The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific

[PoliticalChic]

So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?

Time needed? No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.

Yet no new life.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?

Time needed? No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.

Yet no new life.

Exactly it. We should be able to reanimate life, all the right atoms are present.

 

[irosie91]

Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.

Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination. I think we're making progress.

So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?

That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.

what are you calling "normal" brain activity? Have you ever seen a fetal electroencephalogram? Let me help you-----even a rat's brain can be subjected to an electroencephalogram-------such a tracing does not look
like that of a 12 year old human child. There is BRAIN ACTIVITY that produces detectable waves on the EEG
tracing paper -------but SO???? Why would there not
be? ------does not look like an EEG of a ten year old child---or even an infant-------at 14 weeks------Ask me how I know

 

[irosie91]

I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.

As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.

Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.

His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved". So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.

"His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "

Only by buffoons.
Raise your paw.



Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.

1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia


3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....

...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?

Why?


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton
Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie



Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.

BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK

 

[PoliticalChic]

So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?

Time needed? No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.

Yet no new life.

Exactly it. We should be able to reanimate life, all the right atoms are present.

1. The great virtue of Darwin’s theory, Richard Dawkins claims, is that it has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Yet, Dawkins’ position has not been widely accepted.
2. “Two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools,” according to the New York Times. Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
3. But even among those persuaded of Darwin’s theory, “18% said that evolution was ‘guided by a supreme being.’ “ Ibid.
   1. Freedom of thought, it seems, is an inconvenience to those with a position to protect…and an income to insure.
4. It is clear that the Left cannot defend its position, so their attempt is ....pro forma....to shut down debate.
   'Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.” Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.
   
   Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'
   EBSCOhost
   

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.

As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.

Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.

His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved". So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.

"His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "

Only by buffoons.
Raise your paw.



Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.

1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia


3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....

...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?

Why?


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton
Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie



Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.

BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK

Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.

 

[irosie91]

I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.

As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.

Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.

His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved". So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.

"His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "

Only by buffoons.
Raise your paw.



Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.

1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia


3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....

...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?

Why?


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton
Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie



Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.

BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK

Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.

simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection" thing

 

[Weatherman2020]

Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.

Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination. I think we're making progress.

So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?

That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.

what are you calling "normal" brain activity? Have you ever seen a fetal electroencephalogram? Let me help you-----even a rat's brain can be subjected to an electroencephalogram-------such a tracing does not look
like that of a 12 year old human child. There is BRAIN ACTIVITY that produces detectable waves on the EEG
tracing paper -------but SO???? Why would there not
be? ------does not look like an EEG of a ten year old child---or even an infant-------at 14 weeks------Ask me how I know

Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.

At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.

As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.

Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.

His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved". So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.

"His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "

Only by buffoons.
Raise your paw.



Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.

1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia


3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....

...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?

Why?


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton
Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie



Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.

BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK

Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.

simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection" thing

"many mechanisms of evolution"

Really?

Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?

 

[irosie91]

Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.

Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination. I think we're making progress.

So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?

That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.

what are you calling "normal" brain activity? Have you ever seen a fetal electroencephalogram? Let me help you-----even a rat's brain can be subjected to an electroencephalogram-------such a tracing does not look
like that of a 12 year old human child. There is BRAIN ACTIVITY that produces detectable waves on the EEG
tracing paper -------but SO???? Why would there not
be? ------does not look like an EEG of a ten year old child---or even an infant-------at 14 weeks------Ask me how I know

Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.

At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.

wrong-----it is VERY MUCH the same as it was when I was ten--------that's me----Alzheimer's has not yet set in. The fetal brain DOES produce electrical activity-----but that is true of all of the tissues of the nervous system-----even in bats----bats have hearts too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dr. Francis Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book, "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature."This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man.

Crick explains...
Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, p.141


According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144




Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.
Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109



Why is Darwin taught as fact....and not these sterling examples of 'science'????

 

[Weatherman2020]

Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.

Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination. I think we're making progress.

So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?

That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.

what are you calling "normal" brain activity? Have you ever seen a fetal electroencephalogram? Let me help you-----even a rat's brain can be subjected to an electroencephalogram-------such a tracing does not look
like that of a 12 year old human child. There is BRAIN ACTIVITY that produces detectable waves on the EEG
tracing paper -------but SO???? Why would there not
be? ------does not look like an EEG of a ten year old child---or even an infant-------at 14 weeks------Ask me how I know

Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.

At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.

wrong-----it is VERY MUCH the same as it was when I was ten--------that's me----Alzheimer's has not yet set in. The fetal brain DOES produce electrical activity-----but that is true of all of the tissues of the nervous system-----even in bats----bats have hearts too.

Sentient life should always be respected.

Especially when it’s children.

 

[irosie91]

Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.

His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved". So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.

"His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "

Only by buffoons.
Raise your paw.



Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.

1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia


3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....

...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?

Why?


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton
Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie



Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.

BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK

Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.

simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection" thing

"many mechanisms of evolution"

Really?

Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE

simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<< evolution in the tube, in the peoples, in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
evolution. ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
(cancer cells is another "good" example)

 

[irosie91]

Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination. I think we're making progress.

So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?

That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.

what are you calling "normal" brain activity? Have you ever seen a fetal electroencephalogram? Let me help you-----even a rat's brain can be subjected to an electroencephalogram-------such a tracing does not look
like that of a 12 year old human child. There is BRAIN ACTIVITY that produces detectable waves on the EEG
tracing paper -------but SO???? Why would there not
be? ------does not look like an EEG of a ten year old child---or even an infant-------at 14 weeks------Ask me how I know

Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.

At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.

wrong-----it is VERY MUCH the same as it was when I was ten--------that's me----Alzheimer's has not yet set in. The fetal brain DOES produce electrical activity-----but that is true of all of the tissues of the nervous system-----even in bats----bats have hearts too.

Sentient life should always be respected.

Especially when it’s children.

EEG activity does not equal SENTIENT. ----yer sciatic nerve produces a WAVE------you ever had a conversation
with your sciatic nerve other than a LOUD CURSE when it twinges?

 

[Weatherman2020]

"His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "

Only by buffoons.
Raise your paw.



Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.

1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia


3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....

...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?

Why?


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton
Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie



Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.

BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK

Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.

simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection" thing

"many mechanisms of evolution"

Really?

Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE

simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<< evolution in the tube, in the peoples, in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
evolution. ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
(cancer cells is another "good" example)

Call us when your virus mutates into something that is not a virus.

A hamster would be nice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "

Only by buffoons.
Raise your paw.



Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.

1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia


3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....

...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?

Why?


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton
Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie



Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.

BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK

Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.

simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection" thing

"many mechanisms of evolution"

Really?

Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE

simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<< evolution in the tube, in the peoples, in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
evolution. ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
(cancer cells is another "good" example)

You seem to have ignored this:
"Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?"

 

[alang1216]

It seems like God's morality has changed dramatically over the ages. Any idea why that would be?

What changed?

The OT God was a god of the Jews, the NT God is a god of individuals. Just one example but the difference is striking that Gnostics believed they could not be the same god

 

[alang1216]

I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.

As a Christian, I believe that God's interface with the flow of time space to be the Logos, or Jesus Christ.

it is not so much that God does not go there, but what He emanates into Space Time is not the father Himself, who is Eternal and always outside the flow of time.

At least this is my comprehension of it, and a priest might brand me a heretic, but this is how I understand it.

I never understood the whole trinity myself. If just seemed to me a bunch of semantic silliness. A priest would certainly brand me a heretic.

 

[irosie91]

BOTH.....EVERYTHING EXCEPT LAMARCK

Please be so kind as to flesh out what you are trying to say.

simple-------many mechanisms of evolution-----even including SUDDEN spurts and bumps which produce---DE NOVO entirely novel organisms------vs the traditional ----slow---one gene at at time,,,,,actually one base pair at a time. -----just no Lamarck-----the MAGICAL-----*life strives to perfection" thing

"many mechanisms of evolution"

Really?

Aside from inhabitants of Petri Dishes....can you name any that have been proven in the laboratory?[/QUOTE

simple evolution is proven by the fact that viruses MUTATE--------and bacteria mutations can exhibit resistance to this or that anti-biotic<<<<< evolution in the tube, in the peoples, in the toilet --------everywhere------various levels of gradual
evolution. ------JUST MULTIPLY tiny steps by something relatively CATACLYSMIC------which is usually lethal----but rared DOES SURVIVE -----and rarer still---reproduce
(cancer cells is another "good" example)

Call us when your virus mutates into something that is not a virus.

A hamster would be nice.

\

do not trivialize the potential of a virus------remember
your little friend HIV
For ADVANCED organisms-----think of the ever active and
changeable MYCOBACTERIUM

 

[irosie91]

I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.

As a Christian, I believe that God's interface with the flow of time space to be the Logos, or Jesus Christ.

it is not so much that God does not go there, but what He emanates into Space Time is not the father Himself, who is Eternal and always outside the flow of time.

At least this is my comprehension of it, and a priest might brand me a heretic, but this is how I understand it.

I never understood the whole trinity myself. If just seemed to me a bunch of semantic silliness. A priest would certainly brand me a heretic.

Fret not------the IRON MAIDENS have been retired