REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Evolution for Dummies...*Edit*.....is for Dummies

POSTED BY: KANEMAN
UPDATED: Friday, March 9, 2007 20:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11838
PAGE 1 of 3

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:16 AM

KANEMAN


Just some hard science for the Evolutionists (Philosophers) among us. Read. or don't, you can always keep on believing in a ridiculously flawed philosophy

.... http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:32 AM

SIMONWHO


Same old arguments that have been debunked time and again.

But regardless of that, there is no proper scientific argument that can end with "As we don't understand this process, God must have done it."

As even that article says, a postulate requires certain conditions to be held true:

1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

Creationism matches none of these criteria.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:34 AM

KANEMAN


You are doing what has hampered mankind from divorcing ourselves from ridiculous theories since we crawled out of the primordial soup, not listening to the truth because we hate the messenger. The argument against evolution is made in the paper. That he believes in god is irrelevant. Is he correct about mutations, statistics, physics, the made up fudge factor, genetics, or Darwinism. He maybe a religious man, but that does not negate evolution being wrong. Accepting that as truth does not mean god did it..Just that evolution, as we spout it, is wrong.

P.s. And you could not have read that paper in 16 minutes. So, let those that do comment. You, obviously are closed minded and not open to anything that goes against your beliefs.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:56 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Same old arguments that have been debunked time and again.

But regardless of that, there is no proper scientific argument that can end with "As we don't understand this process, God must have done it."

As even that article says, a postulate requires certain conditions to be held true:

1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

Creationism matches none of these criteria.



While I do agree with your conclusion, I want to quibble about your ( their? ) definition of " postulate"

When I learned it, a long time ago when we were still evolving, a postulate was a preliminary assumption, a thing agreed or accepted to be true, much like a laywer's stipulated fact, at least as the starting point for argument. A postulate could be hypothetical :" If faster than light travel is possible, then--"

I just looked it up in my Webster's Unabridged, where it says, in part:

"a position or supposition assumed without proof,or one that is considered self-evident, or too plain to require illustration; a propostion of which the truth is demanded or assumed for the purpose of further reasoning; a necessary assumption"

SO, if you start with the postulate, " Evolution is wrong, " you get one conclusion. If you start with a postulate of, " Evolution *M*A*Y* be right--" then the argument takes another shape, and the conclusion may be different.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I started reading it and ran into a problem in the first three paras....
Quote:

But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.
Why look at the words of an amateur? If you're talking about science, it seems to me that he should be quoting scientists. He uses this straw-man argument because a real scientist wouldn't make the mistake that the amateur did. If the rest of the website is as duplicitous and manipulative as the intro, why should I bother reading the rest???

---------------------------------
It don't make no sense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:25 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I found MAJOR problems in the first section alone. This is just a small sampling of the errors. Either this person doesn't know anything about the topic OR they are deliberately whole-cloth fabricating their 'information'.

PLEASE educate yourself before you waste my time and try to foist this off on me.

"Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept."

So this person is not talking abut the 'creation' of life, but about major changes from one life form to another. Dude, there is common biochemistry across all life forms. In fact, there is common DNA across all life forms. This supports macro-evolution. It does fly in the face of creationism - if you are the creator, why use the same template over and over?

"Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety." I googled this phrase carefully, as it is a supposed quote. The only place I found it was your linked site. So this is a straw-man argument. By mis-stating the evolutionary argument, the person creates an easy target. From a supposedly religious person interested in 'truth', it's very dishonest.

"Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning. ... there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one. Duplication - Inversion - Deletion - Insertion - Transposition - (Recombination) - Point Mutation -
none of these (first six) processes can add any data to the genome.
1) Mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.
2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.
To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation.."

The person who is writing this is seriously mis-informed about the biochemistry of the genome. Duplication, deletion, insertion, and transposition cause MAJOR changes in biochemistry and anatomy. Loss of a single gene function is how whales lost their legs. These genetic changes which the author dismisses so casually can cause major heritable changes in biochemistry and anatomy. (To say that NO EVOLUTIONIST can point to this kind of mutation is a bald lie.)

"Population Genetics show that a positive mutation in a population has a poor chance of surviving the “noise” of random events in the population."
Again this is a complete mis-representation of what population genetics shows. Population genetics show that in a stable population, the relative distribution of genes (even the shiny new mutations) will stay the same. Under environmental pressure favorable variations will be selected.

"Even molecular biology has not helped as the evolutionists have hoped."
Actually, molecular biology has been a boon to evolution as more and more conserved sequences - between say bacteria, yeast and man - not only support the 'common ancestor' concept of evolution, but allow basic research - on say human aging - to be performed on yeast.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:31 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
That he believes in god is irrelevant.



Sure it is.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think the tile of this post should be "This website is for dummies" with the link. Not saying Kaneman is one.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:18 AM

CITIZEN


I especially like it when they say "This theory of evolution doesn't happen so obviously Creationism has been proven without doubt".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:19 AM

KANEMAN


Rue, his point that mutations take away from an organism and add nothing new to a genome is fact. So, if you want to make a case for "De-evolution" feel free, but don't use it for a pro evolution argument. I am not a creationist by any stretch, I am saying the gaping holes in evolution cannot be overlooked by anyone being intellectually honest. To believe evolution we would have to forget all the scientific disciplines and laws that show it not only unlikely, but impossible. I am not willing to abandon established laws and sciences in favor of a "Philosophy".

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:20 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I especially like it when they say "This theory of evolution doesn't happen so obviously Creationism has been proven without doubt".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.



Who says that?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:37 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Who says that?


Religious fanatics (you know Fundementalist, Evangelists) oh and you, here:
Quote:

Whoot! chalk one up for creationism.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24550



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

his point that mutations take away from an organism and add nothing new to a genome is fact.
What about insertions and multiple copies (which are then mutated)?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:05 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Rue, his point that mutations take away from an organism and add nothing new to a genome is fact." Actually, this is NOT a fact. They can change genomes in helpful ways - for example sickle-cell trait (a single point mutation - look it up) which confers resistance to malaria.

As SignyM pointed out, other mechanisms besides point mutations - like repeats and insertions - do add genetic material and change DNA function. So does viral carried DNA. The vast majority of human DNA appears to orginate from retroviruses. (BTW, the so called 'non-coding' or junk DNA controlls expression of the rest of the DNA.)

The POINT is, the site you think is so exquisite is bull. So PLEASE, educate your self. I don't have time to go around and around your bogus assertions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:23 AM

SIMONWHO


Is it even worth trying to educate the uneducatable? If someone won't even listen to an argument, what hope is there of persuading them of anything?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:56 AM

KANEMAN


What you are missing is that no new materials are added. They are just different errors within the gene during replication the genome stays the same. It can never result in a new species..never. A simple Google of genetic insertions what is on top....
. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/PhysicalAnthr
opology/EvolutionFact/GeneticMutation/GeneticMutation.htm


Instead of spouting basic crap. Oh.. ah, insertions, point mutations yatayata ya. Learn something, or show data that disproves these two sites. How do insertions cause species to change? How long would it take to replace the general population of a species with a new phenotype because of a genetic change? Is the earth even old enough to do it even once? Give one example of an evolutionary change in a species that can't be disproved in 4 seconds? Have fun.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:04 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


No one has been able to debunk the fossil record. Until that happens, don't waste my time.




A girl named Sue.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:20 AM

KANEMAN


The fossil record. Wow now talk about being misnamed. As if it is a liner record of life. Or branched record of life. Yah right. Not one species can ever be shown to split, never mind change all together. The missing link, what a joke. Stop looking for it. Try looking for any of the billions of missing links..Billions. When one is found let me know Don't waste my time. An alien once landed in Roswell. Don't look I think there is a monster in the closet.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:28 AM

STORYMARK


Kaneman is right. Can't everone see it?

Overwhelming evidence doesn't matter. The fact that not every singe element of evolutionary theory have been proven clearly proves that we were all created by the big invisible man in the sky. It says so in an old book. So it's irrefutable.

Or maybe it was the flying spaghetti monster

One of those, I'm sure of it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:21 PM

MINK


Good grief . . . the guy doesn't even comprehend the difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism, forget about molecular biology. OK, on the one hand we have Mr. Website Guy, citing amateur evolutionists and New Scientist articles, not one bit of his own published investigative work in the field.

On the other hand, we've got many thousands of researchers diligently observing nature, publishing study after peer-reviewed study, yet all somehow clinging desperately to a discredited and deeply flawed philosophy.

Sue is DA BOMB! I used to be a Field member when I lived out that way.



It's okay to leave them to die.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:21 PM

MINK


Good grief . . . the guy doesn't even comprehend the difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism, forget about molecular biology. OK, on the one hand we have Mr. Website Guy, citing amateur evolutionists and New Scientist articles, not one bit of his own published investigative work in the field.

On the other hand, we've got many thousands of researchers diligently observing nature, publishing study after peer-reviewed study, yet all somehow clinging desperately to a discredited and deeply flawed philosophy.

Sue is DA BOMB! I used to be a Field member when I lived out that way.



It's okay to leave them to die.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:32 PM

KANEMAN


"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch,Evolution or Creation (1966)

"Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world."

Show me one.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Legged mammals to whales. Well documented in the fossil record and independently supported by genetics/ biochemistry.

PS THIS IS A TRAP ! I've predicted your response and I already have the answer to your next post. I'm curious to see how predictable (and deliberately ignorant) you are.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:08 PM

MINK


Transitions in Action:

1) Fish - lives in water

2) Amphibian - can live on land for brief periods but must lay eggs in water and loses moisture rapidly through skin

3) Reptile - can live on land exclusively due to watertight skin and watertight eggs

Too broad for you? Okay:

1) Monkey-like ancestor - smallish, hunched semi-bipedal stature, moderate brainpan with distinct snout shape

2) Early Proto-human from fossil record - intermediate size, hunched but bipedal, intermediate brainpan and flatter face

3) Modern human - you know

What do you make of the lobe-finned fishes? What do you make of a flatworm with light-sensitive eyespots? What about mitochondrial DNA and the theory of its symbiotic origin? What about the fossils they've been turning up recently showing new transitional forms between dinosaur and bird, appearing to have both feathers and scales?

It's okay to leave them to die.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:08 PM

MINK


Transitions in Action:

1) Fish - lives in water

2) Amphibian - can live on land for brief periods but must lay eggs in water and loses moisture rapidly through skin

3) Reptile - can live on land exclusively due to watertight skin and watertight eggs

Too broad for you? Okay:

1) Monkey-like ancestor - smallish, hunched semi-bipedal stature, moderate brainpan with distinct snout shape

2) Early Proto-human from fossil record - intermediate size, hunched but bipedal, intermediate brainpan and flatter face

3) Modern human - you know

What do you make of the lobe-finned fishes? What do you make of a flatworm with light-sensitive eyespots? What about mitochondrial DNA and the theory of its symbiotic origin? What about the fossils they've been turning up recently showing new transitional forms between dinosaur and bird, appearing to have both feathers and scales?

It's okay to leave them to die.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just musing - hell must be having a cold snap. I and the poster formerly known as AUrpator agree.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:49 PM

KANEMAN


Of course you know my side of this debate, you willy creature you

Wonderful whales
Cetaceans have many unique features to enable them to live in water. For example:

Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.

A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.

Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.

Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.

Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.

Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.

Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).

Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

Many cetaceans find objects by echo-location. They have a sonar system which is so precise that it's the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphin's ‘click’ pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.1

One amazing adaptation of most echo-locating dolphins and small whales is the ‘melon,’ a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This ‘melon’ is actually a sound lens—a sophisticated structure designed to focus the emitted sound waves into a beam which the dolphin can direct where it likes. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves traveling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to focus the returning sound echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes.2

For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.

Missing links
Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared.

I will post a study from oxford about genetics and biochemistry. Their conclusion is that changes in molecular proteins and DNA cannot explain macro evolution. So what is the mechanism for evolution? Magic or Space Aliens? (Please don't say natural selection, I am getting tired) Biochemistry is irrelevant we all come from the same bank of ingredients. I do not believe we were created by god. I will not blindly believe in evolution either. I believe in real science, couldn't care less about philosophy. For me to believe in evolution they had better come up with a better mechanism for it and find at least one transitional species.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:58 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by mink:
Transitions in Action:

1) Fish - lives in water

2) Amphibian - can live on land for brief periods but must lay eggs in water and loses moisture rapidly through skin

3) Reptile - can live on land exclusively due to watertight skin and watertight eggs

Too broad for you? Okay:

1) Monkey-like ancestor - smallish, hunched semi-bipedal stature, moderate brainpan with distinct snout shape

2) Early Proto-human from fossil record - intermediate size, hunched but bipedal, intermediate brainpan and flatter face

3) Modern human - you know

What do you make of the lobe-finned fishes? What do you make of a flatworm with light-sensitive eyespots? What about mitochondrial DNA and the theory of its symbiotic origin? What about the fossils they've been turning up recently showing new transitional forms between dinosaur and bird, appearing to have both feathers and scales?

It's okay to leave them to die.



That is ridiculous. You are fully aware of that. Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles evolved in a linear fashion? Since when? Third grade?

Dinosaurs that APPEAR to have feathers and scales..Wow, that is a great argument.

Too broad for me? Yes. I haven't seen that poster since elementary school.

Night night folks. Don't go chang'n on me over night now.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:06 PM

DREAMTROVE


Auraptor, well said.

To the non-believers in evolution,

You miss the point. Entirely. Evolution is not a theory of biology, it's one of the key fundamental principles of the universe. It's like saying "Math is wrong"

Consider the argument:

Math is wrong. You can't say 5+5=10 because of you're theory of math, it equal ten because God wants it to.

Evolution says far less about biology than it says about statistics. Perhaps you're throwing out statistics as a science as well. Why stop there? Here's an idea: Just throw out language altogether. Language after all can't have evolved through human efforts to communicate, it must have been handed to us by God. Perhaps we're all babbling because of the tower of babel, and everything about animal communication and development of language was made up. Well, since God gave us a sacred speaking in tongues, why screw around with english?

Zwarp Gorfu Nod Haddem Hdaem

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


You missed the point and failed to do a basic search, which I anticipated.

But rather than give you the answer as I intended, let me demonstrate how easy it is to find. Click on google. Enter: whales fossil record

Read the entire first site you find. Then get back to me.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:52 PM

ANTIMASON


im more curious how non-living matter mutates into living matter; or how an inanimate, lifeless object then evolves into a living organism; which sounds equally as 'mystical' as the theistic theories. i mean.. what process, or 'law' are you guys aware of the gives life (in essence) to death?

that makes the universe, or nature itself a "god", as it gives life to lifeless matter. believe it or not, this is not a new concept, and is an occult one at that

Quote:

Naturalism works in tandem with materialism because it attempts to sustain the primacy of matter with the metaphysical claim of "self-creation" (i.e., abiogenesis). Of course, this claim suggests that living and dead matter are inseparable. Thus, living things are literally artificial entities that create themselves, an occult theme communicated through the Kabalistic myth of the golem.


Quote:

"the golem is based on faith that dead matter is not really dead, but can be brought to life.


Quote:

As a scientific theory, Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim. . . Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb. In other words, it is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic, because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being;


Quote:

“The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry."


i only bring this up because the golem is a Kabbalistic myth, which shares a fundemental premise with Evolution; and the Kabbala is a primary influence of the ancient mysteries, which the Freemasons and Illuminati practice; secret societies intent on establishing a NWO global dictatorship(not to change the subject)

check the link out for yourself and see what you make of it. Kaneman -im curious of our opinion to this link
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Prima_Materia.htm









NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:32 PM

REAVERMAN


Okay, I read to the genetics section and just had to call BS on this guy. He says that an evolutionist says that "Evolution is not random", which the author says contradicts the random mutations aspect of evolution.

This is utter foolishness. We all know that random mutations occur all the time. HOWEVER, evolutionary theory states that, in nature, only those mutations that give the organism an advantage in their specific environment survive. For example: There are two members of the same species born in the arctic with different mutations. One has a thinner fur coat than normal, forcing it to expend more energy keeping warm than anything else. When winter hits it will probably freeze to death, preventing the flawed mutation from gaining a foothold in the gene pool.

The other is born with a much thicker than normal fur coat, allowing it to expend more energy looking for food and a mate. Winter comes and goes. Meanwhile, creature number 2 has not only survived during winter, but thrived, giving it much better chances when it comes to mates. It's offspring inherit the thick coat, and, through thousands of years of inter-breeding, the majority of the species has a thick coat.

Evolution IS random in the sense that the mutations are random. However, evolution IS NOT random in the sense that only those mutations that are beneficial for the organism survive, leading to species that are specialized to their specific environments. The author is taking things completely out of context.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:37 PM

ANTIMASON


such pride coming from the athiest camp; you guys really are the supreme intellects of space and time

who are we to argue with such omniscient beings as yourselves, knowing both the seen and unseen forces of the universe

i now bow to man, god of his own conscience

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:27 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:

im more curious how non-living matter mutates into living matter




Organic matter from inorganic matter although not understood is /partially/ understood. I remember reading an article in that someone figured out one of the steps. It probably made its way onto /., so check there and you'll probably find a link to the original article. That or someone far more knowledgable than I should be along shortly.


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:

such pride coming from the athiest camp; you guys really are the supreme intellects of space and time

who are we to argue with such omniscient beings as yourselves, knowing both the seen and unseen forces of the universe

i now bow to man, god of his own conscience




Point of fact, one CAN be religous AND still believe in evolution. The problem with fundamentalists (and people like you) is that they (you) don't understand this concept. Hell, in the 50's we understood this. And you should know better than to say such things as I cited an article showing such in a thread just a little while ago that you participated in. The thread:

http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24365

with my post with an exert from the article:

http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24365#388048


Also, we science minded people are not "supreme intellects of space and time" etc etc etc. We do the work, publish, reproduce (verify) results, and default to a greater authority when one exists. We also don't deny when contradictions occur, but instead seek to resolve the conflict and/or find a new better solution. I've shown this mentality above and you would do well to do the same.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:32 AM

ROCKETJOCK


My favorite specious argument in all of this is the assertion that a lack of transitional form fossils disproves evolution. Anyone who postulates this obviously has no idea how rare the conditions are that create a fossil. There are at least three unlikely requirements:

1. The life form needs to die under such conditions that its body will be buried, or otherwise encased, such as in amber.

2. Its internment needs to be under such conditions that it will not deteriorate by normal biological functions, such as decay.

3. The resultant proto-fossil needs to remain undisturbed by geologic action (such as erosion) or catastrophic destruction (volcanic/earthquake activity, etc.) for several million years.

Add to this the additional condition that it must be discovered by someone who is capable of recognizing it as a fossil and we have what might be considered a minor miracle of unlikeliness. That few transitional forms are caught in this web of improbabilities is hardly surprising.

In fact, using the Intelligent Design Theory postulate that high odds against something equal proof of a guiding intellect, we must logicaly conclude that someone (God?) wants us to find fossils!

Proof positive that God wants us to believe in Evolution!

(In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic...)

"So Satan buried fossils to mislead mankind? So what? No God worthy of worship would condemn someone for losing in a fixed game." -- Solomon Short

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:41 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


The size of KANEMAN's arse is proof positive on it's own that there is no god.
God would not have made such a horrible mistake.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Anti- I'm not an expert in the field, but there ARE self-replicating bits of DNA, RNA, or just plain simple protein that are borderline "life": viruses, reverse transcriptase viruses, and prion proteins. Altho I can't spell out in detail how "life" could have evolved from non-life, I can imagine how simple molecules can self-assemble into more complex forms. We're taking advantage of that concept in the self-assembly of nanoparticles. (Personally I think that's a very dangerous field of study, since nano-particles can penetrate cells and cause damage.) In any case, the current focus on the "cradle of life" is submarine volcanic vents.
Quote:

Self-assembly is a branch of nanotechnology in which objects, devices, and systems form structures without external prodding. Nanotechnology is a field of engineering that deals with design, manufacture, and control on a scale of a few nanometers (nm) or less, where 1 nm = 10-9 meters. In self-assembly, the individual components contain in themselves enough information to build a template for a structure composed of multiple units. An example is the construction of a monolayer, in which a single layer of closely-packed molecules sticks to a surface in an orderly and closely-packed fashion.... Also see dendrimer, exponential assembly, positional assembly, and self-replication.




---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:47 AM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
To the non-believers in evolution, You miss the point. Entirely. Evolution is not a theory of biology, it's one of the key fundamental principles of the universe.



Hello. Perhaps some of the folks in here have missed the thread on Smoot ( http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24550)?

If evolution is one of the "key fundamental prinicipals of the universe", then why has the man who just won the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics endorsed (and written the foreward) for a book by Fred Heeren which claims that evolution never could have happened? Apparently this Nobel Prize winner in Physics disagrees with some of the people in here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanunki:
Also, we science minded people are not "supreme intellects of space and time" etc etc etc. We do the work, publish, reproduce (verify) results, and default to a greater authority when one exists.



Would "default(ing) to a greater authority when one exists" include the current Nobel Prize winner for physics, George Smoot (who, clearly doesn't believe that the universe evolved)?

Granted, many can accuse myself and others who believe that evolution is a load of bunk (including Fred Heeren) of being "idiots", but until someone in here produces their Nobel Prize in physics, I doubt they can summarily dismiss someone who actually has one in a like manner.

Am I proposing that Nobel laureates cannot be mistaken? Obviously not. Many of them disagree with each other (not just on evolution, but on many things). What I am saying is that they cannot be readily dismissed as "idiots" by people with a far lesser knowledge in their field of expertise -- as I imagine would be a description applicable to every single person in this forum.

And unless anyone thinks Smoot was a "fringe lunatic" who just happened to slip past the Nobel committee... Stephen Hawking called Smoot’s 1992 discovery of small ripples in the fabric of the early universe as "the discovery of the century, if not of all time." So, apparently, Hawking doesn't think Smoot's an "idiot", either.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Carton,

That's why I asked you for quotes in the other thread. I was trying to find what was in the book. The best I can tell, it's a collection of musings of various scientists about the universe, and doesn't specifically address evolution. You say that "Fred Heeren ... claims that evolution never could have happened" in the book, and I was looking for quotes that show that.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:33 AM

SIMONWHO


The trouble is that if you bring in a Nobel prize winner and say "Look, here's an expert, he believes in creationism", we can produce a dozen who don't. Pure faith overwrites basic sense. In much the same way as when you fall in love, you ignore the warning signs that your girlfriend is a lying, cheating, coniving bitch, people who believe absolutely in the literal word of the Bible will layer God wherever they can.

It doesn't mean they're stupid or ignorant. It just means that when they see a rainbow, they think "That's God's promise to us that he won't send a flood again". All the stuff about how it's defraction of light and how there is plenty of proof that no flood covered the Earth as described in the Bible: that gets shoved to one side as irrelevant.

No-one said scientists had to be perfect.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:02 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Carton,

That's why I asked you for quotes in the other thread. I was trying to find what was in the book. The best I can tell, it's a collection of musings of various scientists about the universe, and doesn't specifically address evolution. You say that "Fred Heeren ... claims that evolution never could have happened" in the book, and I was looking for quotes that show that.

The guys a Evangalist lunatic, it would be more worthy of your time to speak to a troll. He believes that all non-Christians should be killed and sent to hell, and he has nothing of worth to say on any subject, including Christianity.

Best to ignore him.

Oh and I don't have a Nobel Prize but this fella does:
“Let us not beat about the bush—the common assumption that evolution through natural selection is a ‘theory’ in the same way as string theory is a theory is wrong. Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro’s law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation.”—James D. Watson, Nobel Laureate
Now why are we giving Cartoon this moron of the lowest calibre even the time of day, let alone attempting to converse on a level above basic grunts, which he is woefully unable to understand?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:27 AM

CITIZEN


Cartoon:
I expect you to ignore this because you're a liar and a coward.
Quote:

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) -- Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable'' foundation of biology.

The group, led by the writer Elie Wiesel, said it wanted to defend science and combat "efforts by the proponents of so-called intelligent design to politicize scientific inquiry.''

The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design.

That increasingly popular idea argues that some features of the natural world are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they are well-ordered and complex. Its followers attack Darwin's evolutionary theory, which says natural chemical processes could have created the basic building blocks of life on Earth, that all life had a common ancestor and that man and apes shared a common ancestor.

Education Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a conservative Republican who has supported the proposed standards, said he was unmoved by the scientists' plea, which became public Thursday.

"I don't think anything should be taught as dogma,'' Abrams told the Lawrence Journal-World.

The standards, used in developing tests for students, came up for update under state law.

Besides Wiesel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, the letter writers include chemists, physicists and medical experts from Wiesel's New York-based Foundation for Humanity.

In their letter, they lauded evolution, saying "its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA.''

The group said intelligent design can't be tested scientifically "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.''


So you have one physicists who's comments you are probably lying about, here's 38 against your one.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:31 AM

MINK


But... but...

I can't believe he shot down my fish to reptiles argument so easily.

I remember reading once about how the fossil record suggests that fish existed for quite some time before the first appearance of terrestrial vertebrates...hundreds of millions of years in fact.

Perhaps I am not remembering correctly, it's been a long time since the third grade.

It's okay to leave them to die.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:31 AM

MINK


But... but...

I can't believe he shot down my fish to reptiles argument so easily.

I remember reading once about how the fossil record suggests that fish existed for quite some time before the first appearance of terrestrial vertebrates...hundreds of millions of years in fact.

Perhaps I am not remembering correctly, it's been a long time since the third grade.

It's okay to leave them to die.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:52 AM

HEB


He has a Nobel Prize in physics not biology. That's like saying that a Dr who has a pHD in English is capable of performing brain surgery on you. Just because you're an expert in one field doesn't mean you're an expert in another.

I'm in the final year of a genetics course and I can guarantee you that the guy in the article kaneman quoted doesn't know what he's talking about.

The information in DNA is encoded by 4 bases (mainly), sets of three bases (a codon) code for one amino acid. A run of codons code for the chain of amino acids that make up a protein. Changing just one codon can change an important amino acid in a protein, completely changing the function of a protein.

Insertion,deletion, transposition and point mutation can all change the code of a gene, changing the protein it is coding for.

Duplication causes two identical DNA sequences to form that can then diverge to give two very different sequences with very different proteins.

It's not about magically "adding data". It's about altering the sequence of bases that completely changes the code.

Saying that these things don't "add new data" is like saying that I haven't made a difference to

the word 'firefly' if I rearrange it to 'I fry elf'.


Also things like the partial evolution of a whale have been answered time and time again. A common argument that is cited by creationists is that humans can't clot their blood without half of the blood clotting system so how can an organism have existed with only a partial blood clotting system. The answer to this is, the turtle.

...................

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:56 AM

HEB


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Cartoon:
I expect you to ignore this because you're a liar and a coward.



Wow I don't know what's going on between you two but that seems really out of order.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:00 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by heb:
Wow I don't know what's going on between you two but that seems really out of order.

Actually it's better than he deserves.

I still don't get why we're giving religious fanatics like Cartoon the satisfaction of discussing with them. Let them live in ignorance if that's what they want.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:12 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Point of fact, one CAN be religous AND still believe in evolution. The problem with fundamentalists (and people like you) is that they (you) don't understand this concept. Hell, in the 50's we understood this. And you should know better than to say such things as I cited an article showing such in a thread just a little while ago that you participated in.



if youll notice, i said "athiest" not evolutionist. i dont dispute that a degree of evolution does occur, i just dont think it is the sole mechanism of creation in the universe. an athiest does not subscribe to any omnipresent being.. that is what im talking about



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:35 AM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
...and I was looking for quotes that show that.



Hi, Rue. Yes, I can give quotes, but can anyone adequately summarize a 400 page book with a few quotes? If you accept Smoot's credentials -- and he recommended it -- you would be far better off reading it, than going by a few quotes which could easily be used to misdirect you (not that I would do that). Even if you don't want to dish out $13 (or whatever it's going for now), I'm sure your library has it.

BTW, I've posted Smoot's entire foreward to the book in that other thread.

Quote:

Originally posted by Simonwho:
The trouble is that if you bring in a Nobel prize winner and say "Look, here's an expert, he believes in creationism", we can produce a dozen who don't. Pure faith overwrites basic sense.


Yes, I agree. Trouble is, people who believe in evolution are just as tainted with preconceptions.

Thing is, you're assuming that because Smoot doesn't believe in evolution that he's automatically a "believer". However, to my knowledge, Smoot has never declared that he's a "believer". I mean, he went to Berkeley!! Seriously. How many "believers" have come out of Berkeley?!?!?

And regarding Nobel prize winners, I never said believe him because he's a nobel prize winner. To quote the last two paragraphs of my above post...

Am I proposing that Nobel laureates cannot be mistaken? Obviously not. Many of them disagree with each other (not just on evolution, but on many things). What I am saying is that they cannot be readily dismissed as "idiots" by people with a far lesser knowledge in their field of expertise -- as I imagine would be a description applicable to every single person in this forum.

And unless anyone thinks Smoot was a "fringe lunatic" who just happened to slip past the Nobel committee... Stephen Hawking called Smoot’s 1992 discovery of small ripples in the fabric of the early universe as "the discovery of the century, if not of all time." So, apparently, Hawking doesn't think Smoot's an "idiot", either.



Quote:

Originally posted by Heb:
He has a Nobel Prize in physics not biology.



Hi, Heb. No. I can understand you're saying this, and you are correct -- if indeed, Smoot was endorsing a book about "biology". He wasn't. Heeren's book ("Show Me God") is not about the origin of "life", but is about the origins of the cosmos, its make-up, and fine-tuning (something about which Mr. Smoot is eminently qualified to comment). (BTW, Heeren's second volume is going to be about the origin of life.)





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:57 AM

HEB


This is what annoyed me about the article Kaneman cited:

He says the following:

"There are at least five concepts of evolution that the evolutionist speaks of as one. They are:

1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome."

No-one I know who calls themselve an evolutionist would say that they deal with those first 3. Evolutionists, in the normal sense of the word, study biologial evolution.

The two arguments are getting confused which is why I assumed he was commenting on evolution in the traditional sense sorry.



...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:09 AM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by heb:
The two arguments are getting confused which is why I assumed he was commenting on evolution in the traditional sense sorry.



No need to apologize. You had no way of knowing the gist of Heeren's book.

The second volume of his series was supposed to deal with the subject about which you are referring. After reading the first volume (5 years ago), I contacted his publisher, eager to get the second volume, and was informed that the second volume was essentially already "finished", and merely awaiting some updates and revisions. Well, I'm glad I didn't hold my breath, waiting for it.

Some of the first volume deals with the "conditions" necessary to sustain life in the universe, however, particularly a lengthy section called "Bottlenecks on the Road to Intelligence" (in chapter 2). It discusses 12 major requisites necessary for life to form, and how exactly fine-tuned things would have to be in order for them to form anywhere in the universe.

If your library has this book, you'd probably enjoy it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:28 AM

HEB


I haven't read the book but I'll check it out if they've got it. But one answer to this problem is the Anthropic principle.

The gist of it is that factors must have been fine-tuned to allow life to evolve, otherwise we wouldn't be here to discuss this. So there may an infinite number of other universes out there, but we have to be in the one that happened to have the right constants to be fine tuned for life because otherwise we wouldn't be here.


Also I'd ask how fine tuned things would have to be in order for a Creator to come into existence that could fine tune these constants, I think the same argument would apply.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:49 AM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by heb:
I haven't read the book but I'll check it out if they've got it. But one answer to this problem is the Anthropic principle.



Yes, I've heard of that. But certainly, you aren't proposing there's any "evidence" for any such theory. It takes a far greater degree of faith to believe in the occurrence of an infinite number of alternate universes than it does to believe that an infinite God exists who made everything "just right" to sustain life.

Quote:

Originally posted by heb:
Also I'd ask how fine tuned things would have to be in order for a Creator to come into existence that could fine tune these constants, I think the same argument would apply.



The Creator (as the scriptures teach) was Himself never created, and beyond all of creation. Yes, I admit it's nearly impossible for our finite minds to comprehend an always-existing entity, but I'm sure an amoeba can't comprehend us, either -- and in relation to things, we've far more in common with an amoeba than we have with our Creator.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on Heeren's book, once you've had a chance to read it.

If nothing else, I believe that Smoot's award of the Nobel Prize for physics (given his prior endorsement of the book) will make others (who might've previously been inclined to dismiss the book outright) now take a look at it for themselves, and not have to take someone else's word for what it says (pro or con).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Countdown Clock, Trump Going to Jail
Sat, February 27, 2021 10:22 - 299 posts
The Texas Disaster
Sat, February 27, 2021 09:37 - 25 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, February 27, 2021 08:58 - 4962 posts
Is it too soon...
Sat, February 27, 2021 08:54 - 3 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Sat, February 27, 2021 08:27 - 6807 posts
Oh look! It's REAVERBOT!
Sat, February 27, 2021 08:11 - 2 posts
The Ongoing Perpetual Wuhan Coronavirus Scare, Lockdown, Unemployment and Corruption
Sat, February 27, 2021 07:47 - 57 posts
$1.5 TRILLION F-35 program considered a "failure"
Sat, February 27, 2021 03:41 - 7 posts
compilation of 2020 election and vote threads - please add any I missed - & misc posts
Sat, February 27, 2021 00:21 - 13 posts
Trans People Exist
Fri, February 26, 2021 19:36 - 1 posts
And now for something important: the globe has an ~20% chance of hitting the global warming 1.5C target in the next 5 years
Fri, February 26, 2021 19:34 - 76 posts
Congress Still Jacking Off Over Unemployment
Fri, February 26, 2021 19:34 - 314 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL