100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Let's Try This Again | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Please do not patronize me wouldnee. I have been nothing but polite to you. Please address me with the same degree of courtesy and respect. Thank you. You did not answer my question. It is quite simple. What do you understand the skeletal remains of early hominids to represent? The bones that have been exhumed from these various excavations across the planet. You can not get much simpler than that. My 8 year old niece could tell me what she thinks after a visit to the natural history museum. This is all I am asking of you. We can ignore the DNA for now if you like. I must tell you that we are a little far off from DNA evidence being referred to as "voodoo". That seems to be what you are implying. It also appears that you seem to feel that science has this absolute imperative to "tear down the Christian myth of Creationism." I don’t think that is anything you need to fear or become defensive about. If you suddenly showed me absolute proof of the existence of Adam and Eve or one of the others stories from the bible, I would be forced to believe. It would be in front of my face. Science does not even require that you, or anyone else accept its theories. clearly you can go to any museum and see bones.....but the carbon dating is not accurate.....again refer to samples that were dead for 50 years that they claimed much older.....and even the seal that had just died......so please.......it is real simple that the cardon14 dating is not proof positive.....there are just to many holes in that theory....sorry.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that the earth itself is 4.5 billion years old has been confirmed in many ways far beyond the need for carbon dating. Astrophysics has shown that it would have taken this long for the planet to have 'evolved' into the state it is currently in even if it had turned out to be a lifeless ball of dirt. Geologists have also shown that all of the geological features of the earth would have taken this long to have come about. So the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years old is as well-established as it can be. Even if we remove all life forms from the planet and never even heard of carbon copy dating.  through those so called text books your always referring to.......show me where their is absolute scientific proof that the earth is 4.5 million years old......through language, civilizations, anything.....Besides just saying that astrophysics has shown it.......show me that proof.... And I say the earth isn't 4.5 billion years old.....because nothing was around before 6,000 years ago....and if you think so don't just say it prove it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Tue 08/12/08 12:47 PM
|
|
Dragoness,
here is your first clue about redefining imperical evidence, as the "experts" are prone to do.  Goodyear, who has garnered international attention for his discoveries of tools that pre-date what is believed to be humans' arrival in North America, announced the test results, which were done by the University of California at Irvine Laboratory, Wednesday (Nov .17). "The dates could actually be older," Goodyear says. "Fifty-thousand should be a minimum age since there may be little detectable activity left." you are so gullible. "could be" ? "little detectible"? let me translate this for you, OK the idiot is guessing and seeking attention. It is exactly as I have been saying, all along. it is nothing more than endless conjecture parading as fact, ad infinitum. get a clue. HELLO? anybody in there? Seriously, no disrespect intended. Just apply some of my pointers to your explorations and you will see that the whole charade is a cospiratorial facade cloaking a hidden agenda and pontificating delusions as fact. It is not amazing to me that such simplicity in truth is so very evasive to people, because people are prone to being deceived quite easily, in general. Especially that idiot Darwin and all of the idiots that bought into his imaginary muse and were led by the nose of their own filters and prejudices to inspire further prejudice and imaginative distractions from anything resembling the truth. and abra, you're even more of a "delusional" than any. you just love jumping aboard lazy assumptions that blind you further from exercising your own long buried critical thinking skills. You are testimony to the presentation of your own judgements. How emotional of you to plunder the cheap shot and antagonize the simpletons that find solice in your inept though cunning arrogance. dance kiddies, dance.  save your penny to pay the fiddler, won't you? this is too easy. yup, His burden is light.   His yoke is easy.   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot agree with any carbon dating techniques or even others being used as present to uphold or disprove any statements period. As a coatings chemist i am fully aware of the attempts of antique conservationist attempting to determine the ages of early and even fairly new materials found on wooden objects even a few hundred Yrs. old or less. It has been shown that CDating is most unreliable dating furniture with the substance to be thousands of years old when in fact it was only 200yrs old at the most. i will not get into the specifics, but i will say - until someone without an agenda to do no more than come up with a extremely reliable method to date any and all organic and inorganic material comes along, i will disregard any evidence given here as - ">>>unreliable."<<< How convenient that the method of proving the god squad wrong is being discounted as .... unreliable. Why isnt the bible being discounted as also unreliable? After all it is a collection of fairy stories used to subjugate women, enslave huge tracts of the population and as an excuse for war. Mr. B, please read closer - but i will say - until someone >>>without an agenda<<< to do no more than come up with a extremely reliable method to date any and all organic and inorganic material comes along, i will disregard any evidence given here as - ">>>unreliable."<<< By an "agenda" i mean "any agenda" be it christian or atheist, all i'm stating is, that it is "not accurate" in dating organic or inorganic materials such as fossils or beeswax or resins as to actual time placements. my sources do not have an agenda past trying to discover the "age" of the types of coating material used in the past. they are not or could care less about the religious or non religious nature of the substances being studied - they only want to confirm the age and C-dating does not provide them that ability in any sort of consistancy. However they are currently working on other methods to do so. If and when those are fully developed and can show me consistant accuracy across the board as to timelines - i will be more than glad to offer or accept such evidences in the future - i have no agenda in this matter accept for not applying unacceptable evidences for either side to say - >>>>>see here!!<<<<<<< Having re-read your post .. now I understand ... thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that the earth itself is 4.5 billion years old has been confirmed in many ways far beyond the need for carbon dating. Astrophysics has shown that it would have taken this long for the planet to have 'evolved' into the state it is currently in even if it had turned out to be a lifeless ball of dirt. Geologists have also shown that all of the geological features of the earth would have taken this long to have come about. So the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years old is as well-established as it can be. Even if we remove all life forms from the planet and never even heard of carbon copy dating. through those so called text books your always referring to.......show me where their is absolute scientific proof that the earth is 4.5 million years old......through language, civilizations, anything.....Besides just saying that astrophysics has shown it.......show me that proof.... And I say the earth isn't 4.5 billion years old.....because nothing was around before 6,000 years ago....and if you think so don't just say it prove it.  I'd like to prove something else to you cupcake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey haters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hating on me yet??????????????????? Im assuming you are talking about the christians, as no athiest I have read on this site hates anyone religious because they are religious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clearly you can go to any museum and see bones.....but the carbon dating is not accurate.....again refer to samples that were dead for 50 years that they claimed much older.....and even the seal that had just died......so please.......it is real simple that the cardon14 dating is not proof positive.....there are just to many holes in that theory....sorry.... But that's already been refuted Feral. That's not how the science is done. The dating isn't performed on the bones themselves, the dating is accomplished by dating the sediment in which the bones were fossilized. You just don't understand the technology of the process that is used to determine these things. Besides the carbon dating is only one of a myriad of scientific observations that has led to these conclusions. It doesn't all rest on carbon dating. That's an erroneous assumption to begin with. There are many other reasons. For example, scientist have even been able to determine what dinosaurs had eaten by examining the remains of fossilized stool, etc. No one has ever found human bones in fossilized dinosaur stool. Yet if dinosaurs lived side-by-side with humans you can rest assured that humans would have been on the dinosaur's menu. At least on the menus of the ones that were omnivores. There would also be no way to explain why dinosaurs disappeared and man did not. Anything that would have destroyed all the dinosaurs most certainly would have destroyed man too. You not just talking about carbon dating here. You're talking about a complete whole new theory. You'd need to explain all this stuff in a whole new theory if you want to reject science. Just claiming that carbon dating might not be dependable isn't enough to blow away the whole collective picture. These arguments were made decades ago, and the scientific community has long since shown that they are non-credible arguments. In fact, if you want to speak about dinosaurs, the very argument that carbon dating isn't trustworthy enough to be considered 'proof' of the age of things, is itself a 'dinosaur argument' figuratively speaking. Finally, if what you'd like to believe were actually true in ancient biblical times, then dinosaurs would have been mentioned in the bible in a major way. Not merely in an obscure passage in Job that also refers to a fire-breathing beast. The mention of a fire-breathing best is more in line with mythology than with dinosaurs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey haters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hating on me yet??????????????????? Im assuming you are talking about the christians, as no athiest I have read on this site hates anyone religious because they are religious. belushi, assumptions swim in your ocean, my amusing friend. I love your humor. it is quite refreshing when I encounter it and I enjoy reading your observations. So here's a clue about mine.   haters of truth, haters of the clarity of mind that does not excuse any shortcut taken to parade around as fact. You can import that into your present observations of Christians, but to do so is at your own peril, judging from the the bottom line of christian thought and discourse that is incumbent upon the perplexity and astonishment exhibited by all that misappropriate the relevance of the Holy Spirit as real and available to be partaken of on the terms given. It is a caveat that the excused bring to themselves in their choices made, not a forgone conclusion that christians partake of the same lapse of judgement by overlooking that very necessary component of being inhabited by the righteousness of God for further apprehension of the truth in God from God directly. It is an ancillary contingency, and not representative of the unconditional nature of God's love as it is errantly assumed to be. It is representative of the conditional aspects of God's love in terms of fully being apprehended of the depths of that love and does render the hopeful heart access to employing the righteousness of God in ones own life with the fullness of joy attached to the poromises of God. But you knew that, right? NO? now you do.     |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But that's already been refuted Feral. That's not how the science is done. The dating isn't performed on the bones themselves, the dating is accomplished by dating the sediment in which the bones were fossilized. You just don't understand the technology of the process that is used to determine these things.
OK, abra. now explain the fossilized remains of sequoia trees on the surface in the forest where they fell, coherently. here is a hint. they can be seen today in the Sequoia National Forest in California. Not that it matters much, but it is inconsistent with what you just said is the learned conclusion of the experts about fossilization, viewed simply by your rebuttal. good luck with that. keep dancing away. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.....Besides just saying that astrophysics has shown it.......show me that proof.... What do you think the forums are? Free college lessons? Take a course in astrophysics if you want to learn about it. I don't need to prove anything to you. You're trying to disprove something that has already been well-established by the scientific community. They aren't arguing about it. They're quite sastified with their knowlege and so am I. Why should I be worried about trying to educate you? Clearly you're running a proselytizing scam here trying to denounced well-estsblish facts to try to sell your unproven religious myth. If there is any burden of proof it's on you! You're the one who is trying to SELL something. Not me.  I've already told you where the answers are. I'm not about to give you free lectures in astro phsyics. I will give you a link to where you can buy some though. www.teach12.com In fact, they have a couse on "Science Wars: What Science Knows and How They Know It." This company isn't even predjudice, they have courses on religion too. There you go kiddo. Everything you ever wanted to know but were too superstitious to ask.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness, here is your first clue about redefining imperical evidence, as the "experts" are prone to do. Goodyear, who has garnered international attention for his discoveries of tools that pre-date what is believed to be humans' arrival in North America, announced the test results, which were done by the University of California at Irvine Laboratory, Wednesday (Nov .17). "The dates could actually be older," Goodyear says. "Fifty-thousand should be a minimum age since there may be little detectable activity left." you are so gullible. "could be" ? "little detectible"? let me translate this for you, OK the idiot is guessing and seeking attention. It is exactly as I have been saying, all along. it is nothing more than endless conjecture parading as fact, ad infinitum. get a clue. HELLO? anybody in there? Seriously, no disrespect intended. Just apply some of my pointers to your explorations and you will see that the whole charade is a cospiratorial facade cloaking a hidden agenda and pontificating delusions as fact. It is not amazing to me that such simplicity in truth is so very evasive to people, because people are prone to being deceived quite easily, in general. Especially that idiot Darwin and all of the idiots that bought into his imaginary muse and were led by the nose of their own filters and prejudices to inspire further prejudice and imaginative distractions from anything resembling the truth. and abra, you're even more of a "delusional" than any. you just love jumping aboard lazy assumptions that blind you further from exercising your own long buried critical thinking skills. You are testimony to the presentation of your own judgements. How emotional of you to plunder the cheap shot and antagonize the simpletons that find solice in your inept though cunning arrogance. dance kiddies, dance. save your penny to pay the fiddler, won't you? this is too easy. yup, His burden is light. His yoke is easy. So you got ALL THAT from those words and you call ME gullible? Sorry for ya then, there is no hope of you expanding your mind past the fantasy story you have been fed as truth. I rest my case here. No offense intended of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Primate Origins: An Introduction Like all other organisms, humans have evolved over time from earlier species, and share a genetic relationship to all other forms of life on Earth. The study of human evolution involves understanding the similarities and differences between humans and other species in their genes, body form, physiology, and behavior. To understand human evolution one must understand where humans fit in relation to other forms of life. Modern humans belong to the group of mammals known as Primates. This is the scientific category describing such diverse creatures as lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, the monkeys of the New World and Old World, and also the apes. As primates we all share many characteristics, such as overlapping fields of vision caused by forward looking eyes (this allows for greater 3D vision), fine ability to grasp and handle objects in our hands, and enlarged brains relative to body size. The evolution of the Primates started in the early part of the Eocene epoch (about 55 million years ago). Olive Baboon: Papio anubis Old World Monkey "Common" Chimpanzee: Pan troglodytes African Ape Photographs courtesy of Don Wilson, Smithsonian Institution, Department of Vertebrate Zoology By comparing humans and other living species, scientists have learned that humans are most similar to the large apes of Africa and Asia. Among all animals, humans and apes are the most alike in brain and body form, by having a complex social life, and in many other major and minor features, including the lack of a tail. The fossil record of several ancient ape species collectively called Proconsul shows that the split between the common ancestors of the Old world monkeys (above left) and the apes (above right) happened in the earliest Miocene, at least 20 million years ago. Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species. So when did humans originate? The answer to that question really depends on what traits are meant by the term "human." Our understanding of the fossil record shows that distinctively human traits appeared neither recently nor all at once. Rather, they evolved piecemeal over a period of roughly 5 million years. By 4 million years ago, humans were habitually bipedal (walking on two legs) yet had brains roughly a third of the size of a modern human's (about the size of a modern ape's brain). By 2.5 million years ago the manufacture of stone tools was common. Large increases in brain size occurred even later. Complex behaviors such as adaptation to a wide range of environments and cultural diversification emerged only within the last 100,000 years. No where does it say that the apes of today existed then. Everything is evolved from something earlier. Evolution being a natural process taking place due to internal (genetic) changes, evironmental changes, etc... I feel that the connection with ALL life on this planet is an honor. I cannot understand how anyone could think of this as an insult. Dragoness, As i have mentioned to Krimsa, my motives for wanting to look at evolution has nothing to do with Christianity or atheist taking on the subject. Merely to look at what evidence is available to look at as to this evolving from a fish to an ape to a man or any such jump in evolution. Jenniebean brings forth what she believes is evidence as evolution but i disagree, if the animal had brought forth a goat or a monkey or some other animal rather than one which still quite closely resembles its ancestry, then that would be a proof beyond a doubt. But a horse and a mule bringing forth a kind that much resembles its parents not. I don't care what the jump is - only that it can be shown now at present time to be such. That i have not been able to deduce from any such as i have read or seen on so far. Do you have proof of such? A clear line of man evolving from apes that had evolved from lemurs or dogs or cats or fish or less than this? just asking.? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Tue 08/12/08 01:33 PM
|
|
Dragoness,
that last comment leads me to assume that your own agenda is focused more on being contributive to anything anitthetical to christianity as is found covenint and readily available at the cost of appearing inept in your ability to disguise your own filters and prejudices? How is it that my beliefs are questionable on the basis of faulty presentations of conjecture bweing paraded around the world as fact, diretly and relevantly being referred to as "evolution"? The fact is, that my assumption is credible, in light of the evidence you present as rebuttal for the truth in that particular conjecture which is an affinity for the contempt of God that you embrace. I find that using convenient excuses for expressing emotional duress are not the comfort that they appear to be on the surface and in the moment that such deceptions lure the mind into an apprehension it then becomes indistinguishable from a further misapprehension. This only about me in your own estimation because that would make it easier for you to excuse me as insensitive and unsympathetic to varying opinions. But varying opinions do not excuse themselves in sincerity as long as they disengenuously parade around as soimething they are not. In that regard, I am sensitive and very sympathetic. Something that is escaping your better judgement. That is unfortunate for you, but remedial iif you choose for yourself. fabricating further unecessary burdens is not my wish for any to endure. But such as you find yourself to believe must also include that awareness. That is my opinion. That is why I started this response to you saying that I "assume" thus and so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, abra. now explain the fossilized remains of sequoia trees on the surface in the forest where they fell, coherently. Why should I bother? No one has been able to explain away all of the inconsistencies that I have pointed out in the Bible. When you pan out, maybe I will to. In the meantime, even if I were to agree that science has no proof for anything, where would that place us? Only on equal footing. Then we'd just be arguing between two things that have no proof. Of course, that's not the case. Science does have overwhelming evidence for its claims. Religious people who even tread into the science arena screaming "No proof! No proof!" Are the silliest creatures on the planet Wouldee. Where's your prove that Jesus was born of a virgin? Where's your proof that he walked on water? Where's your proof that he rose from the dead? You're lust for proofs is clearly artificial. You couldn't care less about proofs. If I give you proof you'll just deny it anyway. Clearly you'd rather believe in fairtales than anything that has any proof behind it. Take away all proof that science has for everything and then you're merely at square one in a stand off of total equality. Trying to strip science of it's evidence is just an act of deperation to try to bring it down to the level of the unproven myth that you'd like to sell. Even if you could succeed in dispoving the evidence of science, you still wouldn't have proven that it's wrong. All you would have done is proven that it might not be right. And where would you go next? Trying to put the eart back at the center of the universe? How far back into the dark ages so you plan on taking this? Is witch burning next on your list? After you've denounced science, are you going to call for the massacre of pagans? Where are we going with this? Owl bet you won't have any trouble at all calling the scientists back in to build you nuclear warheads to play "The Battle of Armageddon" You religious fanatics are truly scary. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Primate Origins: An Introduction Like all other organisms, humans have evolved over time from earlier species, and share a genetic relationship to all other forms of life on Earth. The study of human evolution involves understanding the similarities and differences between humans and other species in their genes, body form, physiology, and behavior. To understand human evolution one must understand where humans fit in relation to other forms of life. Modern humans belong to the group of mammals known as Primates. This is the scientific category describing such diverse creatures as lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, the monkeys of the New World and Old World, and also the apes. As primates we all share many characteristics, such as overlapping fields of vision caused by forward looking eyes (this allows for greater 3D vision), fine ability to grasp and handle objects in our hands, and enlarged brains relative to body size. The evolution of the Primates started in the early part of the Eocene epoch (about 55 million years ago). Olive Baboon: Papio anubis Old World Monkey "Common" Chimpanzee: Pan troglodytes African Ape Photographs courtesy of Don Wilson, Smithsonian Institution, Department of Vertebrate Zoology By comparing humans and other living species, scientists have learned that humans are most similar to the large apes of Africa and Asia. Among all animals, humans and apes are the most alike in brain and body form, by having a complex social life, and in many other major and minor features, including the lack of a tail. The fossil record of several ancient ape species collectively called Proconsul shows that the split between the common ancestors of the Old world monkeys (above left) and the apes (above right) happened in the earliest Miocene, at least 20 million years ago. Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species. So when did humans originate? The answer to that question really depends on what traits are meant by the term "human." Our understanding of the fossil record shows that distinctively human traits appeared neither recently nor all at once. Rather, they evolved piecemeal over a period of roughly 5 million years. By 4 million years ago, humans were habitually bipedal (walking on two legs) yet had brains roughly a third of the size of a modern human's (about the size of a modern ape's brain). By 2.5 million years ago the manufacture of stone tools was common. Large increases in brain size occurred even later. Complex behaviors such as adaptation to a wide range of environments and cultural diversification emerged only within the last 100,000 years. No where does it say that the apes of today existed then. Everything is evolved from something earlier. Evolution being a natural process taking place due to internal (genetic) changes, evironmental changes, etc... I feel that the connection with ALL life on this planet is an honor. I cannot understand how anyone could think of this as an insult. Dragoness, As i have mentioned to Krimsa, my motives for wanting to look at evolution has nothing to do with Christianity or atheist taking on the subject. Merely to look at what evidence is available to look at as to this evolving from a fish to an ape to a man or any such jump in evolution. Jenniebean brings forth what she believes is evidence as evolution but i disagree, if the animal had brought forth a goat or a monkey or some other animal rather than one which still quite closely resembles its ancestry, then that would be a proof beyond a doubt. But a horse and a mule bringing forth a kind that much resembles its parents not. I don't care what the jump is - only that it can be shown now at present time to be such. That i have not been able to deduce from any such as i have read or seen on so far. Do you have proof of such? A clear line of man evolving from apes that had evolved from lemurs or dogs or cats or fish or less than this? just asking.? Apart from the logicalness of it, I can only show you the connections of the scientific data. The fact that the dna of us and chimps is as close as it is is definitely daunting proof that the connection is there. DNA is now showing the connections of all life on this planet to be closer than one could have ever thought. Looking forward from the information we have now, even though the "proof" is pretty conclusive now, it will show and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in the near future. We will find that all life on this planet is interconnected at a root level. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wanna know
when the land catfish in Florida are going to stand up and walk. If we can go backwards and figure out time why not forwards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, abra. now explain the fossilized remains of sequoia trees on the surface in the forest where they fell, coherently. Why should I bother? No one has been able to explain away all of the inconsistencies that I have pointed out in the Bible. When you pan out, maybe I will to. In the meantime, even if I were to agree that science has no proof for anything, where would that place us? Only on equal footing. Then we'd just be arguing between two things that have no proof. Of course, that's not the case. Science does have overwhelming evidence for its claims. Religious people who even tread into the science arena screaming "No proof! No proof!" Are the silliest creatures on the planet Wouldee. Where's your prove that Jesus was born of a virgin? Where's your proof that he walked on water? Where's your proof that he rose from the dead? You're lust for proofs is clearly artificial. You couldn't care less about proofs. If I give you proof you'll just deny it anyway. Clearly you'd rather believe in fairtales than anything that has any proof behind it. Take away all proof that science has for everything and then you're merely at square one in a stand off of total equality. Trying to strip science of it's evidence is just an act of deperation to try to bring it down to the level of the unproven myth that you'd like to sell. Even if you could succeed in dispoving the evidence of science, you still wouldn't have proven that it's wrong. All you would have done is proven that it might not be right. And where would you go next? Trying to put the eart back at the center of the universe? How far back into the dark ages so you plan on taking this? Is witch burning next on your list? After you've denounced science, are you going to call for the massacre of pagans? Where are we going with this? Owl bet you won't have any trouble at all calling the scientists back in to build you nuclear warheads to play "The Battle of Armageddon" You religious fanatics are truly scary. abra. this is it? You spout fossilization is what you have been told it is and that contradicts the facts regarding it and you want me to believe your assessment of Christianity as being nothing more than a bunch of sots being led by the nose to destruction on the very basis of your own having been led by the nose to spout the ignorance and blindness of deluded idiots parading their fabrications as fact and truth? Go sit down and take a much needed nap, my friend. You make no sense. Oh wow, deja vu !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we've been here before.  well, if a nap is not in order because the suggestion comes from me, well, just.............. keep dancing, abra. keep your penny, won't you? The fiddler wants his due!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
davidben1
on
Tue 08/12/08 01:53 PM
|
|
as each uncrupulous scientist with love is filled, and the purpose of all truth spoken by all, and given by god is fulfilled, the spirit of truth hover the earth for the second beginning, and the law of the hardended heart that pronounce ignorance, is left starved and thinning, and weeping of tears of misery pour forth, as the truth called as god used for professions of ignorance are no more, and the vain shoutings of self professed wisdom comes to a whisper, as the once wise tremble with fear, over the fellow men that were mocked and jeered..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sir Tribo wrote. A clear line of man evolving from apes that had evolved from lemurs or dogs or cats or fish or less than this? just asking.? I took a refresher course earlier this year on Biological Anthropology It was a 24 lecture course and although the bulk of the course was focused on the actual development of man, the early lectures did indeed cover the evolutionary pathways from monkey to man. The evidence was quite convincing to me personally. But then I confess that I have absolutely no problem with evolution. I see it as being a perfectly natural explanation of how we got here. From my point of view it doesn't fly in the face of anything divine, or spiritual at all. On the contrary, for me, I'm just amazed at the process. I think it is every bit as profound as some Greek Mythological type of Godhead blowing life into a pile of dirt to create a man from scratch. From my point of view, the process of manufacture is unimportant. What rolls off the assembly line as a finished product is the real treasure. Just as a matter of interest Tribo, I take evolution far back beyond the dawn of man. As a chemist in college I was fascinated with the evolution of the primordial soup. How did the first amino acids come to be. How did DNA itself evolve. Those were the real miracles in my mind. The difference between an ape and a human is trivial in comparison. The biggest difference between an ape and a human is that a human is arrogant and an ape isn't. But the real question Tribo, is what gave rise to amino acids and DNA. Well, what are amino acids and DNA? They are molecules! And what are molecules, they are assemblies of atoms. If DNA is the blueprint for life, then the atoms are the blueprint for DNA! In particular the Carbon atom. Although we can't discount the other atoms as being unnecessary. They most certainly are. But the other atoms are trivial in comparison with the carbon atom. And the reason lies in it's ability to form so many differnet kinds of bonds. The carbon atom really is the King of atoms. It is the 'blueprint' around which all important biological molecules are formed. The carbon atom (along with a soup containing various other less flexible atoms) naturally evolved into amino acids and DNA. So the key to evolution lies with the atoms and their properties and that takes us to the stars,... Where did these atoms come from? Well guess what? They weren't always around. They too evolved in what is called the 'kitchen' of the stars. The carbon atom is formed inside of star. It didn't exist at the Big Bang. It too "evolved" through a process of nucleogenesis which is all describe perfectly by Quantum Theory. So whilst these superstitious uneducated religious people are arguing about apes and dinosaurs the real search for an understanding of true evolution is going on in the field of Quantum theory. The real question isn't about how man evolved from apes, but rather why atoms are synthesized inside of stars with absolute precision. If there is a creator, he's far beyond any myths that were ever written by men. Only scientists are bold enough to go where mythologists fear to tread. They look into the eye of God and worship the knowledge that God bestows upon them directly. Scientist are listening to God. Mythologists are trying to tell God what he must be like. Only scientists are true followers of God. All the others are Satan worshipers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as each uncrupulous scientist with love is filled, and the purpose of all truth spoken by all, and given by god is fulfilled, the spirit of truth hover the earth for the second beginning, and the law of the hardended heart that pronounce ignorance, is left starved and thinning, and weeping of tears of misery pour forth, as the truth called as god used for professions of ignorance are no more, and the vain shoutings of self professed wisdom comes to a whisper, as the once wise tremble with fear, over the fellow men that were mocked and jeered.......... Your posts are truly art David! I kid you not! I could just see your post above written in fancy caligraphy and framed to be hung on a wall at the main entrance to the LHC facility in Cern. Seriously, these are Gold. I humbly bow to your Daivid. You are truly right up there with the great writers and thinkers of all time. It's an extreme pleasure and privilege to read your posts on this otherwise mundane and vacuous forum. You're posts are like diamonds glittering on a desert of humanity. Disclaimer: No offense to the rest of you bimbos, but really. Come on! Davidben's stuff is GREAT! It truly needs to be recorded for future generations to read. You need to write a book David! Even if it's just a collection of random thought paragraphs like the one above. It's just so full of such profound truth. Truths that will become more and more apparent as humanity wakes up from their dark age slumber.
|
|
|
|
|
