoo or whatever in Norwegian, so atleast you got that one right

But while we're already way off topic, mr. Redskinboat, let's look at why my spelling of hipocrite is infact also valid. Hipocrite: Sp. hipo which means under just like Gr. hypo, and Gr. krinein which means to judge. The two words are practically the exact same word. They only use different transliterations. Besides, the Greek letter I an Y is the same letter in Hebrew -- Yod, and the equivalent of Yod in Greek is the letter Iota, I. It should infact have been J, not Y or I in the first place, and I is closer to J than Y. I and J is practically the same letter. The Greek alfabet is an alfabet in the lagacy of Hebrew.

And if you have read Astrid Lindgren's books about Pippi, you'll notice that when Pippi needs to proove she's right, she lifts up her horse over her head. And if you know a little history, you'll know that the old Greeks believed that the Hebrew Tetragrammaton were two instances of the letter pi, they called God PIPI, because they didn't know how to read Hebrew. And we all know that God is the only Judge. Hypo+Hippo=hipo = under horse + krinein = judge. Pippi, or phonetically PIPI, which would be Pi^2, an impossible number to calculate, since we don't know the complete Pi. I guess that if you can't pronounce the Tetragrammaton, neither could you calculate it's complete value.

So OK, I admit it, I spelled it wrong, but I have my reasons. As always Both Edvard Munch, Agatha Christie and Albert Einstein used alternate spellings, I would like to see any of you try and correct any of them

Originally posted by silQ

Originally posted by infovacume
You are a stone cold idiot, the world would never get anywhere if it were filled with close minded people like you, Let me ask you this, how many digs have you went on? How many bones have studied, how many sediment samples have you examined, whyy is it that carbon ddating is so out of whack. Hmmmmm, tell me about hose things, because unless you have done all of those, than you sir are only going on what others tell you, and so forth by your standards you are nothing but a Darwanist thumping blind follower.

well that's pretty hypocratical of u, ya bible thumping worm. if u believe in creationism, then ur basicly throwing up what ur priest told u. i have not personally done the experiments but many knowledgable scientists have. u've also never recreated creation and never will since this is a false theory and therefore, impossible. so watch urself as to who ur calling ignorant. me, who got all the information from multiple books, journals, and articles written by prominant scientists, or u who got creationism from ppl who've read 1 false book or have heard from 1 lying priest.

Watch it? Watch what? A little peon like yourself will never be on my level. I spend a minimum of 20 hours a week researching new science , and I have read multitudes of articles, Hey and try learning wtf you are talking about, I never learned # from a priest, do you know why dumbass, because I am NOT CATHOLIC, and yes I am a worm, but you know what , this worm has a 152 iq. So go get bent, Oh and please do tell me were they have recreated Evolution. Because IT HASN"T HAPPENED! They have tried multiple times to recreate the start of "evolution" were chemicals and elements some how spontaneously start life. This is the equivalent of throwing a rock , two sticks, and some salt into a fish tank and making life! They have tried and failed, did you hear that too? Or hey how about this , go over to GENOME.com and see what the hell they have to say about it , because it seems through dna evidence, they no longer believe that evolution is all it is cracked up to be. You are once again a ignorant bigot, you showed your real colors smart guy. You started this by jumping all over some guy because he brought up something that involved religion and you didn't like it, so like a sad little boy you went off crying and came back with the most played out pro evolution statements I have ever heard. I really liked your argument about creationism being false because in your opinion it can't be real. Nice scientific argument there.


[Edited on 9-5-2004 by infovacume]

Originally posted by jlc163
This is only about a fourth of the article and DOES NOT start at the beginning, but this is enough for y�all to think about.

And thank God for women like you, who finally came forth with that rock steady snippet there. It would be fun to see, let's see, what's his name..... Amantine! It would be fun to see what he has to offer from his deep well to challenge these things.

However, I did find one little mistake in the article. It said that there are four possibilities per DNA protein, this is not entirely correct as far as I know, for among those four proteins, and as far as I know, there are certain combinations which never occur, and yet others which occur systematically, I don't remember which there are, but the closest thingy you could compare it with would be the intricate transliteration rules and systematic vocal change etc. within languages when they are transformed. Deliberately ofcourse.