While i was checking out the creationist site posted by Pahlu, I found this video, and its hilarious:
http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/g...on/fonte23.mov
My goodness, everything is explained! :)
Printable View
While i was checking out the creationist site posted by Pahlu, I found this video, and its hilarious:
http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/g...on/fonte23.mov
My goodness, everything is explained! :)
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article here.Quote:
Originally Posted by carinia
There are too many errors in ??Evolution? to itemize here, but let??s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example: the development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. ??Evolution? thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example??one Darwin himself used??is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution??big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals??even fruit flies ??there simply isn??t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet??and this the producers don??t tell us??it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the ??150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.?
The producers of ??Evolution? unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and??voila!??the HIV returns to its original ??wild-type.? Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, ??Evolution? mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin??s mechanism and ??change over time? which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the ??Cambrian Explosion,? in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
If transition from species to species has never been observed, how do you explain the fossil evidence that tracks the exact process? (Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ)
The supposed "difference" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a farce put forth by creationists. Both micro and macro evolution work on the same principles, the only difference is time. To say that micro evolution is possible and macro is not, is like saying it is possible to walk to the end of your block, but it is not possible to walk to Chicago. One just takes longer than the other.
Please learn something about evolution if you really want to try to refute it, and quit posting your pseudoscience lies and bullshit here. There are millions of transitional forms that map the transition from birds to reptiles to mammals if you would close the Bible and look elsewhere for your information.
Also, the Cambrian explosion was not an appearance of all animal groups. There were no dogs, bunnies, cats, horses, etc. in the Cambrian explosion. Please learn real information instead of regurgitating the same tired creationist claims that have already been debunked by credible sources.
If you count Alan H Linton saying that 'recently', as in 1979, then I guess its recent.
I just gave you an example of evolution - bird flu. Oh and swine flu I suppose too. Another good example is quick rise yeast used in bread making. It was developed by a natural selection process - the fastest yeast covered the petri dish the fastest over numerous generations. It is a seperate species. We observed it. It is documented. And just as Dejayou30 said, how can you have micro without macro?
Im not sure how Evolutionists "omit" information and creationists do not. The fossil record is not complete, thats a given. You cant expect every species that ever walked the face of the earth to be perfectly preserved. That actually puts the burden of proof on your side, why didn't the almighty put little signs next to the fossils that told us where they came from? The Cambrian explosion is an intensely interesting event that needs more explanation, but it in no way disproves evolution. Im not sure what 'execptions' to DNA you are talking about, other than as more species genomes are mapped, the more links we can find between species.
I am always amazed that a creationists arguement centers on either blatant disregard for facts that are painfully obvious and documented, or focuses on questions that havent been fully answered yet but have a pretty good hypothesis. Not to mention all your research is INCREDIBLY outdated, like nothing has changed since the 70's.
[quote=dejayou30]If transition from species to species has never been observed, how do you explain the fossil evidence that tracks the exact process? (Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ)
Have you read that article? There is no fossil evidence that tracks the exact process of evolution. Instead, there are many examples of similarities between supposed links, but no evidence that one evolved into another.
Nonsense. Micro is another way of saying life forms adapt to their environment within their designed limits. Some examples are numerous breeds of dogs, cats, roses, etc. But a cat never became a dog, a rose never became a cucumber, etc. Macro is the notion that is possible, given enough time and the right conditions. Such changes from one kind to another has never been observed or made to happen in the lab.Quote:
The supposed "difference" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a farce put forth by creationists. Both micro and macro evolution work on the same principles, the only difference is time. To say that micro evolution is possible and macro is not, is like saying it is possible to walk to the end of your block, but it is not possible to walk to Chicago. One just takes longer than the other.
Where are those millions of transitional forms? Where is one? When did I ever refer to the Bible in sharing information disproving evolution?Quote:
Please learn something about evolution if you really want to try to refute it, and quit posting your pseudoscience lies and bullshit here. There are millions of transitional forms that map the transition from birds to reptiles to mammals if you would close the Bible and look elsewhere for your information.
You are in denial and pathetically deceived.In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one??s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one??s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:Quote:
Also, the Cambrian explosion was not an appearance of all animal groups. There were no dogs, bunnies, cats, horses, etc. in the Cambrian explosion. Please learn real information instead of regurgitating the same tired creationist claims that have already been debunked by credible sources.
??Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.? [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), ??Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.? Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record??where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):
??Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.]
If that weren??t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:
??The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.? [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
??Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn??t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.? [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:
??Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.? [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:
??At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the ??official? position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).? [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
??The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. 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.??? [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to ??several? superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences????more than enough? (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these ??superb examples? were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation??not unheard of among evolutionists??would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
In spite of the agreement among many prominent evolutionist leaders that the fossil record does little to provide evidence of evolutionary transition, the likes of Mark Isaak somehow feel justified in declaring that, ??Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils ... there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist.?
What a complete contradiction to both the above leading evolutionists?? own words, and the actual fossil record itself! If Isaak??s claims were true, why would the leading authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this ??spokesperson??
Isaak even goes so far as to claim that, ??notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.? Yet these same alleged ??transitional sequences? remain no less equivocal and transitory (i.e., subject to continual dispute and re-evaluation among the ??experts?) than any other. Isaak declares them ??notable examples,? apparently based on his personal confidence more than on any tangible, empirical data.
One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gish??s recently updated book:
Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8
Isaak, on the other hand, directs us to the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive for ??proof? of transitional fossils. A careful perusal of this source is well worthwhile, as it exemplifies the methods used by evolutionary ??spokespersons? to defend their beliefs by blurring the line between dogma and science, touting so much theoretical speculation as if it were unequivocal, empirical data, so as to convince any willing disciple that they can??t possibly be wrong.
That's because evolution from species to species takes billions of years. Human existence is the tiniest of tiniest speck on the geological timeline of the earth. Of course it has not been observed, it takes longer for something to evolve from species to species than humans have even been on this earth.Quote:
Macro is the notion that is possible, given enough time and the right conditions. Such changes from one kind to another has never been observed or made to happen in the lab.
Please learn about evolution and stop posting this nonsense. The stuff you are quoting is mostly at least 40 years old. Do you really think the evidence has not been solidified since then? Hell, the human genome wasn't mapped until 6 years ago. Science has evolved since those archaic quotes were made. There is an abundance of evidence in paleontology, biology, chemistry, etc. that clearly supports evolution.
Also if evolution is false, what do you think is the correct way to explain the diversity of life on our planet, and where is your evidence?
Lastly, Duane Gish is totally retarded, and doesn't know anything about science. He may be credentialed, but his evidence and understanding of even basic scientific principles is severely lacking.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop" and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[7][8]
Gish has also been criticised for using a standardized presentation during debates. While undertaking research for a debate with Gish, Michael Shermer noted that for several debates Gish's opening, assumptions about his opponent, slides and even jokes remained identical. In the debate itself, Shermer has written that while he stated he was not an atheist and willing to accept the existence of a divine creator, Gish's rebuttal concerned itself primarily with proving that Shermer was an atheist and therefore immoral.[9]
Massimo Pigliucci, who has debated Gish five times, noted that Gish ignores evidence contrary to his religious beliefs.[10] Others have accused Gish of stonewalling arguments with fabricated facts or figures.[11]
Ian Plimer, head of the Geology department at the University of Newcastle, Australia, debated Gish in 1988. Plimer considered the debate to be political rather than scientific, and thus refused to argue genteelly about scientific minutiae. Instead, Plimer debated Gish in a street-fighting style which a Sydney Morning Herald reporter described as going in "boots and all, aiming for the opponents kneecaps". "Professor Plimer mocked, ridiculed and challenged every tenet that the movement holds dear, and made a string of blunt personal accusations about some of its more prominent members."[12]
If we cannot see evolution happening and we cannot reproduce it in the lab, doesn??t that suggest it doesn??t exist? Surely that would be the conclusion of scientists about any other hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by dejayou30
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article here.
There are too many errors in ??Evolution? to itemize here, but let??s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example: the development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. ??Evolution? thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example??one Darwin himself used??is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution??big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals??even fruit flies ??there simply isn??t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet??and this the producers don??t tell us??it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the ??150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.?
The producers of ??Evolution? unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and??voila!??the HIV returns to its original ??wild-type.? Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, ??Evolution? mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin??s mechanism and ??change over time? which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the ??Cambrian Explosion,? in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
Can you give some examples of that evidence?Quote:
Please learn about evolution and stop posting this nonsense. The stuff you are quoting is mostly at least 40 years old. Do you really think the evidence has not been solidified since then? Hell, the human genome wasn't mapped until 6 years ago. Science has evolved since those archaic quotes were made. There is an abundance of evidence in paleontology, biology, chemistry, etc. that clearly supports evolution.
Since science disproves evolution, the creation model remains the only valid explanation.Quote:
Also if evolution is false, what do you think is the correct way to explain the diversity of life on our planet, and where is your evidence?
Since you only focus on Gish being unreliable, are we to assume you agree with Ronald R. West, Steven Stanley, George Gaylord Simpson, David B. Kitts, E.R. Leach, S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge?Quote:
Lastly, Duane Gish is totally retarded, and doesn't know anything about science. He may be credentialed, but his evidence and understanding of even basic scientific principles is severely lacking.
From Wikipedia:
If we cannot see creation happening and we cannot reproduce it in the lab, doesn't that suggest it doesn't exist? Surely that would be the conclusion of scientists about any other hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
(Cloning is not a reproduction of creationism)
I'm just using your logic... basically you're saying no one can PROVE evolution... you can't PROVE creationism.
OK, so where is the evidence of creation that would support your claim? Or are we just supposed to "believe" without any evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
The quotes you used from the legitimate scientists are 30-40 years old, and are therefore, mostly irrelevant. Given all the discoveries and the mountain of evidence that has been discovered since those claims have been made that wholly support the theory of evolution and not a single one contradicting it, do you think they would still stand by those quotes themselves? I really doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Sure I can:Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRaven7
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
??Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes? (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, ??Evidence that Demands a Verdict? by Josh McDowell.
[From ??Reincarnation in the Bible?? ]Book Details
All of the information I am sharing gives evidence of creation and disproves evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by dejayou30
Where is that "mountain of evidence" supporting evolution? In the last 50 years, science has added to the evidence disproving evolution and supporting creation.Quote:
The quotes you used from the legitimate scientists are 30-40 years old, and are therefore, mostly irrelevant. Given all the discoveries and the mountain of evidence that has been discovered since those claims have been made that wholly support the theory of evolution and not a single one contradicting it, do you think they would still stand by those quotes themselves? I really doubt it.
[align=center]
Symbiotic Relationships
[/align]
Different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. At the broadest level, the animal kingdom depends on the oxygen produced by the plant kingdom. Plants, in turn, depend on the carbon dioxide produced by the animal kingdom.
More local and specific examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp (a), the yucca plant and the yucca moth (b), many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. In other words, creation.
a. Oscar L. Brauer, ??The Smyrna Fig Requires God for Its Production,? Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9, September 1972, pp. 129??131.
Bob Devine, Mr. Baggy-Skin Lizard (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), pp. 29??32.
b. Jerry A. Powell and Richard A. Mackie, Biological Interrelationships of Moths and Yucca Whipplei (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 38. Symbiotic Relationships
Oh now I get it. Youre just posting the same arguement over and over to different questions, using the same outdated data. The circular logic is very nice as well. Normally, between steps 9, 10, and 11 in your little work through of how life got started, a real scientist would ask why and how, instead of jumping to conclusions. I think that means I'm done banging my head against a wall in this silly argument. :)
:S2::S2::S2::S2::S2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Someone please lock this thread. Everything this guy says is nonsense, and has no relevance in modern science. It is all just creationist :spam3:!!!!
[align=center]
Sexual Reproduction 1
[/align]
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.
[a.] The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
[b.] The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).
[c.] The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
[d.] The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision??processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
[e.] The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also ??accidentally? evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
[f.] This remarkable string of ??accidents? must have been repeated for millions of species.
a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother??s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby??half of whom is a ??foreign body? from the father. If these immune systems functioned ??properly,? mammals??including each of us??would not exist.
??The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.? [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]
b. N. W. Pixie, ??Boring Sperm,? Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.
c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, ??Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,? Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654??1656.
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 39. Sexual Reproduction
Dangit, I cant help myself :)
Cross breeding of different species is possible (ligers, mules being an example). This proves that conditions can be different than expected, but still work. Also, altho sexual reproduction is complex, it is getting to be relatively easy to reproduce the results (test tube babies, cloning dogs) through todays technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
I believe thats covered in [a.]Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
again, a. Same idea stated 3 different times enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
As far as my logic takes me, if you can clone an animal, you should know how all those systems work. I also remember the 8th grade science class where all those fun words, meiosis, prophase, mitosis, anaphase were drilled into my little skull. Those are the processes at work, and they get really technical in college biology classes. Not general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Controlled, or just the right circumstances? I believe evolution would make a great case for this example, if the resulting animal didnt survive, or was incapable of reproducing, then the species would not last. Basically you just made an argument for natural selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Again, evolution describes this as well. If it happened in the original generation (f1), then f2 would harbor the same traits and characteristics. There for, the same type of sexual reproduction would be passed down through generations, following the minor genetic differences that could eventually foster a new species.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Actually, in humans up to 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriages (this includes unrecognized pregnancies - such as a miscarriage before the first missed period). Many of these are due to immune system problems, where the egg is rejected. This includes the RH factor which can cause major problems in pregnancies. Rh is a marker on the surface of blood cells, and is either positive or negative. If the fetus is positive, the mothers immune system will attack the fetus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
If the immune system is functioning PROPERLY, it allows a fetus to develop to full term. Then it confirms your Law of Biogenesis.
It is the next logical step. Take yeast for example. In good conditions, it will reproduce asexually. In bad conditions, it has sex. Why? Because in bad conditions the exchange of DNA from one organism to the other might result in an advantageous mutation in the resulting offspring. Which carried down in the genetic line to the yeast cells we have today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Ok thats it for now. ;)
[align=center]
Sexual Reproduction 2
[/align]
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise??or survive?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
e. ??But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.? Jean Marx, ??Tracing How the Sexes Develop,? Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.
f. ??This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.? George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.
??So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights??just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton??s celestial mechanics.? Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.
??The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.? Michael Rose, ??Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,? New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.
??Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.? Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, ??Why Sex?? Discover, February 1984, p. 24.
??Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.? Kathleen McAuliffe, ??Why We Have Sex,? Omni, December 1983, p. 18.
??From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?? Nilsson, p. 1225.
??One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.? [According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, ??Why Is Sex?? Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.
g. ??In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point??a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.? Pitman, p. 135.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 39. Sexual Reproduction
e. Research that was completed way, way before the genomes were sequenced. Of course they are going to be unrelated, there is a different sequence of events that happen. It does not change the fact that sexual reproduction evolved in these animals.
f. The George C Williams quote about his book is often misquoted. His meaning was to state the book's purpose is to explain some mechanics of sex in biology. He is saying he has answers to questions people have, not that there are no answers. This is even more apparent by your second quote, where he states that GC Williams has ingenous answers.
g. Dont know what point your trying to make, but evolution is a long process of tiny, tiny steps. You dont make a pie out of thin air, first you have the crust, then you make the filling, and you put it all together. If you add one cherry at a time, eventually you will get the filling. Makes sense? You don't just go to your cupboard and find a can of filling and say, Gee, someone miraculously put that there!
What evidence is there that sexual reproduction evolved in these animals?Quote:
Originally Posted by carinia
It seems this statement is not misquoted: ??This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.? What evidence do you have showing that to be a misquote? How does the second quote confirm your first assertion?Quote:
f. The George C Williams quote about his book is often misquoted. His meaning was to state the book's purpose is to explain some mechanics of sex in biology. He is saying he has answers to questions people have, not that there are no answers. This is even more apparent by your second quote, where he states that GC Williams has ingenous answers.
What evidence is there to support your assertion?Quote:
g. Dont know what point your trying to make, but evolution is a long process of tiny, tiny steps.
You are comparing evolution with pies? It is true that pies are not made from thin air and cans of filling don??t appear as the result of natural causes. The pie and the can are evidence of intelligent design. Why do you think the universe and life on earth can appear out of thin air as the result of natural causes but pies and cans must be the result of intelligent design?Quote:
You dont make a pie out of thin air, first you have the crust, then you make the filling, and you put it all together. If you add one cherry at a time, eventually you will get the filling. Makes sense? You don't just go to your cupboard and find a can of filling and say, Gee, someone miraculously put that there!
I suspect the answer is you have the unsupported and unsupportable preconception that a supernatural Creator is impossible.
Can someone PLEASE lock this thread and ban this nutjob? The guy has only posted in this thread with his illogical creationist spam. It would be like someone joining only to post advertisements for something. He is advertising for his creationist nonsense and is not interested in the cannabis community. Look at his posts, 100% of them are all in this thread. Ban this spammer!
I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, that??s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with the scientists being quoted, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by dejayou30
The mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the king??s idol.
Daniel was thrown into the lion??s den for worshipping God, contrary to the king??s decree.
Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.
His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.
Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church during the inquisition.
Hitler murdered millions of Jews, Christians and others because he disagreed with them.
Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.
Muslims murder everyone who disagrees with them.
So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your worldview.
You are not interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. You don't want God to exist so you deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. You deny conventions of logic. You pretend skepticism of any evidence demonstrating creation, and adhere to any and all unscientific absurdities and impossibilities as long they support your erroneous worldview.
Some of you try to explain the universe as causeless because some schools of quantum theory interpret certain phenomena as popping into existence without a cause, even though none of these phenomena are fully understood or observable, nor could any of them take place without the experiments causing them to take place.
Apparently you don't really care. Epistemological truth is inconsequential to you. Apparently your purpose here has nothing to do with any serious discussion. You only feign interest in an attempt to entrap anyone foolish enough to think you are interested in serious discussion.
Usually, all I have found here is a nauseatingly endless series of conflicting absurdities and irrational arguments, which in your own cognitive dissonance you oddly believe to be logical, clever and reasonable.
If reason truly does champion truth, whatever school of reason that belongs to is completely absent in this forum.
The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).
If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They??ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.
You are the victim of an alien hoax. Aliens manufactured the Jesus hoax to stamp out scientific advancement. We are getting too far advanced for the aliens liking so they are sending telepathic messages to people to post illogical drivel to keep the creationist view alive. Luckily I am wearing my tinfoil hat and am immune to this psi ray. You appear to be one of the unlucky ones. Stick your fingers in the nearest AC outlet to de-program yourself. Good luck and 'god' speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Actually Pahu, you havent come up with a credible arguement yet. No recent evidence, you certaintly havent replied to any of my posts with backup evidence after I counter your view. Your latest post stinks of racism and close mindedness.
I am not impressed with your debate capabilities, but if you want to continue your fools argument no one is stopping you. Just keep the personal attacks to a minimum, and try to find some solid, RECENT evidence for what you have to say. I personally would like to see something from the last 20 years that is not taken out of context to back up what you are saying.
I am an open minded person, and I consider new facts as they come, which often change how I see the world. Its called learning. Please, teach me if you see fit. Otherwise, I think Ill stick to proven theories from the latest information I have, especially when they are proved by people much smarter than I.
What evidence is there that God, any God, exists? You are deranged. Your 40 year old quotes are irreluvant, and your "evidence" is only evidence because its formed on false pretenses. Again, if you don't understand how science works, you can't possibly try to refute it. In the end, there is a mountain of evidence to support evolution, and ZERO evidence that supports creationism. If creationism is true and evolution false, why did Judge Jones not rule in favor of the Discovery Institute in the 2006 Dover Trial? Why were they unable to present any evidence of any of their claims, and moreover, why did they consistently deny the evidence shown to them by the scientists testifying as expert witnesses on behalf of evolution? Is it just some big conspiracy? Do I just not have my tinfoil hat on tight enough? What is it? How can you explain the fact that every claim of Creationism has been completely and utterly refuted by real science?
Creationism is an intellectual dead end. If we accepted "God dun it" as an answer, we would get nowhere. Scientists and proponents of science understand this, and people like you obviously do not. It has nothing to do with atheism, and has everything to do with what is correct and what is incorrect. Sadly, creationism has been proven to be incorrect in every one of its claims. I would expect people to understand when their arguments have been thorougly defeated and accept that their information is wrong, and yet there are still dimwits like you that insist on perpetuating the nonsense.
You are the one with the preconception that "God dun it" and are twisting the "evidence" to fit your claims, like putting a square peg in a circular hole. Those of us that understand how science works understand that your information and conclusions are flawed at best. It is not worth it to us to "debate" you, as the debate has already been waged by professionals, and when it comes to legitimate, peer reviewed evidence of claims, the scientists that trust evolution always win.
I don't want to silence you because I disagree with you (which I do), I want to silence you because you are a spammer and are spreading misinformation without even understanding why it is misinformation. You have nothing to do with the cannabis community and only want to spread your creationist drivel across the internet wherever possible. The moderators should understand that you are like an advertiser, meaning that you don't contribute anything to the community except for your incorrect information regarding the origins of life, just as someone spamming replica Nike shoes is going to post about that and only that.
Your facts are not facts, no matter how badly you want them to be. I know I cannot convince you of this, but I think something needs to be done to end this nonsense spam. Someone, please ban this spammer and lock this thread, as he is contributing nothing and is actively spreading misinformation that has been thoroughly refuted by PROFESSIONALS in the field of SCIENCE.
[align=center]
Immune Systems
[/align]
How could immune systems of animals and plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize the best defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.
Your health, and that of many animals, depends on the effectiveness of these ??search-and-destroy missions.? Consider the capabilities and associated equipment the white blood cell must have to do its job. It must identify friend and foe. Once a foe is detected, the white blood cell must rapidly locate and overtake the invader. Then the white blood cell must engulf the bacterium, destroy it, and have the endurance to repeat this many times. Miniaturization, fuel efficiency, and compatibility with other parts of the body are also key requirements. The equipment for each function requires careful design. Unless all this worked well from the beginning of life, a requirement that rules out evolution, bacteria and other agents of disease would have won, and we would not be here to marvel at these hidden abilities in our bodies.
A few ??stem cells? in your bone marrow produce more than 100 billion of these and other types of blood cells every day. Each white blood cell moves on its own at up to 30 microns (almost half the diameter of a human hair) each minute. So many white blood cells are in your body that their total distance traveled in one day would circle the earth twice.
If the many instructions that direct an animal??s or plant??s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism??s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense (a). Obviously, for each organism to have survived, this information must have all been there from the beginning. Again, creation.
(a.) ??We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.? Behe, p. 138.
??Unfortunately, we cannot trace most of the evolutionary steps that the immune system took. Virtually all the crucial developments seem to have happened at an early stage of vertebrate evolution, which is poorly represented in the fossil record and from which few species survive. Even the most primitive extant vertebrates seem to rearrange their antigen receptor genes and possess separate T and B cells, as well as MHC molecules. Thus has the immune system sprung up fully armed.? Avrion Mitchison, ??Will We Survive?? Scientific American, Vol. 269, September 1993, p. 138.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 40. Immune Systems
How about putting this in the spirituality board with all the other mumbo jumbo.
[align=center]
Living Technology 1
[/align]
Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems??including those involving electrical, acoustical, mechanical, chemical, and optical phenomena. Detailed studies of various animals also have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that the world??s best designers, using the most sophisticated technologies, cannot duplicate. Examples of these designs include molecular-size motors in most living organisms (a); advanced technologies in cells (b); miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises, and whales; frequency-modulated ??radar? and discrimination systems of bats (c); efficient aerodynamic capabilities of hummingbirds; control systems, internal ballistics, and the combustion chambers of bombardier beetles (d); precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds, fish, and insects (e); and especially the self-repair capabilities of almost all forms of life. No component of these complex systems could have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage until the component??s evolution was complete. All evidence points to intelligent design.
a. ??Life implies movement. Most forms of movement in the living world are powered by tiny protein machines known as molecular motors.? Manfred Schliwa and Günther Woehlke, ??Molecular Motors,? Nature, Vol. 422, 17 April 2003, p. 759.
b. ??We would see [in cells] that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.
??What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle.? Denton, p. 329.
c. ??Ounce for ounce, watt for watt, it [the bat] is millions of times more efficient and more sensitive than the radars and sonars contrived by man.? Pitman, p. 219.
d. Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975), pp. 2??9.
Thomas Eisner and Daniel J. Aneshansley, ??Spray Aiming in Bombardier Beetles: Jet Deflection by the Coanda Effect,? Science, Vol. 215, 1 January 1982, pp. 83??85.
Behe, pp. 31??36.
e. Jason A. Etheredge et al., ??Monarch Butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.) Use a Magnetic Compass for Navigation,? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 96, No. 24, 23 November 1999, pp. 13845??13846.
The first quote by a legitimate scientists states a known fact, but tells nothing of interest. It would appear as if you are trying to establish some kind of legitimacy for your argument by quoting them, based on their backgrounds as legitimate, respected scientists. You then go on to quote from Michael Denton, Sean Pitman, and Michael Behe, who are all creationists, and although they do have legitimate degrees in the fields of science, they have never had any of their ideas, theories, hypothesises, or evidence in relation to creationism accepted by the scientific community. Their research is full of logical fallacies, confirmation bias, misconceptions, and just plain bad information.
Michael Denton also has distanced himself from the Discovery (creationist) Instutute, and no longer stands by his creationist claims:
Keep the bullshit coming Pahu, I'll be glad to refute it until someone locks this SPAM thread.Quote:
Denton's views have changed over the years. He was influenced by Lawrence J. Henderson (1878-1942), Paul Davies and John Barrow who argued for an Anthropic Principle in the cosmos (Denton 1998, v, Denton 2005). Thus his second book Nature's Destiny (1998) is his biological contribution on the Anthropic Principle debate which is dominated by physicists. He argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life. He no longer associates with Discovery, and the Institute no longer lists him as a fellow.
Pahu78 rather than posting dogma will you please try and counter the arguments and discussions that you are having levelled against you. You are showing yourself as a spammer while being ripped apart by science. Do us a favour and give us a credible comeback.
I doubt that will happen bhouncy. He stated a few posts back that he has no interest in "entering into endless quibbling over the information he is sharing," as he feels it "speaks for itself". In other words, he has no counter arguments to the facts levied against him, and refuses to consider other positions. His mind is made up despite contrary evidence, and all he is doing is spamming the members of this board with nonsense.
You cannot reason with a creationist. No amount of evidence will ever make them second guess their "Buy-bull". For the last time, can someone lock this and ban Pahu78? He has made no other posts except in this thread, and refuses to have actual discussion about the information being presented; therefore he and his posts are spam.
Yay! Thanks for chiming in everyone - this thread needed some sense banging into it.
I've said from the beginning this thread was spam - lookup Pahu78 in Google and you will see he posts the same lies across multiple websites. He is pretty much copy-pasting everything from creationscience.com.
That's why he can't argue - he has no idea what he's posting about in the first place.
Once again we see that arguing with someone on the interweb is like being in the special olympics; win or lose you're still a retard.
[align=center]
Living Technology 2
[/align]
The Arctic Tern, a bird of average size, navigates across oceans with the skill normally associated with navigational equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft. A round trip for the Tern might be 22,000 miles. The Tern??s ??electronics? are highly miniaturized, extremely reliable, maintenance free, and easily reproduced. Furthermore, this remarkable bird needs no training. If the equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft could not have evolved, how could the Tern??s more amazing ??equipment? have evolved?
Equally amazing is the monarch butterfly that flies thousands of miles from breeding grounds as far north as Canada to wintering grounds as far south as Mexico. Processing information in a brain the size of a pin head, it navigates using a magnetic compass and, to a lesser extent, the Sun.
Many bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and some Streptococci, propel themselves with miniature motors at up to 15 body-lengths per second (f), equivalent to a car traveling 150 miles per hour??in a liquid. These extremely efficient, reversible motors rotate at up to 100,000 revolutions per minute (g). Each shaft rotates a bundle of whiplike flagella that acts as a propeller. The motors, having rotors and stators, are similar in many respects to electrical motors (h). However, their electrical charges come from a flow of protons, not electrons. The bacteria can stop, start, and change speed, direction, and even the ??propeller??s? shape (i). They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-term memory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit inside the circular cross section of a human hair (j).
Evolutionary theory teaches that bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and, therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. They can even communicate among themselves using chemicals (k).
Some plants have motors that are one-fifth the size of bacterial motors (l). Increasing worldwide interest in nanotechnology is showing that living things are remarkably designed??beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.
f. David H. Freedman, ??Exploiting the Nanotechnology of Life,? Science, Vol. 254, 29 November 1991, pp. 1308??1310.
Tom Koppel, ??Learning How Bacteria Swim Could Set New Gears in Motion,? Scientific American, Vol. 265, September 1991, pp. 168??169.
Howard C. Berg, ??How Bacteria Swim,? Scientific American, Vol. 233, August 1975, pp. 36??44.
g. Y. Magariyama et al., ??Very Fast Flagellar Rotation,? Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, p. 752.
h. Could a conventional electrical motor be scaled down to propel a bacterium through a liquid? No. Friction would overcome almost all movement. This is because the ratio of inertial-to-viscous forces is proportional to scale. In effect, the liquid becomes stickier the smaller you get. Therefore, the efficiency of the bacterial motor itself, which approaches 100% at slow speeds, is remarkable and currently unexplainable.
i. C. Wu, ??Protein Switch Curls Bacterial Propellers,? Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 86.
j. Yes, you read this correctly. The molecular motors are 25 nanometers in diameter while an average human hair is about 75 microns in diameter.
k. ??Bacteria can organize into groups, they can communicate. ... How could this have evolved?? E. Peter Greenberg, ??Tiny Teamwork,? Nature, Vol. 424, 10 July 2003, p. 134.
Bonnie L. Bassler, ??How Bacteria Talk to Each Other: Regulation of Gene Expression by Quorum Sensing,? Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1 December 1999, pp. 582??587.
l. ??...the smallest rotary motors in biology. The flow of protons propels the rotation...? Holger Seelert et al., ??Proton-Powered Turbine of a Plant Motor,? Nature, Vol. 405, 25 May 2000, pp. 418??419.
??The ATP synthase [motor] not only lays claim to being nature??s smallest rotary motor, but also has an extremely important role in providing most of the chemical energy that aerobic and photosynthetic organisms need to stay alive.? Cross, Richard L. ??Turning the ATP Motor,? Nature, Vol. 427, 29 January 2004, pp. 407??408.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 41. Living Technology
Everyone just report this post and every subsequent post as spam and hopefully someone will get the picture.
Or, for a antidote to this guy's ravings, Read "God: the failed hypothesis: how science shows that God does not exist." by Victor Stenger. I have a place reserved in hell, don't I Pahu78? All my dead friends are waiting for me there.
Pahu, I agree with the other members, your posts are mostly copy and paste more than thoughtful posts. This is close to turbo posting which is against forum rules.
Please provide more interaction and less regurgitation.
You may have noticed the complaints concerning the facts I am sharing are from those who read them. Are they forced to read information that they find so distasteful because it disproves their preconceived worldview?Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeBoobsRule
I consider the information I am sharing to be far more thoughtful than the replies demanding I engage in endless quibbling about what? Rarely do I see any real attempt to discuss the information I am sharing. Instead I get assertions that I am stupid, etc. and that the information is "bullshit", etc. Do they prefer I share my ignorant opinions rather than the facts of science? I think the answer is probably "yes" because ignorance is easier to refute than facts. We can quibble forever over our opinions.
I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, that??s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with the scientists being quoted, not me.
The mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the king??s idol.
Daniel was thrown into the lion??s den for worshipping God, contrary to the king??s decree.
Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.
His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.
Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church during the inquisition.
Hitler murdered six millions of Jews, Christians and others because he disagreed with them.
Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.
Muslims murder everyone who disagrees with them.
So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your worldview.
You are not interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. You don't want God to exist so you deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. You deny conventions of logic. You pretend skepticism of any evidence demonstrating creation, and adhere to any and all unscientific absurdities and impossibilities as long they support your erroneous worldview.
Apparently you don't really care. Epistemological truth is inconsequential to you. Apparently your purpose here has nothing to do with any serious discussion. You only feign interest in an attempt to entrap anyone foolish enough to think you are interested in serious discussion.
Usually, all I have found here is a nauseatingly endless series of conflicting absurdities and irrational arguments, which in your own cognitive dissonance you oddly believe to be logical, clever and reasonable.
If reason truly does champion truth, whatever school of reason that belongs to is completely absent in this forum.
The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).
If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They??ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.
[align=center]
The Validity of Thought 1
[/align]
If life is ultimately the result of natural processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts??including what you are thinking now??would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of irrational causes. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance or natural processes (a).
a. ??But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.? Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 313.
??For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.? J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds (London: Chatto & Windus, 1927), p. 209.
??If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents??the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else??s. But if their thoughts??i. e. of Materialism and Astronomy??are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.? C. S. Lewis, God In the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 52??53.
??Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense. But Naturalism [evolution], as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort.? C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1947), p. 21.
C. S. Lewis, ??The Funeral of a Great Myth,? Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), p. 89.
??If the universe is a universe of thought, then its creation must have been an act of thought.? James H. Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, new revised edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1932), p. 181.
??A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced the theory. The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.? Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), p. 62.
??One of the absurdities of materialism [the belief that nothing exists except the material] is that it assumes that the world can be rationally comprehensible only if it is entirely the product of irrational, unguided mechanisms.? Phillip E. Johnson, ??The Wedge in Evolutionary Ideology: It??s History, Strategy, and Agenda,? Theology Matters, Vol. 5, No. 2, March/April 1999, p. 5.
Phillip E. Johnson has also made the point that intelligence might produce intelligence. However, for lifeless, inorganic matter to produce intelligence, as the theory of evolution claims, would be an astounding miracle.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 42. The Validity of Thought
Admit it, you are hesitant to enter into a debate here not because you believe your information speaks for itself, more-so because you do not have the knowledge and understanding of your copy-and-pasted paragraphs to defend against rational arguments backed by facts.
You are embellishing your writing (if you actually wrote ANY of that) with complex verbiage - to a ridiculous point. This makes me think you are trying to LOOK smart OR you are just copy and pasting EVERYTHING including responses to this forum thread.
Lets see the REAL Pahu, you FaFOO!
hahaha :rastasmoke:
100% correct his 'responses' can be found all over the intertubes - he even made the same response twice with a slightly altered intro on the previous page FFS!.Quote:
Originally Posted by bombdiggity
Here are some fun links where Pahu is running into the same trouble on other forums and is in fact pasting almost the exact same cookie-cutter responses:
Atheist Network • View topic - Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution - talk.religion.pantheism | Google Groups
Science Disproves Evolution | A Board Post on the Forum & Chat Room about I Am An Atheist | Message Board & Chat Rooms to Post & Talk in
Do I even need to go on?
Especially this part:
Oh the irony! Keywords: Pot, Kettle, BlackQuote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
The exact same response can also be found here:
Science Disproves Evolution - Monster Topics - Atheism chat - Wasteland Of Wonders Atheism - Message Board - Yuku
I don't know if he's spamming for his own amusement or actually doing it on the request of a higher power (I mean someone like AiG) but either way one thing is for sure - the only thing disproven in this thread is the OP.