DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 341--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: November 15, 2013, 1:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashvin,
Hear!, Hear!
When I get to it, I'm going to take a close look at facial
reconstruction methods of craniums both in forensic science and
archeology. WHY? Because I have read that the nose of hominids,
being composed entirely of cartilage, is never preserved.
Consequently, the shape of the nose in those "scientific"
pro-evolution "reconstructions" of what the faces of the
homonids from the skulls they have dug up actually looked like
are a clear mark of a "hey looky here, this might be a missing
link" agenda. Specifically, look at that nose (further up) drawn
that looks like a cross between a human and an ape. That is not
science; that is wishful thinking. [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]
There is a lot more about ape versus human skull features
(special muscles apes have are reflected in upper braincase
shape) but I need to do more research before I post on it.
Thank you for posting!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/balloons.gif
#Post#: 356--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: Surly1 Date: November 16, 2013, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. But,
[quote]When I get to it, I'm going to take a close look at
facial reconstruction methods of craniums both in forensic
science and archeology. WHY? Because I have read that the nose
of hominids, being composed entirely of cartilage, is never
preserved. Consequently, the shape of the nose in those
"scientific" pro-evolution "reconstructions" of what the faces
of the homonids from the skulls they have dug up actually looked
like are a clear mark of a "hey looky here, this might be a
missing link" agenda. Specifically, look at that nose (further
up) drawn that looks like a cross between a human and an ape.
That is not science; that is wishful thinking.
[/quote]
If drawing such a reconstruction were your assignment, how would
you proceed? ??? ???
#Post#: 363--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: November 16, 2013, 8:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I still need to do more research on how they rebuild the
muscles and skin on a cadaver's face with only a skull.
But here is the premise I would begin with: Muscles are anchored
with tendons to the bones of mammalian skeletons and appearance
follows their function.
Apes, for example, APPEAR to us to be stooped when they are in
the normal position. They aren't stooped at all. You are seeing
the way their musculature disguises the skeleton architecture.
The upper body strength of apes and chimps is much greater than
that of small monkeys and humans.
Small monkeys have a much more similar skull (except for the
fact that it is tiny) to humans than to apes. If I were looking
for an evolutionary cousin, I'd look for the creature with the
most similar skull as matter of Occam's Razor. I would not be
bound by Darwinian accepted assumptions with no scientific
grounding except the Theory of Evolution champions' (not even
the theory itself!) assertion that we descended from apes. They
created a procrustean bed for evolutionary scientists by forcing
archeologists to ALWAYS look for APE-like missing links.
And Surly, in nature, DNA can do some very wild things. I have
seen what a mosquito larvae looks like under a microscope in a
bit of pond water. Observe the segmentation present also in
millipedes and centipedes. Observe the feather/fin like multiple
appendages instead of feet. It's a swimming centipede!
[img width=320
height=200]
HTML http://uq.edu.au/integrative-ecology/images/Predator/notoscriptus-larva.jpg[/img][img<br
/>width=320
height=200]
HTML http://lancaster.unl.edu/pest/images/centipedemillipede/gardncnt.jpg[/img]
Mosquito larvae on left - much smaller than centipede on right
Yet a mosquito is not related, according to the evolutionists,
to a centipede. That is, one did not evolve from the other. The
insect hordes all show up around the Devonian - supposedly 400
million years ago with a few changes due to "natural selection"
and extinction events to arrive at our "modern" insects -
Triassic until now (you know, Dinosaurs until NOW ;)).
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/comparison-of-dinosaurs-of-triassic-roy-andersen.jpg[/img]
comparison of Dinosaurs of the Triassic Period
[quote]Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation
???
with selective pressures exerted by environment, ???
with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity.
???
It appears ??? that rapid radiations and the appearance of new
species, a process that continues to this day, ???
result in insects filling all available environmental niches.
Insect evolution is closely related to the evolution of
flowering plants.
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif<br
/> Insect adaptations include feeding on flowers and related
structures, with some 20% of extant insects depending on
flowers, nectar or pollen for their food source. This symbiotic
relationship is even more paramount in evolution
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gifconsidering<br
/>that about 2/3 of flowering plants are insect pollinated. ;)
Insects are also vectors of many pathogens that may even have
been responsible for the decimation or extinction of some
mammalian species.[/quote]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects
I will take the above quote apart in a minute but let me tell
you where I'm going with this centipede/ mosquito thing as
related to studying hominid skulls.
We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such
analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up
at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no
proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not
related to something else when they appear at the same time?
Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to
evolve into another, period.
Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes
(which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as
Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice
against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had
been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to
ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something
that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he? ;)
The evolutionary scientists DO THAT today saying that,
OBVIOUSLY, what we evolved from doesn't exist today so it was
incorrect to think we are related to apes or chimps. It HAS to
be that we have a common missing link someplace back there, they
say. Sniff!
When they do that they step further into illogic. Why? Because
Mosquitos and centipedes and dragon flies and MILLIONs (about 12
million total of which most are insects at last count) of other
insects STOPPED "EVOLVING" at the time of the Triassic (and the
links to their Devonian cousins are speculative due to the NEW
forms that were symbiotic with the NEW types of plant life -
angiosperms [quote]The apparently sudden appearance of
relatively modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed
such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an
"abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin.[6][/quote]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant)!
But they just don't want to address that brazen bit of
inconsistency in their flawed theory. Now of course they want to
talk about "rapid adaptation" and "evolutionary spurts" and all
sorts of silliness that strains credibility in all but the most
gullible.
So, back to the basic premise of a truly scientific approach to
what is in the fossil record. A mosquito larvae looks like a
centipede adult form. Let's check the DNA package to look for
similar gene coding sequences. We find, say a 30% identical set
of sequences for two creatures that did not evolve from each
other. Hmmmm. There is NO fossil evidence of insects before the
Devonian. Working hypothesis: Somebody designed them both. Why?
Because they have a similar design and did not have time to
evolve from anything else because there simply isn't anything
else remotely similar to insects prior to that time. To
complicate matters further, we have the angiosperms (flowering
plants) showing up at the same time as the insects that
pollinate AND feed on them(symbiosis).
In the quote from the evolutionary view of insect phylogeny
above, observe the following DATA presented and why the
conclusions are exactly backwards in an attempt to fit the facts
to natural selection (and even that they mess up!).
1. RAPID ADAPTATION can ONLY occur when the DNA PACKAGE has
latent coding sequences that respond to environmental pressures.
Think of an aircraft fliying through the air. It has a landing
gear that NEEDS TO BE HIDDEN or the plane won't fly as well.
However, when it has to land, the landing gear has to come out
for the plane to survive. The landing gear is in the ORIGINAL
"DNA" package design of the aircraft and environmental
conditions cause the "landing gear gene" to be expressed. This
is NOT EVOLUTION. This is adaptation from a pre-planned DNA
design.
The SLOW ADAPTATION to environmental stresses from mutations in
natural selection CANNOT produce RAPID ANYTHING because 98% of
mutations are harmful. I've discussed the math before. When
Positive mutations occur, it is a glacially slow process. That
process becomes MISSION IMPOSSIBLE when we have multiple
symbiotic mechanisms occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY between two
extremely disparate life forms (flowering plants and insects).
2. After they emit all this silliness, "Insect evolution is
characterized by rapid adaptation
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
with selective pressures exerted by environment,..."
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif,
they jump to
the old 'evolution through multiple generations' trick, ;)
"with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity."
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif.
WHY is this not logical, or truth based? BECAUSE the flowering
plants arrived at the SAME TIME in the fossil record as the
insects that feed on them AND pollinate them. If fecundity had
anything to do with natural selection or any other
"evolutionary" species modifying mechanism, we would have VERY
DIFFERENT insects than the "modern" ones we have that are
virtually UNCHANGED from the Triassic!
So fecundity works when it is CONVENIENT to the theory of
evolution and doesn't when they don't need to explain some
"difficulty" in their procrustean bed?
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif<br
/>I don't think so.
After that package of pseudo-scientific assumptions above, they
go ALL OUT into speculation to make a giant assumption,
"It appears ;D that rapid radiations and the appearance [img
width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>of new species,...".
Let's correct that statement to state the FACTS, "It appears
that [s]rapid radiations and[/s] the rapid simultaneous
appearance of new species depending for their existence on
multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural
selection".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to the
present despite not having ANY significant change in insects
morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in
progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling
all available environmental niches."
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the
facts on the ground: It appears that the rapid simultaneous
appearance of new species depending for their existence on
multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural
selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in
the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all
available environmental niches of the present biosphere.
The symbiotic angiosperm/insect relationship is not rapidly
adapting to the present level of planetary industrial toxins.
Therefore, whatever the unexplained rapid adaptation mechanism
that occurred in the Triassic Period was, there is no evidence
that it is present today because we are experiencing a high
level of species extinctions affecting, but not limited to,
insects and angiosperms.
THAT is honest science.
I would proceed from my observation that mosquitoes and
centipedes and angiosperms appeared simultaneously to find out
when WE appeared. I would need a clock. I would start with
Carbon-14 (up to 100,000 years accurately IF the carbon
radioactive decay clock hasn't changed over that period but I
would start with it just the same). WHY? Because we have items
with organic carbon that we KNOW the date of like Egyptian
mummies that we can crosscheck for accuracy.
Crude oil, for example contains NO carbon-14, indicating that,
since the plant life form that became that oil decayed, all the
C-14 has radiated out. That means crude oil is technically older
than 100,000 years.
I would proceed to more higher scale dating methods only if I
couldn't get C-14 data.
THEN, with some ball park figures and some skulls from MONKEYS,
not apes, I would start looking at DNA sequences.
Only after I was convinced our closest relative was not the one
that looks most like us (monkeys, not chimps or apes) would I
dig further. During that time I would study the tendon bone
attachments, anatomy and physiology of hominid skulls. I would
go where the data took me.
Yes, I have a working hypothesis that we are a package DNA deal
(created by God) and I would certainly want to find proof. But
it is far more logical to start with that hypothesis than the
Darwinian one because evolution doesn't have proof of their
most basic premise! (the self assembling amino acids for the
first cell).
Furthermore, I have fossil evidence that millions of species
popped up out of nowhere in more than one strata. I think I'm
being more scientific and empirical than the Darwinists "it's
all a crap shoot" arrogance, don't you? [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png[/img]
#Post#: 371--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: guest10 Date: November 17, 2013, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
AG, that was a very well-articulated and comprehensive breakdown
of the flawed evolutionary paradigm!
I would suggest you submit it for publication at DD and
elsewhere if possible.
Another obvious problem with Darwinain evolution is that it
cannot explain the origin of mind/consciousness from mindless
matter and energy. Likewise, it cannot relate mental
similarities with physical similarities between species, even
though that relation MUST exist if its materialist premises are
to hold up.
#Post#: 384--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: Surly1 Date: November 18, 2013, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would say that this--
[quote]Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to
the present despite not having ANY significant change in insects
morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in
progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling
all available environmental niches."
Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the
facts on the ground: It appears that the rapid simultaneous
appearance of new species depending for their existence on
multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural
selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in
the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all
available environmental niches of the present biosphere.
[/quote]
Is the moral equivalent of resolving a cpmplex narrative by
writing, "...and then they all got hit by a truck." Takes care
of your complex plot issues, but ultimately unsatisfying.
So there are holes in evolutionary theory. So what?
IMO, there really important issues that face us in preserving
God's creation have to do with embracing alternative fuels and
putting the fossil fuelers out of business, a business that will
long outlive either of us.
#Post#: 386--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: guest2 Date: November 18, 2013, 6:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ashvin link=topic=18.msg339#msg339
date=1384524703]
Carl Sagan, perhaps the most popular champion of Darwinian
evolution, more recently promoted the "recapitulation theory" of
embryonic development which most scientists agree is totally
false. Not only is this theory inherently racist, it also serves
as a major catalyst of justifying early-term abortions.
[/quote]
Really? Carl Sagan recently promoted that? Well, if that's the
really the case, then I'm definitely going to believe it... ;)
Carl Sagan
Astronomer
Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer, astrophysicist,
cosmologist, author, science popularizer and science
communicator in astronomy and natural sciences. Wikipedia
Born: November 9, 1934, Brooklyn, NY
Died: December 20, 1996, Seattle, WA
#Post#: 396--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: guest10 Date: November 19, 2013, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote=jdwheeler]Really? Carl Sagan recently promoted
that?[/quote]
The key word you left out is "more", as in much more recently
than Darwin's racist analysis. I believe it was in a 1990 paper.
The point is, Darwin's flawed ideas continue to have severe
consequences, even in our supposedly post-eugenics societies.
#Post#: 399--------------------------------------------------
Here's a recent scientific paper on facial reconstruction
By: AGelbert Date: November 19, 2013, 3:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Great Comments!
Surly, as Ashvin stated, the consequences of a flawed
evolutionary paradigm are severly deleterious to rational and
logical thinking in modern society. Your "So what?" question
fails to connect the negative consequences of a predatory
capitalist, rampant planetary exploition with the Darwinian
concept of a mad scramble for resources by amino acids self
assembling in a totally random manner resulting in the giant
truck that running us over now. ;D It's MIGHTY convenient for
the conscience free psychos that fathered GAME THEORY (a twisted
view of interrelationships between sentient beings justifying
any and all heinous and barbaric behavior in the quest for who
gets the most toys "caloric intake, etc") to have DARWIN around
to make everything jes' natural behavior. The evolutionary
paradigm DID include cooperation as FAR more important than
predation in the perpetuation of a species BUT the psychos
quickly underplayed that so their planet trashing could have
"scientific" backing.
Think about it, Surly. Darwin--> Wall Street "scientific" fig
leaf hijacking-->Freud-->Game Theory, a PARADIGM DESIGNED
REPLACE the GOLDEN RULE as the most rational and species
perpetuating behavior (the "fittest") is PRECISELY WHAT IS
BEHIND the LACK OF GUILT by the 1% for TRASHING THE PLANET!
Altruism, cooperation, sustainability, holistic view of every
process to see it value in the biosphere from the birth of new
life to the decay of dead matter NESESSARY for that future new
life is ABSENT from the modern paradigmatic view of SUCCESS.
It's SUICIDAL and CRIMINALLY INSANE.
But they won't let it go because, because... THEY KNOW it will
lead to GUILT, LIABILITY and an END to the con games denying
reality. Love thy Neighbor as Thyself is not optional in the
biosphere. THIS is the "WHAT" of the "So what?" question you
asked.
Think about it.
Ashvin,
I have to develop this thread a little more before I try to
publish some article or series of them that explains the harm
this flawed evolutionary paradigm is doing to Homo Sap. I. as
you do, am trying to proceed on intellect without any appeal to
faith on the reader because most evolution true believers take
off running when they smell a theist, never mind a fundy! I have
to unpack evolutionary arguments using accepted wisdom in
scientific articles written by evolutionists themselves to
demonstrate the flawed logic and premises. It's a mine field but
I have already hit some pay dirt in four areas of science that
is actually pseudo science.
Here's one of them:
Forensic facial reconstruction is used by police departments to
try to identify what a person looked like when only the skeletal
remains are available. However, because the skull is a human
skull of a recently deceased person, it works okay for the
police. However, it DOESN'T work AT ALL for the anthropologist
digging up hominid skulls and having a facial reconstruction
done.
Here's a recent scientific paper on facial reconstruction. These
scientists wrote a 3D program to reconstruct a face on a skull.
They used a human cadaver skull. They had the actual face of the
deceased person and made a mold of it to use for comparison with
whatever their computer program produced. It's a fairly
comprehensive document.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191113154257.png[/img]
Here's the money quote:
in fact, facial reconstruction is not easy, because there are
many facial variations. particularly according to the
nutritional status of the individual and different rates and
intensities of aging. Furthermore, the nose, eye, ear, lips, and
chin probably cannot be constructed exactly from skull
characteristics.
HTML http://www.lirmm.fr/~subsol/JFS.0797.pdf
Think about that. This is a HUMAN SKULL. There is NO DOUBT of
it. Now where in the blue blazes do the anthropologists in
cooperation with artists and facial reconstruction experts get
the NOSE, the LIPS ( EARS ARE covered with hair as a clever
pseudo scientific admission that they don't know what the ears
look like but WHY THE HAIR? Look at an ape or monkey! You SEE
the ears! Why can't these people say "WE DON'T KNOW what the
ears looked like."? Why the subterfuge if not to always try to
look like they know it all? - ARROGANT, aren't they?) and the
CHIN (don't forget all that hair!) of, for example, a
Neanderthal skull, HUH???
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191113154201.jpeg[/img]
I smell an evolutionist agenda RAT! >:(
As you see, I am in to some deep stuff. It requires a lot of
reading and logical thinking. PLUS, it requires the
understanding that there are gate keepers defending the
evolutionary paradigm that DON'T want knowledge like that above
to get out. It wouldn't look good for anthropologists/hominid
archeologists and certain imaginative artists they employ.[img
width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
That article I just quoted is an example of tightly held
knowledge. WHY? Go ahead and try to copy and paste from the PDF
onto a post or a document and you will get gibberish. I'm sure
it's just a coincidence and they are just trying to make sure
someone doesn't copy their work...[img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
But, REALLY, you fellows out there that copy and paste often
from PDFs, how often do you run into this encrypting? I've run
into it before but very seldom.
At any rate, you can see that the public is certainly NOT being
told the truth about how much evolutionist wishful thinking is
being used in these facial reconstructions.
And PLEASE, feel free to copy and paste ANYTHING I publish here
with or without attribution. Just make sure you provide the same
scientific references I provide to keep the naysayers at bay,
;)
#Post#: 476--------------------------------------------------
14 Billion Years: Not enough time for Single Celled Life by Rand
om Mutations.
By: AGelbert Date: November 30, 2013, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Expert mathematicians running probability and statistics for
self assembling amino acids into all the proteins needed for
life in a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM have stated that there hasn't
been enough time if the universe is 14 billion years old or so
for that to occur randomly.
They claim life is IMPOSSIBLE by random chance mutations in that
time frame.
Evolution is great science fiction but it lacks any evidence
whatsoever. I don't know how all this happened but so-called
"evolution" certainly is not the explanation.
[quote]... information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC Berkeley)
realized this problem:
"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible
in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in
probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in
this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however]
A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by
chance."43
Note that in his calculations, Yockey generously granted that
the raw materials were available in a primeval soup.[I] But in
the previous chapter of his book,[/I] Yockey showed that a
primeval soup could never have existed, so belief in it is an
act of ‘faith’. He later concluded, "the primeval soup paradigm
is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions."44
More admissions
Note that Yockey is not the only high-profile academic to speak
plainly on this issue:
"Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on
earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody
knows."—Professor Stuart Kauffman, origin of life researcher,
University of Calgary, Canada.45
"…we must concede that there are presently [I]no detailed
Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or
cellular system,[/I] only a variety of wishful speculations."
—Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Colorado State University.46
"Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously
organized themselves into the first living cell."—Professor Paul
Davies, then at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.47
"The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond
anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled
by how it was achieved."— Kirschner, M.W. (professor and chair,
department of systems biology, Harvard Medical School, USA.),
and Gerhart, J.C. (professor in the Graduate School, University
of California, USA).48
[I]"Conclusion:[/I] The scientific problem of the origin of life
can be characterized as the problem of finding the chemical
mechanism that led all the way from the inception of the first
autocatalytic reproduction cycle to the last common ancestor.
All present theories fall far short of this task. While we still
do not understand this mechanism, we now have a grasp of the
magnitude[/I] of the problem."49
]"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of
life itself… the gap between such a collection of molecules
[amino acids and RNA] and even the most primitive cell remains
enormous."—Chris Wills, professor of biology at the University
of California, USA.50
Even the doctrinaire materialist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben
Stein (Expelled, the movie documentary) that no one knows how
life began:
Richard Dawkins: "We know the sort of event that must have
happened for the origin of life—it was the origin of the first
self-replicating molecule."
Ben Stein: "How did that happen?"
Richard Dawkins: "I’ve told you, we don’t know."
Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"
Richard Dawkins: "No, nor has anybody."51
"We will never know how life first appeared. However, the study
of the appearance of life is a mature, well-established field of
scientific inquiry. As in other areas of evolutionary biology,
answers to questions on the origin and nature of the first life
forms can only be regarded as inquiring and explanatory rather
than definitive and conclusive."52 (emphasis added)[/b][/quote]
Click below for full article and scholarly references:
[url=
HTML http://creation.com/origin-of-life][i]The
Origin of Life
HTML http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif
[move]True Believer Modern Sophisticated Evolutionists aren't
going to take that low down attack on their Faith (whoops, I
mean "scientifically proven, proven and super proven"
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gifTHEORY<br
/>- So there you crazy fundies!
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)
laying
down. High and mighty Evolutionists
REACT--->
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/zzz.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/bc3.gif
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/Bored-cute-big-smiley-animated-066.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif
BUT AFTER A WHILE,
they get more active ;)
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/3ztzsjm.gif
What about the
crusades and the inquisition? What about the price of
peaches in Denmark? What are you, some kind of fundy
nut? Whadaya mean, you never said anything about
God or religion? Your probability math HAS to be
wrong because DARWIN said so!
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/fam/fam12.gif
We are EVOLVED, WE
are ADVANCED, WE are THE
GREATEST!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/budo.gif
And, what's
more, WE are GOD! Yippee! Darwin and Freud freed us from silly
guilt trips and showed us it's EVOLUTIONARILY ADVANCED to be the
APEX PREDATOR and do any damned thing we want so we don't suffer
needless neurosis.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/fly.gif<br
/>Besides, the alternative is UNTHINKABLE. What?!! Of course
we
respect empirical evidence and the science of probability and
statistics! Whadaya take us for, a faith based Fundy? Of course
it doesn't matter that there doesn't SEEM to be empirical
evidence of evolution! They just haven't published it and you
are wrong ,wrong, wrong! How can you have such a rigid mind? You
fundies are all alike. You refuse to question your beliefs even
if science conclusively proves otherwise... [img width=140
height=080]
HTML http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/wemeantwell-23439-20130307-234.jpg[/img]<br
/>[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/> [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/> [/move]
Agelbert awaits the futile, circular, self destructive,
illogical, and dogmatic rebuttal fusilade.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2544.gif
[img
width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
#Post#: 581--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: December 18, 2013, 8:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]From a "discussion" ;D at the Doomstead Diner about
Evolution and the claim that cheationists are "magical
thinkers". [/move]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=2195.msg39190#msg39190
Eddie,
You are on a ROLL, today. Yahoo! If I didn't know you were from
Texas, I would know now! [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>Thank you for your enjoyment of my Renewable energy support.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/8.gif
Of course I am prone to a bit of sermonizing and vitriol now and
then. ;D
It goes with territory. Eddie, I have been THERE with college
professors and health care professionals for the last 30 years
or so on the intolerance, disdain, disparagement and continuous
smirks about being ignorant and a magical thinker.
For nearly 8 months you have consistently weighed on the issue
of Christians in particular and believers in God in general
maintaining repeatedly that they are magical thinkers as if you
are discussing root canals or some other truth of your
experience and profession.
Every time you do that, you are moving into religious territory
and defending your world view. It should NOT bother you that we
challenge it. But every time you talk about believers in God and
scoffers of evolution like they are idiots, you are opening
yourself up to debate.
If you don't want to talk religion, that's cool. Don't say we
are magical thinkers. Every time you do, I will challenge you.
Do you think I have no clue where you are at? You live in Texas!
You married someone who's father was a preacher, right? I know
how intolerable and stuffed shirty those people can be. I know
how pompous and rigid they can be too. Hypocrisy is rife in
Evangelical Christianity. But they don't have a fucking
franchise on magical thinking and hypocrisy. When they get
legalistic about 6 day creation or the Sabbath or whatever, they
are justifying such wishful thinking with magical thinking that
Moses was God's stenographer. But to group people who believe
God created us with judgmental legalists is wrong, offensive,
objectionable and unscientific. I do admit it's easier to group
us all together as whackos not worthy serious consideration.
I have argued against evolution while I believed it was the way
things happened since 1985 because my profs could not answer my
questions about it logically.
I read a lot of science articles and the word "evolution" is
like flies on shit for them. They just cannot write without
using that word. I've got one about E. Coli "evolving" for the
few years through thousands of generations in closed containers
by varying nutritional content (the latest buzzword in
evolutionary circles because they are in the process of shit
canning natural selection in favor of caloric forced gene
expression - more fairy tales ::)).
The E. Coli is STILL, low and behold, E. Coli but one group
metabolizes sugars at a few percentage points (about 3%) faster
than the other so that is EVOLUTION! Give me a fucking break
here! The term ADAPTATION has been captured by the
evolutionists. Adaptation is gene expression to environmental
conditions from a pre-existing package. That is NOT EVOLUTION.
WE intelligently designed E. Coli to make insulin by putting
some plasmids into it but in millions of years it didn't do it
on its own, did it?
Remember those coin flipping exercises in genetics? You know
that it takes a LONG time to get students to obtain 9 tails and
one head or vice versa by each person flipping one coin ten
times. Now to get protein folded amino acids just right
(assuming you HAVE all the amino acids you need all present) you
need SEQUENTIAL 9 to one "mutations" (gross simplification but
you get the idea). You need thousands of SEQUENTIAL (as in one
after the other with NO GAPS) 9 to one mutations for that first
cell. So if it takes one million years of primeval soup amino
acid random folding to get ONE key protein, you need to go
FACTORIAL (million times a million times a million, etc.) to get
ALL the protein sequences needed for life.
There isn't enough time in a 14 billion year universe for that.
Remember all that stuff about vaccines and evolution? Remember
how the cocci this or the bacilli that will "EVOLVE" antibiotic
resistance? Hello? They are STILL cocci this or bacillus that,
are they not? They didn't become E. Coli. There was adaptation,
not evolution.
But they DID get some foreign genetic material so that must be
evolution, right? WRONG. The "evolutionary advantage" that
allowed them to become more virulent did not change their
species. They adapted BECAUSE their DNA package allowed a
plasmid for antibiotic resistance to be incorporated as part of
its original design. The process by which Streptococcus
pneumonia metabolizes sugars and reproduces DID NOT CHANGE. It
is STILL Streptococcus pneumonia. But we were TAUGHT that was
EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION. NOT!
What we did to E. Coli for insulin production is crude. It's
still E. Coli even though we altered its metabolism. Ther comes
a point in messing with bacterial DNA when the changes are
rejected and it dies because every life form has programming to
prevent becoming whatever it ISN'T. Nature breeds TRUE. DNA
edits fastidiously to AVOID change. You know this.
Natural DE-selection works to cull species but natural selection
has never produced an ORIGIN OF SPECIES as Darwin postulated.
If Darwin had seen this short video, he would NEVER have tried
to push the theory of evolution. Evolution is story telling
magical thinking. If you don't agree, show me some proof that it
is occurring. Instead of "change is constant in the natural
wordl" meme we had hammered into us by evolutionary thinking,
science has discovered that the DNA inside cells fight change
continuously through very sophisticated editing.
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY0hZLDOb00&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
HOW can ANYBODY believe the above happened RANDOMLY?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page