The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

reply to post by Solomons


Yes We share common biological ingredients....
Some folks claim that God created all the heaven and Earth plus the Moon Stars and other planets. So after the created earth, from there it was a biological process that started we are in a sense particles from space, that formed our milky way that gave a universe and a earth to live on with all the biological synthesis..developing over time and time again till,,,,
Geneology Of Man... This immortal being of man came about.. he ate from the tree he then became mortal but before that he was an extraterrestial being or, spiritual being.
because he was from the universe that God created is that better?

So to summerize this would mean that we all have an 1/2 extraterrestial ancestor.

reply to post by NorthStargal52


Or, if we stick to science, we are entirely 100% terrestrial in origin as a species.

reply to post by davesidious


Yes davesidious I thank you for your feedback and a more in depth analyzation

reply to post by NorthStargal52


I was merely pointing out the logical fallacies required to be believed if half of your post was to be accepted as fact.

Next time I'll string that out into a more verbose response

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Creation: the act of making, inventing, or producing.

You could have read any dictionary and found out for yourself.

Well no. What created life? We are talking about life pie. What created life.
With out it there is no life to evolve. Now ain't that right pie.?

And thus, your intentions are finally made clear. I gave you an answer to your question. You asked what creation is, and I told you what it is. Of course, this is not the answer that you want me to give you, so you argue that I don't know what creation is, as if I am some how less intelligent or that I am ignorant. Your question was indeed a trap, posed vaguely for your own benefit.

In response to your second question, nothing created life. Life arose from existing molecules.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by PieKeeper]

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Your question was indeed a trap, posed vaguely for your own benefit.

I warned you guys


He is trying to mesh the words "science" and "Creation".
Yet seems to never stand on the science side of things. He has not once mentioned biopoesis, any hypothesis, or any theory.

I am pretty sure he is just trying to attack the Theory of Evolution for not explaining "Creation" of life on earth.

As we all know this is silly.

He also laughed me out of another thread for stating my beliefs

I believe we are a science experiment of time traveling aliens that created the whole universe and all the laws of the universe, they will return and make me king of the world in the year 3015, Obviously after they resurrect me from the dead. In the year 3054 I will tell the world it has 421 years before the end of times . in the year of 3471 my prophecy will filled. The End.

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

You are welcome to join the club of those unable to define creation. Stick around for a moment.

Is this is where you say science is not sure .. so ...

God did it.

?

Wait a minute mate, why does his personal persuasion bother you.
Perhaps hes saying
"science is not sure .. so ... I can accept/not rule out, ..God did it."

This is in regard to what you call abiogenisis, he prefers to call creation.
Whats the problem really.
Theorys of abiogenisis (and there are a few) Are called Theorys for a reason, and have less evidence going for them than TOE and cannot be replicated ,thus proven.

If you asked me "Big bang or God did it?", Id personally be inclined to say
"neither satisfies me, or makes more sense than the other' .

Next time I'll string that out into a more verbose response

Something to think about.
While verbosity is not essential, often the more accurate and direct response happens to be so.

Asked to explain wind, two different folk may argue thus.

(P1) Wind is a combination of existing atmospheric gases carbon dioxide/oxygen, being cased to move by various factors including differences of atmospheric pressures over land and sea....etc

[P2) Wind is the invisable stuff the blows things about.

Which is the better explaination? If you dont use science ,you are not left with much. Wind speed can be measued, but wind cannot be seen, or
quantified without science.
Herein lies the beleif, trust and faith in science. People find what can be tested, replicated (shown to be so) and measured by science, more satisfying to them than that which cannot, however, a refusal to acknowledge anything that is not within the means of science to explain, often leads to a stagnation of imagination and thinking, and perhaps even stiffles the 'evolution' of science itself.
Thinking outside the box brought us many fundamental scientific theorys and equations, many which remain the basis of new theorys today.

I think a level of humility and a lack of fervered beleif/confidence is nessesary in science too, along with acceptance that there remains a great deal more that science cannot tell us, than can.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

You are welcome to join the club of those unable to define creation. Stick around for a moment.

Is this is where you say science is not sure .. so ...

God did it.

?

Are you an ANTI-SEMITE?

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by Donny 4 million

What makes you think I got a problem with Jews in particular ?

Anti-theist I can see.. but I have never even mentioned Jews.

reply to post by nophun


It's another trap. If you tell him what an Anti-Semite is, he'll argue that you don't know what you're talking about, and how it somehow makes you an Anti-Semite.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

Wait a minute mate, why does his personal persuasion bother you.
Perhaps hes saying
"science is not sure .. so ... I can accept/not rule out, ..God did it."

really you are reading his posts and you really think there is any chance this is what he is trying to say ? Why would he not just come out and say ..

"science is not sure .. so ... I can accept/not rule out, ..God did it."

Instead he keeps using "Creation" in rant type posts that don't really add up.
He trying to get someone to say something, that is obvious.

It really seems like he does not understand Evolution does not explain the first life on Earth, rather changes over time in living things.

In his case I am very sure he is trying to disprove evolution using claims that have nothing to do with evolution. That or he is just ranting .. what is a decent option too. Since he asked if I was anti-semite

reply to post by maria_stardust


Maybe if folks had a full understanding of science that would help

geez I wonder how those scientists managed back in 300 BC

reply to post by PieKeeper


Take a look at the thread. What is wrong in Texas. It will explain how your comrade gets trapped. I don't set those snares he does and then falls back into them.

Now here is something worth debating when it comes to evolution.
I have never denied evolution on this thread or any other.
What I may have said is scientist are dumb. Here is an example of that.
When you read this author take a special look at the sentence where a SCIENTIST says
" we are a SMALL community"

Ancient Primate Fossil Roils Scientific Community - AOL News
Mar 5, 2010 ... (March 5) -- Paleontologists say Ida, the fossil trumpeted as a missing link in human evolution, is probably more akin to an extinct ...

www.aolnews.com/science/article/ancient-primate-fossil-roi... - Similar

Now if you want to talk evolution and scientific conspiracy. Start here with my hypotstasis---



Alcohol and Measured Human Evolution

No Gene for Alcoholism, but a possible way to measure Human evolution.

This hypostasis of mine is 20 years old. I would like to explore it with you members as genetics and origins seem to be topics of interest.

My belief is that If you were to examine the genes of a society or culture that has weaned it self away from the use of alcohol---- say CHINA . Less than one percent of the population use alcohol. Compare the Chinese to a culture of 80 percent users. Australian and North American aboriginals are 80 percent users.
You would be able to measure the difference genetically and establish a time line for that transition.

Here are some facts to get started.

If you look at the global percentages of consumption of alcohol. Then start in China and follow a spice trade like route east. You will find India Indians have a 25 percent rate of use, Asia Minor and the Mediterranean countries about 35 percent. Northern Europe and Africa clock in at about 55 percent.

The most interesting is pre European North America and Australia at an amazing 80 percent.

I compiled this data after having a very heated debate with NIH scientists . It was about the foolish breeding of Super Rats, the study of twins and convicts to find the DNA markers that prove their parent or parents caused them to become alcoholic by passing them a bad gene or predisposition for what they were now calling a disease.

When I had collected the factual data I looked at its Linearity and surmised that there could be genetic reason for the east - west increase in consumption due to reproduction.

Everything looked pretty good until I got to the Atlantic Ocean and became confused.
The science at the time was saying alcoholics inherited a predisposition from an alcoholic parent or parents much like cancer. At the time cancer had the visible DNA markers.
That could explain, that if the societal use of alcohol started in China and then copulated its way West with the spices over a period of time, you would find no barrier to stop its dissemination.

Stick with me here because I think this is the most important part.

I now had the two interesting dilemmas.

1----How did this disease copulate its way across the Atlantic and Indian ocean?
2----Why did the data percentages seem backwards?

There is no record of large scale use of alcohol in pre European N. America or Australia and no reports of massive inter-breeding to facilitate a grand scale genetic change in the aboriginal populations over night.

And why in the world would there be more drunks in those populations than in the once pie eyed Chinese.

( Absolutely no disrespect to any of the countries or cultures here.) Every culture and country in it's turn has had an identical scenario.

It occurred to me that the aboriginals didn't get the sex, just the hooch. And the booze got them drunk not their folks.

After thinking about this for awhile, I figured the data wasn't backwards at all.

If the Chinese were first to use alcohol, using the left over rice from a newly contrived agriculture ------
(my calculated guess is 7 -8,000 years ago) and if they past that process west, the numbers from the data start to make sense.
This is ok but does a poor job of explaining why there is today more use in the west than there is in the east.
Aha ha! What if the Chinese became slowly immune to the poison by a evolutionary process.
Selection of a mate, social awareness, depletion of food sources etc.

Repeat this process west ward and the data are looking pretty good.

Ok then, HOW do you prove this!
And I am not saying I can.
If I had a bunch of sober Chinese DNA donors and some from pure blooded North America and Australia aboriginals and a test lab, that would be a start.

Way unlike the National Institute of Health's program.
Perhaps it has changed in the last 20 years but I doubt it.

This was the end of my thread when I last posted it.
I was banned for some month so the thread fell apart.

Do to help from other members I found out some good recent news that fits well in the Hypostasis.
Dr. Lee of the Nat Institute Of health has reported that central Asians have been assaulted with a flush gene that keeps Chinese folks from consuming. I was right!
Russian geneticist have tracked and documented that gene.
Their maps look exactly like my spice trade Hypostasis.
It also shows the dissemination of the gene south through the South Pacific.
Unfortunately they think it is a bad gene because it seems to can cause esophageal cancer in those that still attempt to consume alcohol. They don't connect it to a antidotal type of gene that has mutated to change the ability to consume it. Alcohol is a slow poison, The human factor responds slowly.
I contend the only predisposition to consume is good health.
I am bucking convention with my thinking and would like some input Thanks you all.




[edit on 6-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Asian people are far more likely to have a deficiency of the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase enzymes, rendering them less able to process alcohol, meaning they get drunk and sicker quicker (some even not getting drunk but going straight from sober to sick).

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Asian people are far more likely to have a deficiency of the Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase enzymes, rendering them less able to process alcohol, meaning they get drunk and sicker quicker (some even not getting drunk but going straight from sober to sick).

That's the point 4,000 years ago they were as drunk as any society gets.
The gene has mutated in response to the consumption.
NIH didn't know this until an Asian descovered it. If they had listened to me and looked for it twenty years ago they would have found it that much sooner. What they still don't get is that if current drinking trends continue the world should be pretty much alcohol free in about 3-4 thousand years.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Interesting post Donny. Mind sharing some sources?
I just started reading some on the subjects you bring up, but I am interrupting the subjects much different from you.

Maybe I am just finding old articles. That is why I am asking to see what information you are looking at.

Thanks.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by nophun


Yeah, it is all fairly recent. I will post the links the best I can.