Interesting...
-
Interesting...Comment -
Raydog, you don't know what your talking about here bud, zoos post isn't a end all firebomb or something, atheist state this type of thing all the time ... Trying to say a cataipiller Turing in to a butterfly or a tad pole into a frog is a cause for macro evolution. This is a transformation state when a butterfly changes, nothing else. A butterfly won't become an alligator and so fourth. They try to relate evolution to vaccination lol, I haven't had a flew shot in I don't know how long... If someone wants to believe that this is how life works, and humans are just the end of the line, whatever, so I'm not remaining in fog, they know it's a fraud their pumping and plenty of scientist agree, which I nor they are really qualified to say either, but until someone holds a ape family for a few thousand years and they become human, you have something... Even read, Darwin rejected the idea of evolution in the end.... Go figure.
About calling your grandpa stupid, that's just not right, he was probably a lot smarter at something's then you in some areas, everyone has their abilities and talents. Where's your humility raydog ? Why would you say that about people who raised you ?Comment -
Come on tripper, I'm not the only one " who feels the Holy Spirit " so your judgment is off their. You can't use that excuse for every situation especially when it applies to a mass number of people, maybe a certain situation, it could happen, your talking about a lot of people here though. There is no evidence ?, I am evidence, but you want to dismiss that, along with everyone else that's had similar experiences and testimonies. All this is your willful choice to try to make EVERYONE who has had a supernatural experience in their life a liar, and that's your choice..."We live in a spiritual world" can't be proven or disproven; it's just speculation. You "feel"and "are conscious" of things and take that for irrefutable proof... Even as I carefully explain why your "feelings"are misleading, you refuse to listen. That's not being objective, that's you just believing what you want despite the evidence.
"Vertical evolution" (a disparaging term created to try to confuse the issue) was clearly debunked in zoo's post; it's clear you didn't read it. If you do, you'll have your answer. Your theories don't change? Maybe not the specific belief you have now, but it's changed every time something is disproven, or else people just claim the literal word of God is a metaphor
You could say I've dabbled in psychology... but studying in depth isn't necessary; I've linked you to what you need to know. I don't know if you're not reading or not understanding, but it's not getting through. No twisting necessary; I'm offering proof for my positions, you aren't... what else can be done when you don't want to learn?
what's been disproven ? All I get is talk, no facts.. Zoudan post was obviously from someone who like to twist truth as well, if you want to believe that and not the scientist and links I posted to " disprove that " whatever then. Like saying the Seahawks won this year, when they really lost, no matter how many times it's said that they won doesn't make it true... You will never, even if this world ever could go to a million years, never disprove God...
You've linked me to what I need to know, lol, com'on tripper.... You think I don't know about the mind and how it works... Again, you dismiss everything I say to you, and you didn't answer the question, is there a thin line between genius and insanity ? I've lived in this body a long while now, and if you want to believe I truly am " not seeing things ", your part of the deception friend, and that's sad...Comment -
It's easy to claim "someone doesn't know what they're talking about" and dismiss it, but can you point to anything raydog said that is wrong, and provably so?
You're missing the point re: evolution and common ancestors, or how long large changes can take...when you misunderstand major concepts of evolution, you're in no position to declare it false and the overwhelming scientific consensus wrong. I mean, you can, but you have about as much credibility as someone claiming there is no sun when they've never opened their eyes
Darwin didn't reject evolution in the end; what you've read isn't credible, just a. Again, this is something that was addressed in the link zou helpfully posted, which it appears you still haven't read
C'mon freezer...read some of this stuff and let science into your heart, miracles will show up much quicker than praying for them!
Comment -
I know you're not alone; what I'm saying is that all human beings suffer from these cognitive defects. Why would it be surprising that a not insignificant percentage of humans believe something like this?
You claim to be proof, but give no explanation of why you're proof, except for several things which are more readily explained with well-known science, which has been pointed out to you but you refuse to listen.
The neat thing about truth like zou posted? You don't need to take his word for it; it's repeatable and provable...this is what science is. When you come across something calling itself science, and it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, it's simply not science.
Freezer, what I'm saying is simple: if you deny the existence of these cognitive functions of our brain, you simply don't know about the mind and how it works...this is a simple fact.
Sorry for not answering, was on phone, couldn't get as detailed. Is there a thin line between genius and insanity? Looks like it...if I had to define it off the top of my head, I'd say the main difference is that genius produces advances in knowledge that is generally useful to mankind, whereas insanity is all the eccentricity with none of the productive yields. None of that seems to really have any bearing on what we're talking about here though, what's your point?Comment -
I see you like to have selective answers.... and until you can prove evolution as it's stated by the scientific community ... No ones buying it... As I've shown in the link I posted... As I said I'm not a scientist, but any three year old can get the basic concept of ape to man as explained in the museums ... It's bogus, it's untestable nonsense, and anyone can find some pigs teeth or ape fossil, and call it anything they want, it's bones ...It's easy to claim "someone doesn't know what they're talking about" and dismiss it, but can you point to anything raydog said that is wrong, and provably so?
You're missing the point re: evolution and common ancestors, or how long large changes can take...when you misunderstand major concepts of evolution, you're in no position to declare it false and the overwhelming scientific consensus wrong. I mean, you can, but you have about as much credibility as someone claiming there is no sun when they've never opened their eyes
Darwin didn't reject evolution in the end; what you've read isn't credible, just a. Again, this is something that was addressed in the link zou helpfully posted, which it appears you still haven't read
C'mon freezer...read some of this stuff and let science into your heart, miracles will show up much quicker than praying for them!
So if this was some " large change " what's next tripper, do we turn into flying dragons or back to rocks before apes ?Comment -
I am proof, and a science book can not explain anything supernatural bud, just the way it is. If you want to believe mans science, over ALL MY LIFES EXPERIENCE, you would be naive to do so. My life is not readily explained in some book, biggest load of crap I've heard so far. I'm not denying that things can be perceived differently, but to say these evil and good elements don't exist, is like saying hot and cold doesn't exist. Believe what you want bud,
Yes, some times we can get so smart that we become stubborn, constantly trying the same things over and over, even though they don't work. You say your science works with macro evolution, that's a farce, you say the Big Bang works ... Now that's A PROVEN FARCE, you would say the earth was flat a few hundred years ago, all farces .. but yet you guys keep going to the same source for a truth that's constantly changing, some time I question the functionality of some of you. Some times we can be so smart and confident that we're delusional, not excepting the facts at hand, and to say it's all readily explained is bogus... Next your going to tell me the sun is going to burn out soon... Save it tripper, the bible correlates with history, the linage is real, the Jews are real, Jesus is real, the love in His words are real, the wisdom provided is all real, the Holy Spirit is real, and you can't prove the resurrection out of the rich mans tomb didn't happen. Do you think the apostles were just seeing things, Paul's vision, or Peter walking on water... These were real people, and there's more evidence of that, then ANYTHING your macro evolution or Big Bang book can offer.
science is dangerous in the wrong hands, and it should be placed in the correct place with morally sound people who believe in Christ. Stem cells, cloning, transhumanism, genetically modified living " organisms ", the whole lot needs to stop, man is nuts, and in a very unhealthy and unnatural state. This science " will doom " us budd, just something to think about...Comment -
Selective answers? Did I miss a question or something? Quite possible, doing quite a few things at once and entirely possible I missed some point you were trying to make...please remind me!
Evolution, as stated by the scientific community (I assume you mean the theory which is accepted by pretty much everyone?), is proven...science as a whole doesn't make claims that are not proven. You and I aren't geneticists, but we can read the countless studies done and conclude that it's either a) a giant conspiracy involving all of mankind to make this stuff up as well as supporting studies from other related fields, or b) it's just reality. The latter is certainly more reasonable, even if it does contradict a couple of books some people wrote thousands of years ago. The vast majority of the world "buys it".
This "ape to man, rock to human" stuff demonstrates your lack of understanding of basic concepts of evolution. Again, if your knowledge is this limited, you're simply not in any position to evaluate it with any credibility.
If the environment called for it and enough time was given (a lot of generations I imagine), life could possibly evolve into any sort of other life. The variables involved are detailed beyond any easy understanding for complex lifeforms, but this stuff has been proven using simple lifeforms in which we have a better chance of controlling the major variables and knowing the relevant mechanisms. Again, things that zou linked a while ago, that you haven't read yet...
Declaring yourself proof is not how proof works in any logical use of the word. Science is basically the objective study of the human races experiences; against that, your highly subjective experience is nothing. Although I understand it holds considerably more value to you than it might to the rest of us, that does not make it reality.
I said nothing about the big bang...but yes, evolution has been proven. Calling it a farce when you haven't read enough of it to understand the basic principles is a farce
If there was proof the world was flat, I guess I might have said that? Doesn't seem to have been a whole lot of that, but moot point: what I'm telling you now is backed up by overwhelming evidence, and you're free to argue it once you've educated yourself on it.
Interesting point you bring up about smart people being "delusional" sometimes...kinda sounds like that thing I was talking about how people's brains do not always function correctly, doesn't it?
Yes, the bible has parts that line up with what other evidence indicates happened; as a fictionalized version of history, one would expect it to. Harry Potter contains many references to things that actually exist in the real world; in 2000 years, should parents send their children to Hogwarts?
Lineage might be real? Jews are certainly real, not sure that anyone ever denied it...Jesus was probably a real person, or at least a well-put-together composite that might as well be. There are indeed some wise words in the bible, but nothing that can't be found in non-abrahamic religions. These principles probably tended to be discovered independently because of game theory, but we're definitely not ready for that discussion until you can get a grasp on evolution. All this stuff is correct, and might even be useful in introducing people to basic concepts in a non-scientific, easier-to-digest way.
Where you go astray is assuming the supernatural elements of the bible are also true. Again, Harry Potter uses real landmarks; does that mean everything in the books is true? If you disagree, why is that? Because it wasn't written as long ago?
No, I lack the resources to prove some guy didn't come back to life 2,000 years ago....I simply have to assume it's incredibly more likely to be made up/exaggerated, considering we have no way of reproducing this feat in a much more advanced society, but we could easily stage the same circumstances so it would appear to be a resurrection to the uninformed. When the preponderance of evidence is so clearly on one side and the other side only has "some much less knowledgeable dudes thought it happened and wrote it down", it makes no sense to believe the one dubious source. Evolution has plenty of evidence, which we've established you're not interested in looking at
Science dangerous in the wrong hands? Yeah, I suppose...who should be allowed to do what is certainly a philosophical debate, but putting it in the hands of people who don't believe in science seems a bit silly. Of the things you seem to be concerned about, I agree that concern is appropriate; shouting "down with science, up with pseduoscience and god!" isn't a good answer though.Comment -
In bold..Selective answers? Did I miss a question or something? Quite possible, doing quite a few things at once and entirely possible I missed some point you were trying to make...please remind me!
no you've answered it I a paragraph below...
Evolution, as stated by the scientific community (I assume you mean the theory which is accepted by pretty much everyone?), is proven...science as a whole doesn't make claims that are not proven. You and I aren't geneticists, but we can read the countless studies done and conclude that it's either a) a giant conspiracy involving all of mankind to make this stuff up as well as supporting studies from other related fields, or b) it's just reality. The latter is certainly more reasonable, even if it does contradict a couple of books some people wrote thousands of years ago. The vast majority of the world "buys it".
Just because people buy it on a mass scale doesn't mean it's true, I'm not saying it's a giant conspiracy, I'm saying it's distorted, and twisted .. Micro and horizontal evo is a reality, not vertical, but you don't want to comment on the links that lead to that conclusion
This "ape to man, rock to human" stuff demonstrates your lack of understanding of basic concepts of evolution. Again, if your knowledge is this limited, you're simply not in any position to evaluate it with any credibility.
excuse me I'm a bit sarcastic there, but I get the concept. So where did the apes come from and so on ? Where does it relate back to ?
If the environment called for it and enough time was given (a lot of generations I imagine), life could possibly evolve into any sort of other life. The variables involved are detailed beyond any easy understanding for complex lifeforms, but this stuff has been proven using simple lifeforms in which we have a better chance of controlling the major variables and knowing the relevant mechanisms. Again, things that zou linked a while ago, that you haven't read yet..
no trip, life does not do that, and it's not complex, it's simple chickens make chickens...and you guys haven't took the time to comment on what I linked to, but here I am engaging in what he did.
Declaring yourself proof is not how proof works in any logical use of the word. Science is basically the objective study of the human races experiences; against that, your highly subjective experience is nothing. Although I understand it holds considerably more value to you than it might to the rest of us, that does not make it reality.
well sure it's reality, it happened in my reality, and because you haven't seen or experienced it, it doesn't exist .. That's not a very open minded way to look at things, so your opinion on the matter is subjective and narrow..
I said nothing about the big bang...but yes, evolution has been proven. Calling it a farce when you haven't read enough of it to understand the basic principles is a farce
I've watched enough of ken ham and bill Nye ... It's faith either way, but the difference, my God proves Himself to be true and just daily... The scientific community is deceptive and deceitful, ask that guy raymond damadian, who didn't receive his awards, or tesla, who we don't even know today, you hear more about Einstein then any...
If there was proof the world was flat, I guess I might have said that? Doesn't seem to have been a whole lot of that, but moot point: what I'm telling you now is backed up by overwhelming evidence, and you're free to argue it once you've educated yourself on it.
that's not a moot point, that was scientific fact, until they found out otherwise. That's the whole point, it's a facade of over confidence that they hold the truth, when they don't, it changes all he time. I could list some of the big things but I'm sure you can look them up, a flat earth is just one that's popular..
Interesting point you bring up about smart people being "delusional" sometimes...kinda sounds like that thing I was talking about how people's brains do not always function correctly, doesn't it?
well then that sword cuts both ways tripper, especially to people who made this their life's work. Personally I've never had any issues other then seeing things as they are, I've never broken a bone, only time I've been to a hospital was to get stitched up from a stab wound. I have know mental disabilities, I'm healthy as a ox.. super smart people can be deficient in other areas though, socially and so fourth, that could distort their view on reality.
Yes, the bible has parts that line up with what other evidence indicates happened; as a fictionalized version of history, one would expect it to. Harry Potter contains many references to things that actually exist in the real world; in 2000 years, should parents send their children to Hogwarts?
the bible and some Harry potter flick have nothing in common. One is a fiction tale, the bible on the other hand, is all truth... You can't find one lie in the whole book, not one. Even with what is evident, take the articulated history account in the Bible, it's been found to be true, word for word. So no, I wouldn't recommend hogwarts for the children, though they are being programmed with something like it, living in a made up world that's based off lies ...
Lineage might be real? Jews are certainly real, not sure that anyone ever denied it...Jesus was probably a real person, or at least a well-put-together composite that might as well be. There are indeed some wise words in the bible, but nothing that can't be found in non-abrahamic religions. These principles probably tended to be discovered independently because of game theory, but we're definitely not ready for that discussion until you can get a grasp on evolution. All this stuff is correct, and might even be useful in introducing people to basic concepts in a non-scientific, easier-to-digest way.
Jesus is a real person, glad we're getting some where there... And yes other religions do hold " some truth " but as I keep on showing you, God is the first and will be the last, He was around before hindu, buddha, and muslims.. and will be here after them. game theory ? I'll have to look in to what your talking about but before Abraham was, Jesus said I AM.. The prophecy was fulfilled through the linage of David just as prophesied ..
Where you go astray is assuming the supernatural elements of the bible are also true. Again, Harry Potter uses real landmarks; does that mean everything in the books is true? If you disagree, why is that? Because it wasn't written as long ago?
Tripper, they are true, the scriptures are spiritual spiritual scriptures, they go beyond the physical and the superficial, it speaks on the soul and the heart, the emotions and mind, speaks on love, so all of this might go right over your head until you understand it, as I stated earlier Paul's book of Romans speaks on this well in chapters 6,7, and 8.
No, I lack the resources to prove some guy didn't come back to life 2,000 years ago....I simply have to assume it's incredibly more likely to be made up/exaggerated, considering we have no way of reproducing this feat in a much more advanced society, but we could easily stage the same circumstances so it would appear to be a resurrection to the uninformed. When the preponderance of evidence is so clearly on one side and the other side only has "some much less knowledgeable dudes thought it happened and wrote it down", it makes no sense to believe the one dubious source. Evolution has plenty of evidence, which we've established you're not interested in looking at
We will never reproduce His miracles no more then we will ever reproduce another earth, sun, and universe. There's nothing to test, so how could it be so clear ? You can't test evolution on a major scale and I can prove God exist unless you allow Him in to your life... Simple, you want to know, as I said try Him...
Science dangerous in the wrong hands? Yeah, I suppose...who should be allowed to do what is certainly a philosophical debate, but putting it in the hands of people who don't believe in science seems a bit silly. Of the things you seem to be concerned about, I agree that concern is appropriate; shouting "down with science, up with pseduoscience and god!" isn't a good answer though
You suppose ? Heck yeah!! This stuff is dangerous man, don't you want a healthy natural future for children, family, relatives, and friends ? These people are going bonkers...but these are your almighty scientist though
... and why do you keep saying Christians don't believe in science that's just not true trip..
.
Heres the link I was telling you about, thoughts please...
Comment -
Proven farce...but this is what they " believe " now...
The real deal is this...
Comment -
Let's put god aside for a moment. Do you non believers in a higher power believe we have a soul? No? Yes?
Here's some science that says yes and has actual weight. Once that weight is released from the body, where does
it go? Be warned, if you say this science experiment is bullshit, it makes you just as hypocritical as the bible.
Comment -
Maybe coming from a group think cult like you have, you believe everyone else automatically believes everything in sync.Proven farce...but this is what they " believe " now...
These are THEORIES. Open to testing. They EVOLVE through testing. Unlike "Well, Jeebuz says in the bible..."
Thankfully scientists exist (you should thank them too every time your kid gets sick and you choose medicine over just praying). Otherwise you or your kids would die from something minor (or you would have been using bronze age tools to measure the coke you sold to kids)Last edited by muldoon; 03-08-15, 12:25 PM.Comment -
I'm a realist... People from a few Generations ago and those before , as a whole, were as smart as young children are today... Easily influenced and threatened, they weren't smart enough to believe anything different than what they were told to believe and were threatened with... The devil and hell .. It's not disrespectful, its the truth...
You and other God fearing make entirely too many illiterate claims even today... Fact this and fact that are nothing more than illiterate assumptions beaten into you by a manipulative old book... Again, not being disrespectful, its the truth...
How you can sit there and post that all the bible is 100% fact, when none of it has been proven true , most has been scientifically debunked and it's miracles / impossibles have never been repeated, is completely mind blowing to me... It's uneducated , gullible fear at it's finest... Sorry to be the bearer of rational truthComment -
Yes, many people believing something doesn't make it true (see Christianity). What makes it true is the scientific proof that defines it. There is no distortion or twisting; the work proving it is extremely clear. I don't think I missed any of your links on "vertical" evolution, but once again, your dilemma over this false classification was answered extremely clearly in zou link, which you still have not read. "Vertical evolution" is about as distorted a concept as you can ask for, claiming that the evolutionary process is valid but denying the logical conclusion of those changes (that organisms changing will eventually develop large enough changes to be physically distinguishable).
Apes came from a common ancestor as us. We might not have found one yet, but the skeletons we have found show the path of changes pretty clearly to give us a solid idea of where we came from and establish the link beyond any doubt.
Regarding proof of evolution, you claiming "life doesn't do that" isn't exactly convincing when compared to the studies performed which show that it does indeed do that. Again, don't think I've missed any links, but if you have some link that explains why the results of these studies are somehow invalid and provides logical reasons ("the findings aren't compatible with what I want to believe about the bible" isn't valid), feel free to bring them to my attention.
If it happened in your reality, it's subjective, i.e. not actual reality. If you can offer some kind of proof that it actually happened, that's a different story entirely. Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider alternatives, but you don't throw all need for logical reasons out the window and blindly accept explanations...when people do that, it's not being "open-minded"; they're simply committing one of these biases I've shown you, that you presumably still refuse to educate yourself on, preferring to insist that you're right without proof and I'm wrong without bothering to read my proof
Ken Ham is basically a charlatan cult leader who, like most in his position, exploits people's ignorance and parts them from their money. He might even believe what he says, but that makes him no less wrong. The debate you referenced was kind of a waste in that I doubt anyone changed their minds on either side, but Ken certainly didn't have any convincing arguments, just a bunch of "God did it" when faced with the logical impossibility of what he believes. The "scientific community" is large, and you can't hold up a handful of examples as proof the community is bad...Timothy McVeigh claimed to be a Christian; does that mean all Christians are terrorists by your logic?
Can you show any evidence that it was scientific fact? It might have been widely believed at one point (thousands of years ago I might add), but for it to be scientific fact, it would have to be proven by rigorous methods, which it was not.
Your health or perceived mental acuity is irrelevant; you are a human being, and your brain has the same mechanisms which can be misleading. Of course it cuts both ways; that's why I'm saying you have to back your perception up with objective evidence before letting yourself get carried away with it. The point being, these things I'm telling you are true because they're proven true, not because they're only backed by subjective belief.
Bible and Harry Potter have the similarities in common I pointed out, and have a few more (protagonist dies for his people, love is the greatest thing, evil tries to take over the world once a school year....well, maybe not the last one!). I'm quite sure nobody could convince you to accept the bible contains lies; the bible has parts that are no doubt somewhat accurate (movement of Jewish people), parts that are unprovable (God killed enemies of Israel, or did anything really), and parts that are clearly false or contradictory, but have been revised by Christians to be "metaphors" instead of the literal word of God. When people are willing to twist the meaning of something to maintain their belief, it's a very good indicator that they're not being open-minded, they simply want to believe what they believe. But since you asked, 1 Kings 7:23:
So according to the bible, pi (the relationship between diameter and circumference) is 3. Sure, you can claim it's an approximation; but God (assuming he knew this) couldn't be bothered to put "approximately" in there? If God can't be bothered with little details like this, stands to reason that the rest of the bible might contain some errors, don't you think? 'Cause when it comes down to it, saying that unprovable claims made in the bible can't be disproven works both ways: they can't be proven either, at least not unless you're willing to accept them being written about as proof...but if you do that, Harry Potter as as much proof as Jesus' resurrection.
Jesus preceded these other religions (and I guess is being used to retcon that he came up with these things first) on the simple claim that someone wrote down that he said so? So if I say that my grandfather said he came up with this shit before Jesus and I write it down in a book, then I guess it's true because it has exactly the same amount of proof?
The scriptures are "spiritual" because you claim them to be, you and other people committing the same errors in judgement....that's not proof of anything except that the biases I'm telling you about can mislead us into some pretty drastic shit. Again, many lessons in the bible contain wisdom on basic ways to live better as a society, none of which require the acceptance of a supernatural being.
"This guy did a bunch of stuff, but we'll never be able to prove it...that proves he was special!"...or it proves he never did it, and the much more plausible answer (someone exaggerated/made up stuff) is almost certainly the answer. That's how science works freezer: if you can't prove it or give strong evidence for it, it's not fact. Evolution could be tested on any scale given the time, which we obviously don't have...this is why tests have been conducted on short-lived organisms, and there's no reason to believe the proofs obtained from these tests aren't widely applicable.
I want a future where people use logic and reason to greater extent to enjoy their lives, not one where they're encouraged to cast reason and science aside to go back to a bronze age mentality. Christians (or at least the type that believe the bible is literal) don't believe in the universal application of science, otherwise they'd be forced to reject the literal interpretation of the bible for not standing up to scientific rigor or even plausibility. Sure, over the years folks like Ken Ham have revised and twisted their excuses to incorporate aspects of science that were proven beyond any doubt and had become PR problems for them (going from saying "evolution is a lie" to "well, evolution works, but only certain ways")...but cherry-picking results based on their beliefs indicates a disregard for logic and science as a whole.Comment -
Regarding the link, looks like Chappele is saying he got out of the business because he didn't want to compromise his process to make it more widely marketable, and that he didn't want the money enough to do that. Was there supposed to be some other takeaway from that?
Considering the time I've spent watching and reading your links, is it too much to ask for you to do the same for zou's link? http://schach.chess.com/groups/forum...ments-debunkedComment -
Out of all those clips... This is what you came up with, I'd as you to watch again... Because you've missed the point completely.Regarding the link, looks like Chappele is saying he got out of the business because he didn't want to compromise his process to make it more widely marketable, and that he didn't want the money enough to do that. Was there supposed to be some other takeaway from that?
Considering the time I've spent watching and reading your links, is it too much to ask for you to do the same for zou's link? http://schach.chess.com/groups/forum...ments-debunked
while at it, watch the first two minutes of this one...but I guess people are just seeing something that's not there...Everyone who goes through it, you just don't want to listen to real life experiences..
Comment -
Guess no one wanted to comment on this...Proven farce...but this is what they " believe " now...
The real deal is this...
http://creationismnow.blogspot.com/2...-creation.html
MICRO-EVOLUTION VS. MACRO-EVOLUTION: Micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) simply is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. The genes already exist in all species for micro-evolution to occur, but not for macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds). We have breeds or races of dogs today that we didn't have a few hundred years ago. The genes were always there in the dog population but didn't have opportunity for expression until much later. Micro-evolution does not require evolution of new genes. Macro-evolution, however, would require evolution of entirely new genes which mindless nature cannot design. Nature can only work with already existing genes or variations of already existing genes.
NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION (Internet Article): Read this article published in Russia's Pravda magazine. Just google the title to access it. Only evolution within biological "kinds" (micro-evolution) is genetically possible (such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not evolution across biological "kinds" ( or macro-evolution, such as from sea sponge to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving? Read also my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (i.e. genes, genetic code) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to perform genetic engineering or to invent entirely new genes via random genetic mutations caused by random environmental forces like radiation. That’s blind evolutionary faith, not science. Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!Comment -
When evolutionary scientists teach that random genetic mutations in species over, supposedly, millions of years caused by random environmental agents such as radiation, produced new genes (i.e. new genetic code with new genetic information) leading to entirely new forms of life, they are not teaching science but simply a faith, a belief!Comment -
I dont think I've missed any points, but if you believe so, please share your takeaway and we can discuss.
Freezer, we've been discussing this for some time now; the text you quoted is not only wrong, but demonstrates considerable ignorance of what a gene is. The "organs evolving precludes survival" argument demonstrates a similar lack of understanding. There's nothing "blind" about the science, it's well-explained and proven. Again, you need to read zou's link at a minimum, instead of just trying to dig up the ramblings of a ignorant minority.
Again, it's not blind; numerous studies have proven...your desire to remain ignorant of these findings doesn't mean they don't exist!Comment -
If you're counting votes as to who believes we have a soul, then correct, count me as a no.
If I state that God spoke to me last night and said I am his new chosen representative on Earth (Spiritual Affiliate Manager actually, but I get to pick the title on the biz cards)
Should the onus to prove this be on me? Or should it be on those who don't believe me?Comment -
No worries...it would indeed be hypocritical of us, if the findings were proven. However, they were not; his MacDougall's experiments don't stand up to scrutiny (he based his claims on only one of the 6 patients, discarded the other 5 because results were different)*.
Moreover, as coochy pointed out, everything I just said is described in the article you provided. Surely you can understand why some people would find it absurd that the claim you made was debunked by the source you gave for it?
*-per the article you linked, other sources seem to indicate he based it on 4 patients out of the 6, but ignored the timing on all but one.Comment -
In bold...
Theres better ways tripper, look at this guy, he has a new invention with a pesticide that is organic using " mushrooms " rather then the crap their spraying all over our food, and instead of using hybrid seeds, this is a healthy alternative, question is ... WHY ARENT WE HEARING MORE ABOUT IT ?
another thing, quick fact, did you know bill gates dad was a leader for " planned parenthood ". Just some things to consider bud... This stuff goes beyond distorted evolutionComment
