Denial of evolution II

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Roman Banned Banned

    So, rather than read and learn, you spout nonsense.

    What does that even mean?

    Try something that's not the Bible. Though I doubt you even read that.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. vhawk Registered Member

    do you ever find yourself anthropomorphising evolution?- how do you evolve self consciousness?

    the theory of evolution is of course clearly proved, beyond the slightest doubt and it is highly plausible, genes seem to be the key thing
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Quite the opposite usually. Religions base their viewpoint on the fact that the entire Universe must have been made 'just so', to allow for human life.

    People who understand evolution understand we are the way we are, and other species are the way they are, because we are all shaped by our environment. Intelligence is not required to be a viable species. Take insects, bacteria, virii, etc. All species are the product of evolution.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    That's not very original.
    Tell me something you didn't read out of a book, something you personally witnessed that proves "all species are the product of evolution".
    Then you've got something to say.

    You believe reality is limited to a small box created by your "scientific" peers... "it's always here, it's always there".
    You have proven we are a product of our environment. That much I can agree with.
    That in itself also proves the concept of the power of creation.
    You have created your own environment and went to live in it.

    Reality of course, is infinite. The truth is not changed by our lack of comprehending it.
    It exists outside the realm of human understanding and our five senses.
    Faith is a sixth sense. Not to be confused with "blind faith".
    It takes faith to operate the power of creation that lies within all of us.

    It can be something as simple as creating an "atmosphere" around you with a kind smile...
    You had that kind of faith in your textbooks and professors...but their blindness stopped you from looking further.

    Didn't Einstein say; "without faith it is impossible to comprehend reality"?
    He had something to say.
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2009
  8. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Have you ever been to a Natural History Museum? Looked at fossils, and the both the skeletons of animals alive, and long since deceased, now extinct? Seen similarities in so many species? Wondered why Dolphins have the bone structure of five digits inside their flippers, and a vestigial pelvis? I have. I have wondered about the similarities, and differences. I have read books on the subject.

    Oh, and on books, reading stuff from books isn't the problem, it's how the stuff got into the books that matters. Peer reviewed journals and published works of science are a far cry from the fiction of religious texts.

    Here's a question for you, if left alone, without any external influences, are you saying you would have witnessed something that would have given you your exact religious viewpoint? (whatever it is you do believe, please explain that)
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Which is one of the many differences between you and Einstein.

    Now Baron, you see that is a personal attack, because I attacked an individual, not a mind set. Don't you get it yet.
  10. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Mod note: Baron Max’s posts, those off his apologists and those of people trying to explain the difference between satire and insult to him, have been moved to a separate thread in Open Government (Spin off thread: satire versus insult) where Baron Max can rant about James R’s abuse of powers to his heart’s desire. A number of inconsequential chatty posts have also been removed so as to improve the flow of the thread.
  11. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    You mean like the Blanco museum in Texas that has dinosaur bones so fresh they haven't fossilized and still have red blood cells in them?
    Ability to adapt within a species, or even mate with the closest species and created a new hybrid is a far cry from evolving from one species into a completely new one.

    We agree on that. Scientific journals have to be updated every few years, because they are full of theories.
    In 1750 French scientist's published their findings that if an object ever reached the terrific speed of 40 mph centrifical forces would lift it from the earth.
    Today's findings are not much better.
    God's word is timeless and true.

    Yes. It has taken as long to "unlearn" those external influences as it did to learn them.
    I had to forget everything I "thought" I knew...

    I apologize for that last post sounding harsh.
    I do believe there are physical laws set in motion that could be called "evolution".
    Nothing wrong with that...the Bible doesn't say the world was created in six thousand years. That is a fundamentalist error of interpretation.
    It says a world was restored with life after the water on it was removed to let the sun reach the ground.
    That implies a previous worldwide flood before Adam the son of God was created, before the flood of Noah.
    Didn't the Greeks speak of multiple floods in their legends? Read Plato.
    The Greek and Roman tradition maintains a flood myth. Their version however, is one of multiple floods, each wiping out all life on earth.
    The Bible in Genesis is not talking about the original creation of man the animal, or man the brute beast.
    That was the serpent, Adam's closest relative who also fathered Cain with Eve in the garden.
    The serpent was a man also but lacked a soul from God.
    That animal may have been here and "evolved" over millions of years.
    There's your bones, your Cro-Mags, Neanderthals, etc...
    That's not Adam.
    Adam was a created gene of the living God manifested in flesh. A "son of God".
    That is an order of creation above the angels in authority.
    The bible isn't about the original creation of man.
    Who told you that?
    It is about the creation of God.
    The world could be billions of years old, that doesn't contradict bible scripture in my opinion.
    Don't take what the so-called religious "experts" say the bible says...
    Read it for yourself if you want to know.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2009
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    They do, eh? At least 65 million year old bones with red blood cells in them. Really?

    Want to buy a bridge?

    Which French scientists, specifically? Citation, please.

    If this supposed flood was before the first man, Adam, how could the Greeks have known about it?

    Where did you get this idea from? Wasn't the serpent a talking snake?

    The bible doesn't mention genes.
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    I think Visitor's referring to the bone marrow tissue that was extracted from a tyrannosaur femur a year or so ago.
  14. phlogistician Banned Banned

    I'd not heard of the place, so I googled it. What a bag of crazy. It's only open 'by appointment' so I guess someone's pet project. If they had dinosaur blood cells, why haven't they been cloned? Also, the 'ICA Burial Stones' might have some credibility if pictures of the real ones, (assuming they exist) not reproductions were shown!

    Not really, imagine a mammal that spends part of it's time on land, and part in the sea. Then due to environmental and geographical reasons, some start spending more and more time in the water, say, rising sea levels. The mammals that spend more time in water will breed more with those better at swimming, than those better on land. Eventually, these traits will become honed to the new environement, and they may spend their time exclusively at sea. Then they will no longer interbreed with the mammals that still spend time on land, and all genetic mutations will be confined to each group. Now you have separate evolutionary paths. In time, they will be unable to breed, and will have become distinct species. Simple eh?

    This is the strength is science, not it's weakness. It's about exploration, not dogma.

    Because science is improving it invalidates the whole? I think not.

    Which God?

    Ah, so you contrary to your first reply to me where you asked;

    You got your opinions from the Bible, and not something you have personally witnessed. You obfuscated with a curious pet pseudo science museum in Texas, as if that fringe venue proves anything, it doesn't, and didn't offer proof that you would, from experience, arrive at your beliefs simply from what you can experience, without inside influence.

    Sorry, but you had your chance, and you failed to prove your position.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2009
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Is it that attitude that stopped you from learning? Or, did you find more thrills, chills and spills in the bible?

    Would you read, "The Origin of Species" if I paid you to read it? Or, do you think that by reading this book, you'll become an atheist?

  16. phlogistician Banned Banned


    "This is fossilised bone in the sense that it's from an extinct animal but it doesn't have a lot of the characteristics of what people would call a fossil," she told the BBC's Science In Action programme.

    "It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything."

    Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance."

    But 'The Visitor' ignores the dating on the bone, embellishes the story with the word 'fresh' and declares to know there are red blood cells, which the scientists have not claimed. Typical believer, ignoring the parts that don't fit his dogma.
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Is he trying to say that the earth is young then based on the 'incomplete' (I guess we might call it) fossilization?

    The stuff I'm thinking of was sequenced a while back.
  18. phlogistician Banned Banned

    I think that's exactly what he is driving at, yes. Twisting science, and ignoring facts that don't fit his dogma.
  19. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    I said the earth could be billions of years old, and man "evolved" over perhaps millions.
    Did you miss that phlogistician?
    Let me highlight some of it for you.

    This is what I said....look it up.

    The mention of unfosilized bone was not to support some fundamentalist "young earth" nonsense.
    I wasn't supporting the Blanco museum's stance on the "young earth".
    I was saying that dinosaurs may have survived much later than scientific dogma allows.

    I was also attempting to show you something about the creation of man that religious dogma won't allow...
    Because it's too controversial. Neither side wants to see this. Both are filled with dogma.

    You didn't want to see it either, because you might need to reconsider your ideas about both the bible and science.
    So you twisted my words into something I didn't say.

    Try being a little more open minded.
    You might learn something new.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2009
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Originally Posted by James R
    The bible doesn't mention genes. ”

    The Visitor Reponse.
    Yes it does. It uses terms like children, offspring, sons...

    Get real. That is not mentioning genes. If your can warp logic and semantics that far I wouldn't wish to leave my wallet open around you.
  21. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Here is what some tests reported.

    -The tissue was colored reddish brown, the color of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
    Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were -found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.

    -Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modern heme compounds.

    -To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats' immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound.

    I am not a supporter of the "young earth" idea as Ophiolite and phlogistician have implied.
    I only suggested "these" bones were relatively fresh, not that all dinosaur bones are.
    I have no problem with dinosaurs living 65 million years ago.
    The 65 million year old "total extinction" event killing the dinosaurs is the only scientific dogma I question...
    They go too far one way, and the religious fundamentalists and their dogma go too far the other way. Neither is right.

    My view on this?...
    I think the evidence points to dinosaurs existing for hundreds of millions of years right up to the great flood.
    The nuclear event recorded in the Hindu Vedas 5000 years ago tilted the entire planet on it's axis away from the sun and caused the flood.
    What few began to breed from the pairs brought over on the ark found a vastly different world that was colder, lacked vegetation and oxygen levels. They didn't last long from there.

    -Scientific dogma won't allow this to surface because it would validate the biblical account of a worldwide flood.

    -Religious dogma won't allow this because it validates the scientific discovery of the worlds age and millions of years of evolution.

    I said Adam wasn't the first man, that was the whole point of the post.
    I said the serpent was a man, and was here before Adam.
    Adam was created to be an advanced human. Not just a man, a son of God.
    There were two different species or races of "man".
    -One race of men came about through a process similar to evolution. These later became host bodies for the spirits of the "fallen ones".
    -The other race of man was created to be a manifestation of God in human flesh. This was not just another evolutionary "next" step.
    This was a created being to exist as a dwelling place or tabernacle for God's spirit.
    The battles that were in heaven then came down to the earth.

    No, the serpent in the garden was not a snake. Nowhere in the bible does it say that.
    The man that seduced Eve in the garden may have literally been turned into another form after the damage was done and he fathered Cain.
    But the curse put on the serpent by God;..."On your belly you shall go"...also serves as a symbolic spiritual reference to the entire race of Cain's descendants being turned over to a reprobate mind and becoming hosts for the same group of "fallen ones" as was the original serpent his father. Look up other biblical references to the word "belly" and you'll find more of the same thing revealing the concept.
    Certain men "whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly" and so forth....

    God also speaking to the spirit that was in the man, as the part of the curse "dust you shall eat all the days of your life" is referring to these spirits being cast to the earth by this same act and being subjected to become human in the descendants of Cain. Man is from the dust and returns to it.
    The prophet John called the multitudes a "generation of vipers".
    Jesus said the same calling the religious leaders "of their father the devil".
    It's all through the scriptures if you look for it.

    The "sons of god" in Gen. 6 are commonly assumed and taught by religious scholars to be the fallen heavenly angels.
    They were not.The opposite is true.
    While these sons of god could be considered "angels" in the earthly sense because they were ones whom the Spirit of God came to, they were born human through the linage of Adam and Eve.
    Also in one sense they "fell" from their original position of remaining separate from unbelief when they took the daughters of Cain for wives...but that is different than the heavenly angels that "fell" by following Lucifer and were cast to the earth as spirits to possess the serpent's linage through Cain.
    I know this sounds confusing and is similar in ways but there is difference.
    That is probably why scholars like Josephus and the books of Enoch and Adam taught it the wrong way.

    -Seth's linage (Adam's son) were the sons of god who received the mind of Christ, and were prophets like Enoch all the way down to Noah.

    -Cain's linage (The serpent's son) were the sons of men who received reprobate minds, and became "hosts" for the spirits of fallen angels.

    The two races mixed with the sons of God taking the daughters of men for wives in Gen. 6 right before the flood.
    That's one reason why God destroyed the world.
    Evil spirits getting a hold of human hosts with god-like abilities....would not be a good thing.
    Sounds like something out of a Stargate SG1 episode doesn't it?

    Many legends and myths of different cultures reference this.
    -Sumerian Gilgamesh was 2/3 god and 1/3 man.
    -Greek Hercules was also 2/3 god and 1/3 man.
    -The Titans and Olympians...and you thought perhaps these myths were just made up, the product of an overactive imagination?

    The stories may have been dramatized, but they like most legends were based upon some real event.
    They say the truth is even stranger yet than fiction.
    Most people have no idea.

    Yes it does. It uses terms like children, offspring, sons...
    Sons of God are children of God.
    Jesus was the only begotten of the Father and the beginning of the "creation of God" the firstborn of many brethren.

    Romans 8:19 (King James Version)
    "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God".

    The Holy Ghost "overshadowed" Mary and she became pregnant.
    If He didn't create the genes in the womb of Mary for the body of Jesus, what would you call it then? Chromosomes?
    It was created genetic material no matter what you choose to call it.

    All humanity is now a mixture of these two original parent races.
    This was intentionally created by the careful mixing of the two races to get a desired hybrid, allowing them to survive and destroying the rest in the flood.
    The battle rages yet within each of us. Jesus said; "the kingdom of heaven is in you".

    To recap...I do not totally reject the concept of evolution.
    Man as he exists today is the product of a carefully controlled mixture of creation and a process of evolution.
    We are a little of both.
    I have explained this the best I can.

    This is the real story of the creation of man.
    It is still a work in progress.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2009
  22. Gustav Banned Banned


    i, gustav, solemnly declare this thread to be flamebait
    as consequence of this declaration (solemn), i demand its closure


    Last edited: Mar 21, 2009
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    good stuff, ja?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page