Since Darwinism is clearly in shambles, what is an alternative theory which better accomodates the evidence?

The modern evolutionary synthesis.

Since Darwinism is clearly in shambles

You might want to prove that first.

What is, "darwinism" could you please clarify that. I would like a complete accepted description of what you mean by the term. Or is it just one of those made up christian words again?

I found your description of darwinism:

In the 19th-century context in which Darwin's Origin of Species was first received, "Darwinism" came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society.

Do you know what century this is?

What James R said:
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis)

Since Darwinism is clearly in shambles, what is an alternative theory which better accomodates the evidence?

God did it.

God did it.

No, it was the chinese. pfff. I thought everyone knew thaaat! :eek: :p

You might want to prove that first.

Interesting choice of words.:)

How interesting that in 150 years evolution has become the central dogma of biology and not a single of you Woo Woos have been able to lodge it from there with your delusions.

b-b-b-b-but it's a conspiracy!






yeah, a conspiracy of the educated...

Rather than "panspermia" supposedly being a possiblility of how simple life forms got to Earth, and as there is no real indication that tree shrews morphed into humans, or chimpmunks into horses, why not just note that animals cannot cross syngameon boundries to reproduce, and then concentrate on establishing the limits of the syngameons vis-a-vis extant and extinct creatures, saying that the origin of the syngameons is subject to debate?

Then just leave the Darwinism for the philosophy and religion departments.

... as there is no real indication that tree shrews morphed into humans, or chimpmunks into horses

You just gotta have faith!:eek:

Darwinian faith is science, as proponed by mainstream academics, when actually it is just another philosophy or religion, afterall, it does take faith to believe that frogs morphed into birds, and mold morphed into spiders.

Rather than "panspermia" supposedly being a possiblility of how simple life forms got to Earth, and as there is no real indication that tree shrews morphed into humans, or chimpmunks into horses, why not just note that animals cannot cross syngameon boundries to reproduce, and then concentrate on establishing the limits of the syngameons vis-a-vis extant and extinct creatures, saying that the origin of the syngameons is subject to debate?

Then just leave the Darwinism for the philosophy and religion departments.

Because we tried that already and found conflict with whats here on earth. Now we're figuring out that any one organism is able to produce a line of offspring that can become any other organism, given enough time and environmental motivation.

Darwinian faith is science, as proponed by mainstream academics, when actually it is just another philosophy or religion, afterall, it does take faith to believe that frogs morphed into birds, and mold morphed into spiders.

Why do you insist on making up an entirely new science (or at least an entirely new viewpoint in science) to argue against, instead of arguing against the real thing? Or is it that you have nothing to argue against within the accepted theories of evolution?

Why do you insist on making up an entirely new science (or at least an entirely new viewpoint in science) to argue against, instead of arguing against the real thing? Or is it that you have nothing to argue against within the accepted theories of evolution?

Strawmen are far easier for the simple-minded to handle.

"Environmental motivation" means natural selection.

"Environmental motivation" means natural selection.

Only if you are deluded.

"Environmental motivation," what a creative choice of words!

"Environmental motivation," what a creative choice of words!

Environmental motivation: any effect of a natural force that forces a particular gene set to either be destroyed altogether, or be modified based on chemical interactions. I guess you could say its just natural selection, but really at its most basic its just cause and effect.

Not all of the variables present in such a process are able to be observed.

It is the engine that drives Natural Selection.

It is the engine that drives Natural Selection.

Yes, this is a better way of putting it.

As if the creature knows which supposed mutation to "snuggle up to" and which one not to, and mutations always destroy or merely rearrange genetic material, they never add information, so it's obviously only natural selection within sygmaeons which is rightfully in play here.

As if the creature knows which supposed mutation to "snuggle up to" and which one not to

What are you talking about?

I really don't see any point in responding to IceAgeCivilizations.

YMMV...

I don't know why I keep trying.

432

I know.

That's the name of my next book, "432," just kidding.

This is one dumb thread.

IAC, go read Origin of Species, and don't post again until it's done.

"Heil Hitler."

This is one dumb thread.

The Darwinists are faced with trying to salvage their exposed theory or admitting that syngameons appeared with no apparent precursors. "There were precursorers, we just don't know what they were," is ruling the day to this point.

Depends what you mean by "know". It's not possible to know wether any particular fossil was definitely a common ancestor of anything or a dead end without looking at it's DNA, which doesn't hold up well over time. Evolution, which is well supported by other evidence, implies that there must have been common ancestors.

IAC:

As if the creature knows which supposed mutation to "snuggle up to" and which one not to, and mutations always destroy or merely rearrange genetic material, they never add information, so it's obviously only natural selection within sygmaeons which is rightfully in play here.

You've been reading too much Creationist literature again. The myth that mutations never "add information" was debunked years ago. It is also obviously false to anybody who know anything about genetics.

IceAgeCivilizations:

Please do not denigrate Hitler. He believed in Evolution: See "Superior Race Eugenics".

IceAgeCivilizations:

Please do not denigrate Hitler. He believed in Evolution: See "Superior Race Eugenics".

Eugenics is nothing but selective breeding. Many people accept that selective breeding works without accepting Evolution.

Please do not denigrate Hitler. He believed in Evolution: See "Superior Race Eugenics". There is no way to get the notion of a "superior race" out of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Unless by "superior" you mean "most like a cockroach", maybe.

As if the creature knows which supposed mutation to "snuggle up to" and which one not to, and mutations always destroy or merely rearrange genetic material, they never add information, so it's obviously only natural selection within sygmaeons which is rightfully in play here.

Let me re-post from another thread:
Not all evolutionary changes are simply because of mutations. We can observe that two plants with genes for tall stems, when bred together, will more often than not generate a new plant that grows taller than either one. And that is just one attribute. There are many attributes of many variabilities within genes even without the presence of a mutation.

A mutation is more like a short cut. It changes the DNA in places or in ways that would either have taken much longer to change otherwise, or would never have occured at all. These changes are also directly related to the cause of the mutation, such as gamma rays to a specific area of a specific tissue will cause generally the same mutation ('generally' simply because the same exact event cannot take place twice).

But, DNA is all just a long pattern made of the same basic symbols. Think of a DNA strand like a book, in a specific language. The actual substance of the book is just the same symbols, but they are put in different orders which we translate to form ideas. The building blocks of DNA are just words; the DNA itself is the book. Your body is the idea. Because DNA is just a pattern, information can be "added" even by mistakes. A simple error in copying will change the end product depending on where the error was, what it was before, and what it is now. An error in a gene that is switched off won't have any effects. But if the error causes the unused gene to be switched on, then it will have drastic effects. But if the error switches one single symbol for another, then the effect might not even be noticable. But any minor change makes the end product different.

In this way, it is seemingly impossible that DNA could not change or be changed to become any imaginable (or non-imaginable for that matter) organism possible.

You are not understanding the "adding of information." When the only information available for use is written in patterns of the same basic pieces, then the only way to "add information" is to rearrange the pattern. Adding more is simply adding more of whats already there. New information can come from any number of things, including rays from the sun, or colder temperatures, or hormones, or chemicals, or pretty much anything really.

Very well Ice Age. you have spent thread after thread challenging the beliefs of the 'Darwinists'. What are your beliefs? Speak now, or be hunted down and forced to evolve.

Since all that has been observed is variation within gene pools, no changes into new kinds of animals, and since there are no Darwin-hoped-for transitional forms in the fossil record, Darwinism, the only naturalisitc theory for biological origins, is certainly on thin ice.

All indications are that syngameons appeared, with no apparent "evolutionary ancestors," that is what we know, and good science should deal with what we know, and THEORIZE about how the syngameons came to be.

You are incorrect, my reality-challenged friend. Examination of the fossil record reveals that many modern kinds of creatures did not exist in the past- not insignificantly, humans themselves.

Examination of the fossil record reveals that many modern kinds of creatures did not exist in the past- not insignificantly, humans themselves.
I'd HATE to give IAC any fodder, but I have to be honest...

I agree what Ophiolite said in this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1331982#post1331982)...

Vital One, go away and study - I mean study, not glance through a couple of googled links - just what it takes to fossilise a life form. The odds against anyone entity being fossilised are enormous. The chances of the entity then being discovered by a palaeontologist are almost as great. What is remarkable is not that we have so few of the missing links, but that we have so many.

...and the two don't seem to correlate.

IAC, please take some time out to read Dawkins, at least then you can attempt to directly challenge his theories with your own. Or perhaps you're content to follow the Kunt Hovind method?

This isn't even about missing links, One Raven. He thinks all broad groups of animals existed always. Like there were always bears, horses, hippos, cats, etc., rather than having all diverged from common ancestors at various times.

This isn't even about missing links, One Raven. He thinks all broad groups of animals existed always. Like there were always bears, horses, hippos, cats, etc., rather than having all diverged from common ancestors at various times.

True.
In light of what Ophiolite said, however, humans very well could have existed for far longer than what is generally accepted (if you agree).
Any animal, for that matter.

The myth that mutations never "add information" was debunked years ago. It is also obviously false to anybody who know anything about genetics.

So dont keep this to yourself, give a link\example...i cannot find any myself.

Duplication of HOX genes.

DUPLICATION???

1. an act or instance of duplicating.
2. the state of being duplicated.
3. a duplicate.
4. Genetics. a type of chromosomal aberration in which a region of the chromosome is repeated.

are you sure? suffice it to say the operative word is ADD.

Yes, I am sure.

And since you know shit about genetics I would drop that arrogant act of yours.

are you a real scientist? Is this YOUR forum?

Open your textbook kids.

You too Johny. Stop picking your nose.

Now find this page:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Search&db=books&doptcmdl=GenBookHL&term=duplication+hox+genes+evolution+AND+132476%5B uid%5D&rid=dbio.section.5481

Ok. Johny. Please read to the class what it says after the number 8. That's the one with two zeros standing on top of each other.

That's right Johny.

8. Changes in Hox gene number may allow Hox genes to take on new functions. Large changes the numbers of Hox genes correlate with major transitions in evolution.

And that johny is the classical example that is so well researched that a single pubmed search will score you thousands of articles.

End class.

Let's read some more from a standard textbook on developmental biology:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Search&db=books&doptcmdl=GenBookHL&term=hox+genes+evolution+AND+dbio%5Bbook%5D+AND+13 2442%5Buid%5D&rid=dbio.section.5413#5432
The number of Hox genes may play a role in permitting the evolution of complex structures. All invertebrates have a single Hox complex per haploid genome. In the most simple invertebrates—such as sponges—there appear to be only one or two Hox genes in this complex (Degnan et al. 1995; Schierwater and Kuhn 1998). In the more complex invertebrates, such as insects, there are numerous Hox genes in this complex. Comparing the Hox genes of chordates, arthropods, and molluscs suggests that there was a common set of seven Hox genes in the Urbilaterian ancestor of the protostomes and deuterostomes. Indeed, in invertebrate deuterostomes (echinoderms and amphioxus, an invertebrate chordate), there is only one Hox complex, which looks very much like that of the insects (Figure 22.11; Holland and Garcia-Fernández 1996). By the time the earliest vertebrates (agnathan fishes) evolved, there were at least four Hox complexes. The transition from amphioxus to early fish is believed to be one of the major leaps in complexity during evolution (Amores et al. 1998; Holland 1998). This transition involved the evolution of the head, the neural crest, new cell types (such as osteoblasts and odontoblasts), the brain, and the spinal cord. As we saw in Chapter 11, the regionalization of the brain and spinal cord is dependent upon Hox genes, and the regional specification of the somitic segments depends upon the paralogous members of the different Hox clusters. For instance, deletions of Hoxa-3 (from the A cluster) affect the neural crest-derived glands of the neck; deletions of Hoxd-3 (its paralogue from the D cluster) affect the somite-derived skeleton of the neck. This distinction may be due to the different levels of expression of these genes within the same tissues (Greer et al. 2000). Holland (1998) speculates that the generation of these new structures was allowed by the fourfold duplication of the Hox gene complex.

i cannot find any myself.
I don't think you ever looked.

"Is believed to be....," sounds like a faith.

MAY-

1. (used to express possibility): It may rain.
2. (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.
3. (used to express contingency, esp. in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
4. (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.

I am not gonna use personal attacks on you, i am not a bully.

"Is believed to be....," sounds like a faith.

That's science talk troll. You wouldn't understand. And actually faith is always characterized by righteousness. There is no room for open statements as 'believed to be'.

Or you don't understand your own language. That's probably the case.

Same for Johny. Don't mock something you don't understand. Scientists will hardly ever make definite statements.

"Is believed to be" hardly claims factuality, learn your language, spurmonk.

Anyway. You got your example.

Anyone without arrogance would now humbly admit they don't know shit and go to the library to read up.

Not John of course. He is going to sidetrack the discussion and IAC is going to oneline his ass towards goo.

pathetic.

Anyway. You got your example.

If you say so. Fortunately you dont speak for all (deleted:sensitivity concerns) scientists.

You got your example and you chose to ignore it. You do not want to learn anything.

You are brain dead.

Originally Posted by James R
The myth that mutations never "add information" was debunked years ago. It is also obviously false to anybody who know anything about genetics.

anyway, James can you elaborate on this? Explain how mutations can "add information" and change for example a monkey to a human, be as specific as possible or a link will suffice. Put this to rest once and for all.

Or due to the sensitive nature of even mentioning that man may not have come from monkeys- you may use a simpler life form However, not bacterium or virii.

The change from a monkey to a human does not necessarily involve the addition of information, since the genome does not code for the actual final structure. It is not a blueprint for the body, it directs growth. For example (a simplification), a monkey brain need only grow to a 3 on the brain-growth scale, but a change to a 9 along with requisite change in growth of the skull and birth canal results in the brain required for a human.

For instance, the change from a centipede to a millipede need only involve a change in the number of segments, not an overall increase in information.

Many creatures we think of as less complex than a human have larger genomes.

With all due respect Spidergoat my question specifically addresses mutations. As an aside, I cannot help but think that you are speculating.

So dont keep this to yourself, give a link\example...i cannot find any myself. Do you have a garden? Take a look at the flowers in it - not very much like wild flowers of their type, some of them. Info added by mutation, new characteristic selected by flower enthusiast.

New colors, new shapes, new growth habits, etc.

Apple breeders provide more examples: they have isolated and propagated hundreds of new apple characteristics. There are blue apples, cinnamon flavored apples, etc. Mutations, adding new characteristics not found before in apples. Selection, by someone or something that favored the new characteristic.

Mutations add new info to genomes all the time. The last estimate I recall was that every human carries about a hundred mutations, many of them carrying new info. The contrary assertion is really, really silly.

John99:

anyway, James can you elaborate on this? Explain how mutations can "add information" and change for example a monkey to a human, be as specific as possible or a link will suffice.

You're incorrect in assuming that there is more "information" in a human than in a monkey.

I'm happy to discuss adding information with you, of course. But first, you'll need to give me the precise definition of "information" that you wish to use.

anyway, James can you elaborate on this? Explain how mutations can "add information" and change for example a monkey to a human, be as specific as possible or a link will suffice. Put this to rest once and for all.

Or due to the sensitive nature of even mentioning that man may not have come from monkeys- you may use a simpler life form However, not bacterium or virii.

How many times do we have to point out that scientists use language differently than theists?

How can it be that you are unwilling to learn anything that goes against your believes.

I think I will start a thread in the linguistics forum about this, because this is just ridiculous.

True.
In light of what Ophiolite said, however, humans very well could have existed for far longer than what is generally accepted (if you agree).
Any animal, for that matter.In principle I agree with the conclusion you have drawn from my statement, but I might disagree with the particulars. For example homo sapiens is thought to have emerged about 180,000 years ago. I would not be surprised if it was found that the date was 250,000 years ago. I would be amazed if it was 300,000 years ago, and my sceptical instincts would be in full flower if a 500,000 year date were proposed.
With time, we do find more of those elusive fossils, our interpretation and dating of prior discoveries improves, and so the margin of error falls.

John99, I am feeling compassionate and caring and loving and other warm fuzzy things today. As a Christian I imagine you wish to be meek and thoughful and caring also. You may not be aware, but your posting style comes across as the epitomy of self-righteousness. I keep getting images of the Sanhedrin flash across my mind when I read your posts. You might wish to consider an alternative way of making your point that isn't so liable to be misconstrued.
[By the way, please don't waste your time pointing out that my style is self righteous and arrogant. That is by design. I am sure yours is accidental, and not something you wish to portray.]

You like those nice passive whipping-boy Christians alot better don't you Ophi.

At least they can string together structured arguments with a modicum of logic and internal consistency, rather than trite one liners that have minimal semantic content, no relevance, and lack any socially redeeming features.

And you imagine that you're showing Darwinian evolution to be truth, HA!

I can't recall a single instance in which I have shown Darwinian evolution to be truth. I can recall many instances in which I have pointed people to the works of others where the Modern Synthesis has been shown to be the most convincing explanation for observations made in the life sciences, and I have referred often to the the kind of observations that are relevant.

Yes, Darwinism is a theory, but the evidence for it indicates it should be considered merely a hypothesis, or a mythology.

John99, I am feeling compassionate and caring and loving and other warm fuzzy things today. As a Christian I imagine you wish to be meek and thoughful and caring also.

How do you know if I am a Christian or not? I have never been describes as "meek" but I do not strong arm people into accepting what i believe. "Live and let live" i think the saying goes.

Besides were just having fun and learning, thats all.

the evidence for it indicates it should be considered merely a hypothesis, or a mythology. It's not a mythology. Doesn't qualify.

Yes, Darwinism is a theory, but the evidence for it indicates it should be considered merely a hypothesis, or a mythology.

You'd be more successful, and perhaps convince more people, if you could actually back up your one-line empty claims.

Since Darwinism is clearly in shambles, what is an alternative theory which better accomodates the evidence????

How do you know if I am a Christian or not? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is either a duck or a first rate animal impersonator.

Since Darwinism is clearly in shambles, what is an alternative theory which better accomodates the evidence?

Once again, if you feel you have the opportunity, provide some evidence for your point of view.

I know that Darwinism isn't quite right but I can provide some evidence for it. Also, you could discuss the fact that a color change in a species is an adaptation that does not require a change from one species to another, so adapting to changing conditions may still prove Darwinism without requiring speciation events.

Just because a new color of an animal manifests does not mean it turned into a new kind of animal, right?

Correct, but an animal of a different color may be a different species.

Yes, like a blue whale and a red herring.

Yes, like a blue whale and a red herring.

Interestingly they share a common ancestor.

The slug?

What do you use in lieu of a rational argument?

Nothing.

Nothing.

Case closed.

You should learn to read for comprehension.

The slug?

which one?

Your choice.

Thank you.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is either a duck or a first rate animal impersonator.

so call me whatever you want if that's all you have to say.



How can it be that you are unwilling to learn anything that goes against your believes.

I think I will start a thread in the linguistics forum about this, because this is just ridiculous.

...againt your believes???

yeah gonna have to check that thread out.

make it encyclopedic, searchable by what we think you mean.

Post an alternative theory to evolution.

I think that there are more direct ways that the environment interacts with DNA. The DNA itself may gather information and act on it. RNA transports information between the cells right into and out of their nuclear DNA.

RNA transports information between the cells right into and out of their nuclear DNA.

http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/roflol.gif

I think that there are more direct ways that the environment interacts with DNA. Of course it does, but not in the way you think.

Darwin would be happy.

Post an alternative theory to evolution.

more than a theory, it is not religious but does not omit GOD or any god (how could it?), makes Darwin Evolution obsolete, i will not reveal it here.

so call me whatever you want if that's all you have to say.And you are the one who had the temerity to tell me to relax. I think it is quite evident who the uptight one is around here. Do you have no sense of humour? Are you really going to take personally a remark made on an obscure forum?

:rolleyes:

more than a theory, it is not religious but does not omit GOD or any god (how could it?), makes Darwin Evolution obsolete, i will not reveal it here.

Then why troll this forum then if you have no intention in contributing to it.

I wonder if Darwin went to hell...

Me too.

He is loving every minute of it.

Yeh, I hear it's a fab place.

Me too.
You mean you dont know?

creationists like to use Darwin as an example of evil atheist and of the repenting atheist. Naturally that causes much confusion among creationists who live for a black and white world.

Creationists are the ultimate man made computers. The answer is always on/off like a binary switch.

Sounds like Darwinists.

Only to the ignorant.
Ice Age? Where do you live? It would be fascinating to meet you face to face to discover what stupidity looks like. Don't you agree?

Where do you live, maybe I'll come see you.

Hey Ice Age, whats on the DVD?

What DVD?

Yours/

Excerpt From Chapter 1 "Dinosaurs Died Out About 65 Million Yeas Ago"


The Roman historian Dio (also known as Cassius) wrote that one day when Regulus, a Roman consul (third century B.C.) was fighting against Carthage (North Africa), a dragon suddenly crept up and settled behind the wall of the Roman army. The Romans killed it by order of Regulus, skinned it, and sent the hide to the Roman Senate. When the dragon was measured by order of the Senate, it turned to be an amazing 120 feet long, and the thickness was fitting to the length.

Funny how the biggest dinosaur ever found was only 115 feet long.

The new one "Atlantis: Secret Star-Mappers of a Lost World," which I'll have in two or three days, is about the star mappers of the Atlantean Empire, who were rivals of the Athenians, and who utilized precession measuring to navigate by the stars.

"Ice Age Civilizations" is about the submerged megaliths worldwide and their implications for human history, and about how the ancients measured the Earth and the Great Pyramid dimensions by the rate of precession.

Why do you need to measure precession to navigate by the stars?

How come you send skinwalker your book three times and we haven't had a single copy?

I sent one package with three books in it so he could give one to you.

Three times? Did skinwalker keep losing it?

You have to measure time to measure east-west distances.

Precession is way to slow to measure time.

72 years per degree, hold your arm out with your thumb and finger about two inches apart, that is about how much the stars appear to move along the horizon because of precession every 72 years. The monitored this with the "Celtic Cross."

That doesnt help you navigate longitude.

I sent one package with three books in it so he could give one to you.

Your books were so good he kept them all to himself.

spurious, those boobs are freaking me out now.

That is how the ancients measured east-west distances (longitudes).

Of course not.

But the hair salvages it.

Why of course not?

Excerpt From Chapter 2

Bones have been found in northern Alaska for decades which until recently were assumed to be of buffalos because they are so fresh looking and un-fossilized. When scientists arrived and analyzed the bones, they determined the bones were of duck-billed dinosaurs. Fresh, unmineralized dinosaur bones totally defy the notion that they are millions of years old.

:spank:

unmineralized bones. :eek:

If you're on a ship there is no way you are going to be able to measure precession on a boat bobbing around. 1 angle every 72 years? In a space of a minute it would have moved 0.0001369863013698 degrees.

Is there ANYTHING IAC says that is even REMOTELY true???

They could tell where they were in relationship to the predictable positions of of where the constellations would be in the future with simple triangulation.

Nope. Wrong again.

Yeh, they were presumed to have been of bison or reindeer for decades until some paleontologists came along.

Ostensibly, how so Nick?

Knowing the future position of the stars is no good for longitudinal navigation, if you dont know your current time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_navigation

Precession is a rate, time/distance, that is the time they kept for ancient mapping, not Earth spin time, as they didn't have watches back then you know.

Dear God how the hell did you become so stupid????

Without time or distance you HAVE no rate.

PS you read that link quick.......

It would be fascinating to meet you face to face to discover what stupidity looks like. Don't you agree?

....

It would take 25,920 years for the constellations to appear to move around the horizon once because of precession, there is you time, they determined that the rate is 72 years/degree, so they had their rate, and so since they knew time and rate, they calculated distances, don't you think?

This may be a little hard for you Nick.

It would take 25,920 years for the constellations to appear to move around the horizon once because of precession, there is you time, they determined that the rate is 72 years/degree, so they had their rate, and so since they knew time and rate, they calculated distances, don't you think?
And how did they know the time?

This may be a little hard for you Nick.
I'm continually impressed by the amount of BS you churn out. Amazing really, you cant be real. Has to be some kind of joke.....

They subdivided a circle (horizon) by 360, then measured how long it took for the constellations to move 1/360th of the way around, base 6 (hexagon) you know.

More BS.

How ostensibly so Nick?

Already stated - precession is to slow to be of any practical use in navigation. Your responses are pure gibberish. I dont suppose I should expect anything else.....

We have all been there with IAC.

I pray to our Lord that one day IAC will manage a proper response.

They knew where the stars would appear in the future, knowing the 72 year/degree rate of precession, so they could tell where they were by the positions of the stars on the "sphere of the sky" relative to where the stars would be in the future, by simple triangulation.

It doesnt matter how many times you repeat it. Its still BS.

I'm explaining it in different ways to see if you can grasp it.

It doesnt matter how many ways you explain it, its still fundamentally wrong.

You've shown no indication that you grasp the concept, rather pathetic.

Its not pathetic to see what a load of BS you're spouting. In fact, I feel sorry for the poor soul that gets taken in by your claptrap.

They don't need your sympathy, as they had the snap to understand an application of simple arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, so where does that leave you?

Better off. I doubt you can do even simple math.

Hey IAC,

Sounds like you've been reading too much Graham Hancock - you really should stop accepting such interperetations on blind faith alone you know.

The finding is a synthesis of material from Hancock, Miller (Celtic Cross), and Ralph Ellis (Metrics), I figured out what they'd been striving to figure out.

Are you getting the nobel prize this year then?

When do they vote?

Don't worry about the vote. God will intervene if necessary.

Pray do tell, I'm sure we're all eager to know what they have all "been striving to figure out"?

How did you manage to figure it out? Many years of hard study, checking and re-checking of facts, precise (if not always accurate) transcribing of passages one assumes.

No, don't tell me... there is a secret "Ancients" base buried beneath the Antarctic ice just bristling with ancient technology, and you found it by brewing a special potion from an equally ancient text? Sounds like a cross between the plot lines of SG1 and the Gummi Bears!

They were trying to figure out why the Great Pyramid's base perimeter length is half a nautical mile, and how that relates to the length of the royal cubit, 440 of which compose the base side lengths of the Great Pyramid, and how that relates to the Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (Hapgood), with their fantastic accuracy of east-west distances.

Pray do tell, I'm sure we're all eager to know what they have all "been striving to figure out"?

How did you manage to figure it out? Many years of hard study, checking and re-checking of facts, precise (if not always accurate) transcribing of passages one assumes.

No, don't tell me... there is a secret "Ancients" base buried beneath the Antarctic ice just bristling with ancient technology, and you found it by brewing a special potion from an equally ancient text? Sounds like a cross between the plot lines of SG1 and the Gummi Bears!

He doesnt have a clue. Of course, he will act like he does. But its a complete waste of time.

Well you're sure wasting alot of time on it, now aren't you Nick?

I encourage you all to contact Hancock, Miller, and Ellis, ask them what they think of the finding.

Suck my hancock.

Still here?

http://www.sciforums.com/avatars/avatar23456_96.gif

You're fading fast, good job.

You suck

You're white, you're blending in.

Allright. I confess. We have all been taken in. We thought IAC was serious. Come clean now IAC - who are you really? You have established beyond doubt in this and other threads that your stupidity quotient exceeds any plausible level. Therefore you must be a sock puppet who is playing dumb - its just that you have overplayed your hand.

It's pretty obvious. Just look at the times for posting. Dude is logged in as two people. Or worse...

I'm not convinced this is all an act.
This retard is the genuine thang.

I've tried to taunt him into exposing some clue, to make his ego expose itself, so that I could determine if it might all be an act, but even his responses are dull and simplistic.
Serial killers and con artists cannot help but leave clues about themselves, as if they want to be caught or recognized and appreciated for their cleverness and deciet and so I doubt this moron has the self-control to keep his ego in check this long.
It's human nature.
My conclusion is that he's a real life specimen of the Feminization of Man.

But why should this level of stupidity surprise us?
Haven't we all seen individuals believing in the most absurd things?

I'm guessing he's living as close to the Bible-Belt as you can get without getting stuck in the zipper.

Probably had some life altering, traumatic experience, along the way, that drove him back, or deeper, into the teachings he was brought up on by mommy and daddy.

He is a stunted mind, a retard plain and simple.
Why must we call short people horizontally inclined and idiots by any other name?
He's retarded in the same sense a dog is retarded in comparison to a wolf.
A dog is an adolescent wolf, bred to remain infantile and forever depedant on its human master and IceAgeCivilizations is a retarded human being.
Aren't all domesticated animals more docile, tamer, more controlable and less challenging in comparison to their wild brothers?
Isn't there a reason man breeds them to be more docile and more productive for him?

Why would we expect man to do differently to his fellow men?

Follow this rabbit hole and see where it leads.....
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1341543#post1341543

now all of you guys do onething, take a hot bath together weirdosssssssssss... i cant blv i ended up reading replies.. a'kjf;'skdhf;sldhf

Rick

Rather than "panspermia" supposedly being a possiblility of how simple life forms got to Earth, and as there is no real indication that tree shrews morphed into humans, or chimpmunks into horses, why not just note that animals cannot cross syngameon boundries to reproduce, and then concentrate on establishing the limits of the syngameons vis-a-vis extant and extinct creatures, saying that the origin of the syngameons is subject to debate?

Then just leave the Darwinism for the philosophy and religion departments.

this is such a wild, inaccurate depiction of the idea....its laughable.

ha!