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.

 

10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

page: 21
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by matiascs


Please take 5 min. to read this abstract from this very well known journal:

www.pnas.org...

I've posted this before, but it seems that peer review does not sit well in this forum.

- M


Sorry, I don't see where there is a difference between us on this point, is there something here I'm missing?

In my post I linked to a pop-sci version of the PNAS paper you linked. It is a beautiful thing!




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 





Do you realize that to make a completely new species of anything is for two separate species of animal to mate?


So you havent heard about the speciation events that has been observed? Where two members of the SAME species mated, and gave birth to another species? Do a google search or something, this is not a secret, its been observed in nature AND labs.




no one has ever observed the origin of a new species


?? Are you ignorant of this, or are you purposly lying? I hate creationist dishonesty.




Sooner or later, the evidence will win.


The evidence will win, yes, but you will wind up saying: yahweh created evolution. Thats is how it has always been with you people, since ancient times when god made lighting, and the rainbow.. god is ALWAYS behind stuff you have no clue about. Until we get a clue of the real facts of course, but then you just make god a maker of that too





humans are 99 percent similar to chimps might as well add that humans are 35 percent similar to daffodils.


Yup, all life, plant or animal are related and similar. Seems like you believe your god was lazy when he made us


[edit on 18/11/2009 by Daniem]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Thank you...specially the last video.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by rnaa
 


A new species of finches? Do you realize that it's still finches?

Of course.




Do you realize that to make a completely new species of anything is for two separate species of animal to mate?


Of course NOT.



If you get a new species of frog or cat, you are still talking about a frog or a cat. Can you show me where two completely different species of animal mated and created a new species? I believe in evolution as far as inner-species evolution is concerned. I don't believe in external-species evolution.

Unfortunately, this statement is proof that you don't know the first thing about biology or the concept of evolution or the theory of how evolution works. You are using the word species to mean several different things in the space of a few sentences.



Sure mankind will evolve, but not into another animal. they will still be humans.


If groups of humans are separated so they can't exchange DNA for long enough then they will absolutely form a new species. So you will then have, perhaps, Homo Sapiens "Terraiensis" still based on Earth and Homo Sapiens "Europaiensis" based on Europa (I just made up those names out of thin air - don't beat me up over that).

Given enough time, and colonization of other star systems, you may end up with "Homo Aliens Betelgeuseii" or "Homo Aliens Alpha Centaurii". And then you can no longer say that they are human any more.




There was a massive extinction of dinosaurs yet out of the blue, mammals showed up.

Not out of the blue. They were already here, but most of the ecological niches were filled by reptiles so they were pretty much taking spaces that reptiles weren't operating in. When most of the reptile species turned into future oil reserves, there were a lot of ecological niches to be filled and mammals stepped up to the plate.



Even the cambrian explosion can't be explained.

True, not satisfactorily at least. There are several competing possibilities. Perhaps one will win out, perhaps we will never know for sure.



There is not intermediate species between these accounts.

Not intermediate between mammals and dinosaurs, no. Mammals were already here, so the intermediate species between "pre-Mammals" and "Mammals" would be farther back in time; the same with "pre-Dinosaur" and "Dinosaur".



That's what Darwin's theroy was all about. We all came from one speck or organism and evolved into everything we see today.

Not really. His theory was all about explaining how evolution works. The implication of how evolution works is that eventually we 'came' from very simple molecules that could self replicate, but that is not what the theory is "all about".



That has already been proven false.


Darwin has been confirmed. Over and over and over. By field observation, laboratory experiment, and DNA. Of course every little thing Darwin said and thought and wrote hasn't stood the test of time, he was human and he was the first to discuss this stuff openly. But after 150 years he is recognized as one of the superstars of science, on a par with Newton.

I don't understand, why aren't you dumping on Newton the same way you are dumping on Darwin. Einstein proved Newton wrong on a lot of points, shouldn't you be throwing out all of Newton's work on the same principle as you use to dismiss Darwin?



Instead of Darwin's tree of life showing that things get MORE complex, starting from something simple at the root and exploding into many different things, the tree should be reversed. Life, organisms, animals have gone from more complex to less complex throughout the span of life on earth. It is a reversal of Darwin's theory.


Whoa there! I don't know how to respond to that. That is from left field, how do you get that? Are you trying out new material for a stand-up comedy routine or what?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   


cambrian explosion can't be explained.


This has got me thinking, i had a quick flick though thE WAY THE LIGHT THE TRUTH THE DIVINE WORD OF GAWWWWDDDDD - my bible's sorta suggest that god created all the animals at once... you know the bit where he creates all the animals and people in a week? Yeah genesis does say that, it neglects to mention anything about a cambrian or precambrian era, in fact most christian sects teach or taught that the world is around 6000 years old!

I'm interested, i've taken the time to explain many areas of science and history as seen from a twenty first century perspective, just read some of my previous posts for detailed descriptions of how we came to be here - would you be so kind as to grace us with the version of creation you believe?

How god explains the cambrian explosion, how god explains the fossil record, how god explains the DNA family tree, etc, etc



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

The point is, they are a different species, unable to cross-reproduce and "synchronise" with the ancestor, so its only a matter of time before they start to look different.. After reproductive isolation, its inevitable..


No, they are NOT different. They are different FINCH'S and the differences they have or the ones we can observe are already coded in the DNA, they NEVER had to EVOLVE them! As I have said before, it is you self appointed experts called atheists, who have been frustrating the hell out of REAL scientist, as you spread very dated or debunked tired old ideas about evolution and your usual equivocations between macro-evo and micro-evo, saying your speculations and conjecture are the facts that are what the theory uses. You can not build a theory from speculation calling them facts simply because you are committing the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent.

Then we have several other evolutionist's undermining the examples of their collaborators by introducing antithetical properties and ideas of yet several other theories of evolution. Some of them completely contradicting what the other evolutionist proponeints have said. Then, like some church group choir boys, you all sing the same song, whille defacating the same pseudo biotic dung heap, you call the "mountain of evidence" . You have given FAQ's with the same disclaimers for anticipated questions YOU think we will ask but fail to realize we have already suggested those same answers many times YEARS ago!

Yeah, back then the same cult of atheist evolutionist's and their motives to marginalize the God model they just can't even consider for a nanosecond, might be true, they argued against many of the answers they are saying now are the facts TODAY.




What about the broken vitamin C enzyme? Why would creator put it into the genome? To deceive us? What about other "broken genes"?



Gee guy, can I use THIS question to head off the evolutionists in my own version of FAQ's saying, "Do we know ALL the answers to why god did certain things to our DNA that look like mistakes? NO!

But the fact is, anyone intelligent enough to create something like DNA just may have had a better reason for doing things the way he did, then you can presuppose are mistakes or question them just because that isn't what YOU would do if YOU were God. My suggestion to you is, when you can create life from the dust of the ground, then and only then should you question God in the context he made a mistake.

Oh and by the way, If you are going to try this the same way God did using the dust of the ground,,,,

God wouldn't want you to cheat so, MAKE your OWN dust too!

Perhaps in our history, if God had been given to activate the Vitamin C allel in humans, we wouldn't be using our god given dominion wisely protecting the more interdependant life forms in the delicate balance of ecosystems which have been our responsibility to be the stewards for.

Perhaps if Man didn't need Oranges to eat, the only creation on this earth with the intelligence to protect them during early frosts wouldn't care enough causing vast pollin sources from orange blossoms to vanish giving honey bees a real pain in the ass.

Perhaps if the faulty designs in the Zebras hind legs had used switch's to form a more perfect knee like their arabian horse cousins, you might think God was more intelligent while many lions miss a meal because they can no longer hunt them as easily. I mean you can imagine this is a mistake OR you can imagine YOU are mistaken.

I am of the opinion, it is the latter and not the former.







[edit on 18-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 


ok then, we can't know what or why god does things i can accept that....

Now, let's ask the more important question...

Do we know what god has said?

Has he told us how, why or when he created the world?
Has God provided any solid data about the world?
has he told us how to live our lives?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


This is just not true, and since your whole argument is built around this, its not true either. As long as the mutation is established (it escaped all control mechanisms), there is no way a cell can distinguish it from other DNA bases. So, evidence?


What do you guys do? Just google this stuff ? Do you know anyone who can teach you a more current understanding of DNA because frankly my friend, you're WAY behind the latest findings of what DNA can do and we are on the verge of understanding just why everything we have always known about evolution INCLUDING, creation, was WRONG

That is the never ending cycle of these arguments and the debate including what you think you know to be true today, that gives you the opinion it is always the creationists ignorance you are denying, will be what Science finds is totally incorrect in 3-5 years making you and the data to substantiate your argument MOOT.





[edit on 18-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NatureBoy
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 


ok then, we can't know what or why god does things i can accept that....

Now, let's ask the more important question...

Do we know what god has said?

Has he told us how, why or when he created the world?
Has God provided any solid data about the world?
has he told us how to live our lives?


Look, if you ask questions relating to incorrect assumptions about God, Ill offer alternative assumptions for more provocative inqury but thats it.

I have said at the begining of this thread, when atheists were bitching about bringing religion into science and I agree. If you can't stay on topic then make a thread about GOD ok?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem

So you havent heard about the speciation events that has been observed? Where two members of the SAME species mated, and gave birth to another species? Do a google search or something, this is not a secret, its been observed in nature AND labs.


Species, sub species? BUT entire kingdoms? Sorry guy, never been seen and even lenski's e-coli citrate babyfood was spiked with saccharides and amino sugar concluding in what again?

E- coli evolving into E-coli



Are you ignorant of this, or are you purposly lying? I hate creationist dishonesty.


Perhaps he isn't lying and YOU, with all due respect to your staggering intellect, are the one that is incorrect by assuming he has observed it and is just lying.





The evidence will win, yes, but you will wind up saying: yahweh created evolution. Thats is how it has always been with you people, since ancient times when god made lighting, and the rainbow.. god is ALWAYS behind stuff you have no clue about.


You got a problem with that?




Yup, all life, plant or animal are related and similar. Seems like you believe your god was lazy when he made us





The aggregate amount of energy God would have to expend to create a universe which gives a total of ZERO energy is Zero theoretically.

Pretty hard to have a thing called lazy when it doesn't take any energy to do the labor



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 


A change that large would take thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to show, we've already talked about this - the evidence is in the fact that all the fossils, DNA, etc all fit neatly into a tree of life and all other involved sciences such as geology back this order up.

As for your refusal to talk about religion while you're supporting ID - seems somewhat strange to me that whenever a complex logical, scientific or theological argument develops everyone of faith retreats to some form of ephemeral Deist god - it's not until they want to get their own way that the fire and brimstone comes out!

It seems to me that these tiny little confusions about evolution theory, scientific method, etc that creationists have turned into talking points are designed to try and pull down the framework of science and reason so that they can then replace it with the same terribly unjust, ill reasoned and evidence free opinion of how we should live our lives.

It seems that christianity is becoming a bate a switch scam just like many of the other cults, i.e. Scientology - first they tell you the almost plausible front story 'it's possible that evolution is some how wrong' but then when they've got you are you're emotionally attached they start to pull out the stuff about talking snakes, zombie carpenters and eternal damnation.

What has Christendom come to when a Christian won't even admit to believing in the bible!



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NatureBoy

I would be interested in seeing some papers about this because i really don't think that true at all, firstly whales having legs is a widely accepted fact - fossil records and extensive, museums have skeletal structures, people cutting up modern whales still sometimes report finding them, etc, etc, etc...





The idea for science to spend time wondering about how whales lost their legs.
They have looked at the DNA of whales (hox c6-c10) and could find no trace of vestigial genes. Perhaps it is because they never had any legs! – Kerry Knight


Nature Boys response:



I would be interested in seeing some papers about this because i really don't think that true at all, firstly whales having legs is a widely accepted fact - fossil records and extensive, museums have skeletal structures, people cutting up modern whales still sometimes report finding them, etc, etc, etc



This is more atheist influence on objectivity in the Biological Sciences and nothing more.
You have to understand what this is about and why we see so many atheists making commentary, which “suggests”, such colorful adjectives like Mountains, Tons, Boatloads, indeed “galaxies”, of so-called evidence and I have yet to see an OUNCE of it without recognizing what it is I am REALLY looking at. Usually we have a dead monkey with the atheist paleontologist taking what little there is of most of these fossils and saying, Mmmm How can I make this fit with evolution.

Just ask them, who the hell they think they are and not the scientists but the atheists on this board will say words to the effect “We represent infallible science!” You must teach these children that they are descended from reptiles. It is impossible to disprove our findings, and wrong to challenge them; therefore, no other point of view will be tolerated.”

Look at this thread, they demand proof proof proof while they are busy googling their own but never bother to offer in most cases and never look for anything in a typed search query that doesn’t have a loaded question behind it. They do not ask for in-depth studies for white papers on HOW something a creationist offered just may be correct. No NEVER. What they do in forums and other atheist websites is ask “where can I did up some dirt on the bible or counter creationist arguments etc.

When someone says, “What evidence do you have that we are descended from reptiles?” They reply, with a paraphrase typically seen around here. “We don’t need any evidence. All we have to do is say we have it in abundance. Hence the adjectives for mountains and so fourth. Why they do this is simple. They are TOLD to do it. They see others do it and the most obvious reason is, they know nothing more about science then anyone else but assume they do by virtue of their being atheist and Idols like Dick Dawkins or Sam Harris pumping up their hatred and ego’s at conventions and speech engagements calling them the “Science Community”

In other words, they are the “philosopher kings of science.”

Now how much can several generations of public schooled science students influence the population of scientists we have where a dogmatic atheistic materialist worldview and the only theory allowed without having your career ruined by the NAS and ACLU. How much can that influence our own objective ability to SEE THINGS as they REALLY ARE! Well, let us take your post for example.

When I said in the following quote:


This whale for instance, uses those limbs deep within the core of its body as arms would an oar at depths it must conserve body heat and save energy using a slower paced form of propulsion while, it can transfer more blood to the extremities flukes and fins where other muscles are incorporated in a more direct propeller propulsion effort.


You gave the answer someone who would have seen legs on a whale would have given.

SEE BELOW Your Quote



Again do you have some scientific evidence of this or is it decided purely on faith?

While i say that whales have limbs deep within the blubber these limbs are today pretty much only a pelvis with leg sockets (like our acetabulum) and two unattached bones - you see when sonic hedgehog (shh) was crippled about 34 million years ago it stopped the limbs working, the whale can't do anything with them - the whale learned a new form of swimming where it waggles it fins like almost all aquatic animals do, this is much more effective.


You actually asked me if I had evidence for this, yet you were looking RIGHT at it! Your own illustration of whales only the interpretation you gave me is one that suggests the whale has legs BUT LOOK AGAIN. It does NOT!

Do you really see legs on this whale? Hell NO! But when we cut inside what atheists and atheist science automatically interprets are “Obviously vestigial hippo legs buried deep in the blubber!” HA HA HA WHAT! That is ABSURD!

First, what are “legs”?

Well if you are like most of us, a leg is what you call LIMBS which assist land dwelling creatures to be ambulatory. Since they have to support the most mass of the creature they are moving, they require a girdle or “pelvis” in humans to attaché in order to stabilize the creature’s movement while being large enough to attaché the necessary bones required for the limbs to make the entire leg.

The problem you have with this is the SAME one most evolutionists do interpreting common sense what you see is what you got, dead monkey evidence to mean it is something else. You see a fossil that looks like a monkey; you see a cave man, while I still see what looks like some dead monkey.

Why the whale leg interpretation needs further examination, NOT of the whale, but the way you see the whale. Man, it is just a whale but to assume and by the way, you ARE assuming what you are looking at are legs. Hell, they could just as easily be called ARMS! First it assumes what IS there, should not be. Second if they don’t walk with them, they are not legs because legs are for walking, LIMBS on the other hand are for MAKING legs, to ambulate walking creatures. Limbs are used to make WINGS to make flying creatures Fly, and Limbs are used to make FINS to make swimming creatures SWIM.

They are always attached to a rather large structure or girdle like a pelvis and do ya THINK something as large as a whale would require a large enough limb to get huge cartilage fin and powerful mass of muscle that is required to move that massive an object? Do you think it REALLY shouldn’t BE there deep inside where it all is located dead center and symmetrically matched between the two fins? If you really want to know if they are useless vestigial legs or not, I would wager a grand that if they were removed, from the girdle surgically, that whale would be DEAD in the water without the ability to swim.

Those are NOT legs but Limbs and Obviously, they are the kind for FINS so the whale can swim!

Definition of Limb: limb - one of the jointed appendages of an animal used for locomotion or grasping: arm; leg; wing; flipper
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn




abcnews.go.com...
The link is to a rather heartwarming story of a blind child who has learned to use to 'see' - it seems that the brain mechanics of echolocation are actually almost exactly the same as those we use for sight - in fact many people have suggested that bats 'see' the image created by their noises in the same way we see color and shape, the very same circuits of the brain. Evolution is a very powerful thing, when the latent ability exists and the conditions are right it can be very swift indeed - just look how fast humanity managed to evolve pigs, chickens, cows, etc into the animals they are today! Ok not exactly natural selection, but that it can be done in a few thousand years on such a scale shows that it is possible for the systems to shift very rapidly.


Yes I agree, the story is a testament to the extraordinary plasticity of the human brain and makes an excellent example of how adaptation and variation to help creatures survive. They adapt but this kid didn’t evolve this skill, else it would have taken MILLIONS of years and if I were an atheist evolutionist using this as proof, I would be saying something like “Look at his five digits on his fingers they look like the framework inside the whales fins! Put enough blubber around the kid until his legs are engulfed in it and the startling similarities in his echolocation adaptation and this PROVES Man is evolving into a whale!



Dawkins could actually take you on a walk around the British museum (and various other science buildings) and show you skeletons of people who you are actually related too - sure without a time machine we will never be able to draw a precises and detailed map - not knowing the exact high and hair color of each and every one of our forfathers doesn't cause the slightest problem - it's the genes that we track, when they developed and who has them - but still, i will find some quotes or maybe a video of dawkins explaining this
.


Yes I met the man twice, and you are correct he could and show me skeletons of people and that would be as accurate to say as any creationist telling me the same thing only the common ancestor would be Adam and eve.

Not much to go on and Dawkins has never impressed me as anything more than a metro sexual sounding mouthy rude little atheist with an axe to grind.




all that "junk DNA" evolutionists used to call it, isn't junk after all. – Kerry Knight




Then explain the bit that ruins about ability to produce vitamin C? that has a massive bit of 'junk' inside it!


No Junk DNA is an evolutionist’s answer to reconcile the added information conundrum of the DNA and hehe again, they argued it like arrogant Catholic Bishops, and again, they were wrong.



Paper presented at a symposium on Natural Genetic Engineering – Natural Genome Editing, July 2-6, 2008, by Shapiro JA. 2009.


Genome-wide (pervasive) transcription.
In a widely cited 1980 article
published with Leslie Orgel, Crick applied
The central dogma view to discriminate
genomic DNA into classes that do and
do not encode proteins, labeling the
Latter as “junk DNA” unable to make a
Meaningful contribution to cell function.

One criterion propounded to distinguish
Informational DNA is whether it is
Transcribed into RNA. Employing this
Criterion, the evidence for functionality
Of all regions of the genome has recently
Been extended by a detailed investigation
of 1% of the human genome.


study has indicated that virtually all
DNA in the genome, most of which does
not encode protein, is transcribed from
one or both strands. So the central
dogma-based notion that the genome
can be functionally discriminated into
transcribed (informational, coding) and
nontranscribed (junk) regions appears
to be invalid.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu...


Jim is one of my favorite authors, on the subject of DNA and there is a little coffee shop across the street called “Themedici” If memory serves, where you can sometimes find him smacking the heads of inquisitive atheist evolutionists and ID proponents alike using sound rationale great analogies and current data about DNA. My cousin used to work there in nuclear medicine where I was first introduced to him. Nice man, and appropriately agnostic




[edit on 18-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NatureBoy

A change that large would take thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to show, we've already talked about this - the evidence is in the fact that all the fossils, DNA, etc all fit neatly into a tree of life and all other involved sciences such as geology back this order up.


No, in fact you're not only incorrect, you are looking at this fitting it to what atheist, evolutionists have told you is true. You CAN"T use data where almost ALL of it, has been "intrepreted" using apriori partiality man.

Ill explain after I sift through the rest of this post.




As for your refusal to talk about religion while you're supporting ID -


I don't support ID, I support what the evidence suggests about "SOME" aspects of the theory the same as I do "some" aspects of evolution. It's really that simple. Most of the posts you see here in this thread, are not being agreed or disagreed with by the information in the post, but are first taken in the context of what their ideologues they have to support them.

Since most of the rebuttals here have been those so arrogantly presented by atheists and evotheist's, I assume there are many more of them on ATS. The idea that the moment I agree or disagree I am one or the others may have some truth but it is the logical fallacy for guilt by asscociation that makes this suggestion argumentative and not conducive to enlightened dialogue. You already know this stuff I think so Ill stop here .




seems somewhat strange to me that whenever a complex logical, scientific or theological argument develops everyone of faith retreats to some form of ephemeral Deist god - it's not until they want to get their own way that the fire and brimstone comes out!


I can say the same thing for both, they both act like religious zealots because they are both a religion to them. You can tell when they are being un-scientific the moment they bring up spaghetti monsters or fire and brimstone but that's ATS and every board where this old argument tirelessly trudges on.




It seems to me that these tiny little confusions about evolution theory, scientific method, etc that creationists have turned into talking points are designed to try and pull down the framework of science and reason so that they can then replace it with the same terribly unjust, ill reasoned and evidence free opinion of how we should live our lives.


Yeah so what if they do? Do you really believe is they had no vote no say in science, that science would advance any faster? Do you really think that an atheist state wouldn't also tell you how to live your life?

We have seen this happen before with Stalin. I don't think I have to remind you how that worked out.




It seems that christianity is becoming a bate a switch scam just like many of the other cults, i.e. Scientology - first they tell you the almost plausible front story 'it's possible that evolution is some how wrong' but then when they've got you are you're emotionally attached they start to pull out the stuff about talking snakes, zombie carpenters and eternal damnation.


Look it is obvious you have as much a problem with Christians wanting a seat at the table of Science as I have with atheists thinking they own it. I don't wish to talk about God OR religion in this thread when religion isnt science anymore than evolution is. Evolution is a theory albeit a weak one if you have the inside track or are a fly on the wall in most science Depts listening to them talk in private among trusted colleagues.

If the evidence ever introduces us to a God, or something like a stargate etc,. I would be as pissed off as a bull in a china shop if it were supressed like much of this kind of evidence supporting a God model is.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Interesting thread!....on an entertainment level.
I can't comment on Dawin's beliefs or theorys due to lack of knowledge in that subject, but adding to this thread.. the first thing that comes to my mind is one of my previous posts and is what I always tell
people when they yap about religion....
"I have always said to people when this topic (god/religion) comes up... And that is the fact that Out of all the Different Religions throughout the world, each having different beliefs of their "Gods" and how life began?
With that said...The world we live in could ONLY have been created/started
one way!! That means only ONE religion can be right or we are all wrong!..
think about it!!"


"I think we are all wrong!"

We would have already found the answers that every human seeks today about human creation and the universe if humans worked together as one with the same goal, instead of every human for themselves all about personal gain!!



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NatureBoy
I'm interested, i've taken the time to explain many areas of science and history as seen from a twenty first century perspective
,



No, what you've done is called an attempt to fortify the opinions of whom you're most fond of.

Yourself.

Some of the data is not current at all and whether they are correct or not, depends largely on whether or not your need to be "right" is in jeopardy or in "objectivity" .

I will make a suggestion to you however you want to take it. Their is a man named Chuck Missler. Someone who has had more "above top secret" security clearance than anyone I ever heard of that also has some very thought provoking ideas that corroborate the genesis account scientifically better than anyone I have heard. I believe his area was computer science and did a lot of black ops sort of things for the military gathering intelligence.

If anyone here knows where natureboy can access some of the mp3's I am talking about I would appreciate it, I think he would be very impressed with this mans insight.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kerry_Knight

Originally posted by Maslo



Perhaps if Man didn't need Oranges to eat, the only creation on this earth with the intelligence to protect them during early frosts wouldn't care enough causing vast pollin sources from orange blossoms to vanish giving honey bees a real pain in the ass.



I'm sorry...I actually thought you were being serious...after this it's obvious you are trolling around. You got me there for a second!

One more thing: you may try to use this search engine (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...); if you think your information is contemporary and what others say is 'outdated'...please back it up using the reservoir for all biomedical information that is provided.

Best,

- M



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by matiascs



I'm sorry...I actually thought you were being serious...after this it's obvious you are trolling around.


I beg your pardon?

what is it about my abeit, off the cuff analogy, you think is trolling? Did you have anything substantial to offer or are you just making an appearance?



One more thing: you may try to use this search engine (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...); if you think your information is contemporary and what others say is 'outdated'...please back it up using the reservoir for all biomedical information that is provided.


Oh I doubt I'd find much there that was anything better than what I already offered from one of the highest esteemed and well respected scientists you'll have ever read my friend. James Shapiro has more peer reviewed papers and many in 2009 than any names you would know if you didn't have the chance to google them before your next post.

What you'll find at NAS and many atheist infiltrated halls of science are discussions like this.



Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the
National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the
National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here.
Otherwise, the public is secondary to this.


[Moderator then turns to thepanel for responses.]


Larry Krauss: It’s hard to know how to respond to Neil, ever. But the
question you asked about, “Why 15%,” disturbs me a little bit because of
this other presumption that scientists are somehow not people and that
they don’t have the same delusions—I mean, how many of them are
pedophiles in the National Academy of Sciences? How many of them are
Republicans? [laughter] And so, it would be amazing, of course, if it were
zero. That would be the news story.


But the point is I don’t think you’d expect them, in general, to view their
religion as a bulwark against science or to view the need to fly into buildings
or whatever.


So the delusions or predilections are important to recognize, that scientists
are people and are as full of delusions about every aspect of their life as everyone else.


We all make up inventions so that we can rationalize our existence and why we
are who we are.


Tyson: But Lawrence, if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you
have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?




Note that Larry Krauss uses the word “delusions” three times as he
refers to the beliefs of the 15% of the members of NAS who maintain
some kind of faith in God; that is, those who are not outright atheists
like the rest. In another part of his speech on this same subject, Tyson
vehemently demands to know, “How come this number, the 15% who
believe in God, isn’t zero?”

Tyson is quite correct to raise this question.

He wants to know why all the members of NAS aren’t atheists because
logically, they should be. Atheism and evolutionary Darwinism are
inextricably bound together. To maintain otherwise is to enter the realm
of, as Krauss says, “delusions.”

The serious Darwinists have always known this.

Sir Julian Huxley, considered by some to be the primary architect of Neo-Darwinism,
called evolution “religion without revelation.” In 1964, Huxley wrote,
“Evolution is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that
has ever arisen on earth.” Later in the same book he passionately argued
that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a
God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern,” going on to say that
“the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden
on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct
something to take its place.”



That is what they did too, they constructed a philosophy and called it
A science. They have been manufacturing hoax after hoax after hoax,
Ever since








[edit on 18-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
How is it that the facts of adaptation suddenly jump track and
become evidence to the theory of evolution?
Adaptation = fact encoded within DNA
Evolution - Theory _ _ _ _
Facts should always come before theory.
How is it that the word adaptation( a fact ) is thrown aside for an obviously lesser word of theory (evolution) when men of science claim to ground
themselves in only evidence and fact.
Please explain this enigma?
ANYBODY!

Perhaps it's just slight of hand.
a cheap magicians trick?

[edit on 18-11-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kerry_Knight
I will make a suggestion to you however you want to take it. Their is a man named Chuck Missler. Someone who has had more "above top secret" security clearance than anyone I ever heard of that also has some very thought provoking ideas that corroborate the genesis account scientifically better than anyone I have heard. I believe his area was computer science and did a lot of black ops sort of things for the military gathering intelligence.

If anyone here knows where natureboy can access some of the mp3's I am talking about I would appreciate it, I think he would be very impressed with this mans insight.


This Chuck Missler?
en.wikipedia.org...
Really?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by Kerry_Knight
I will make a suggestion to you however you want to take it. Their is a man named Chuck Missler. Someone who has had more "above top secret" security clearance than anyone I ever heard of that also has some very thought provoking ideas that corroborate the genesis account scientifically better than anyone I have heard. I believe his area was computer science and did a lot of black ops sort of things for the military gathering intelligence.

If anyone here knows where natureboy can access some of the mp3's I am talking about I would appreciate it, I think he would be very impressed with this mans insight.


This Chuck Missler?
en.wikipedia.org...
Really?


Why Thanks again Pauligirl! Wow you are an ANGEL!

Ooops I may have said that to an atheist? If so then replace with "Real Gem!" Thank you that would be the one.




top topics



 
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join