It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

page: 28
8
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Genocide: systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Slavery is wrong.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
.....I can understand your reason for wanting to lump evolution to all the ills of mankind.....


sounds like survival of the adapted to me?


OT



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
What about trees?

Well, here’s some thoughts on that…

SEPARATE LIVING KINDS

"Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).", Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990


SEPARATE FOSSIL KINDS"

Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordivician times, when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.", Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987.


"TREES" NOT FROM FOSSILS,

Steven J. Gould, Harvard, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.", Nat.His., V.86, p.13



STORY TIME,

COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. .... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual." HARPER'S, Feb.1984, p.56



ARBITRARY ARRANGEMENT,
R.H.Dott, U.of Wis. & R.L.Batten, Columbia, AMNH, "We have arranged the groups in a traditional way with the 'simplest' forms first, and progressively more complex groups following. This particular arrangement is arbitrary and depends on what definition of 'complexity' you wish to choose. ...things are alike because they are related, and the less they look alike, the further removed they are from their common ancestor."


EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.602
Unrelated Look-Alikes, J.Z.Young, Prof. of Anatomy, Oxford, "...similar features repeatedly appear in distinct lines. ...Parallel evolution is so common that it is almost a rule that detailed study of any group produces a confused taxonomy. Investigators are unable to distinguish populations that are parallel new developments from those truly descended from each other." LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.779

similarity IS NoT genetic, Sir Gavin Debeer, Prof. Embry., U.London, Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, Homology an Unsolved Problem source/more: www.bible.ca...



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Genocide: systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9



Scary verse for sure....

Here's my take...

In order for the FATHER to bring the messiah/savior for all mankind...He had to do it one race lineage...the Jews.

We are all beyond that now....and we all can benefit from his love....



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
What about Embryonic Recapitulation? Some quotes below....

R. H. DOTT, Univ. of WI, R. L BATTEN, Columbia Univ., A.M.N.H., "Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.86

SIMPSON & BECK, "Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny."Intro.To Biology, 1965,p.273

KEITH S. THOMPSON, Academy of Natural Sciences, "Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties." American Scientist, 5/6, 1988, p.273 "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated"

Ashley Montagu, "The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel." Montagu-Gish Prinston Debate, 4/12/1980

"EMBRYONIC FRAUD LIVES ON," "Although Hacckel confessed…and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist." New Scientist, p.23, 9/6/97
more: www.bible.ca...



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Certainly change occurs right OT?

I dunno? see below!


BOTHERSOM distresS, STEPHEN J. Gould, Harvard , "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.

"DESIGNS," S.J.Gould, Harvard, "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. ...I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Natural History, 2/82, p.2



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 



COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. .... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual." HARPER'S, Feb.1984, p.56


Yawn. Please read.

LINK



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Hitler sympathizer. So you think genocide is a good thing then? You think there is a way to justify such an act?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Oh OT, when will you learn that nothing any creationist has ever said against evolution has ever been refuted by science? Will you ever learn that one of creationists most dishonest and pathetic weapons is to find some fake or forgery and pretend it's the same for everything.




OT, Please define "Kinds".


This is a creationist term that's never defined.




[edit on 1-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


LMFAO... I didn't even get to watch the video.

LOL FAIL

omfg that one part got me laughing lol.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Aron Ra is just amazing although in this case he was just mirroring another users video so more people would see it. AR has a series called the Fundamental Falsehoods of Creationism that are all encompassing that are education and quite entertaining. I've often embedded his work because he says most things better than I can.

Speaking of which since the whole "Human = ape | BMW = Car" thing came up before I thought I may just slip this in.



It makes the creationist strawman argument "Was your grandfather an ape?" catchphrase rather laughable and telling of just how ignorant to the science that they're arguing against.


[edit on 1-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex


Yawn. Please read.

LINK


Why have you ignored the other 20 quotes?

OT



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


oh yeah, why have you ignored my question from last night? This is my fourth request?

OT



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
why no "TRANSITONAL forms?

DARWIN'S BIGGEST PROBLEM, "...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why 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 greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin of the Species.

MORE EMBARRASSING, David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35

PREDICTION FAILED, Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
And what of "links"???


Well here's some thoughts on that....TEXTBOOK DECEIT, GEORGE G. SIMPSON, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature." LIFE OF THE PAST, p.119

THE HORSE "STORY", Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." Harper's, p. 60, 1984.

TEXTBOOK HORSES, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL "...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" FOSSIL HORSES, 1994, p.27

STORY TIME OVER, Derek Ager, U.at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132

"FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found....a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds." Nature, Vol.322, 1986 p.677

REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." BIOLOGY & COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS, Vol.1, p.1. additional: www.bible.ca...



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by sirnex
 


oh yeah, why have you ignored my question from last night? This is my fourth request?

OT



Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

What question was that again?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



no!!!!

second line....





OT



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker & post by OldThinker
 


We're moving on from "no transitional fossils" because that argument has been done to death. Otherwise see here.


"FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found....a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds." Nature, Vol.322, 1986 p.677

REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." BIOLOGY & COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS, Vol.1, p.1.

Perhaps these publications (if genuine) are outdated. The Archaeopteryx certainly did have advanced avian features such as feather but it also had advanced dinosaur features leading one specimen to be initially misidentified as a species of unrelated dinosaur.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Sorry to butt in but if the answer to your question was important enough to you to bring up why isn't it important enough to at least cut and paste?

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join