Pahu, have a chat with PedroWA. He has a perpetual motion machine. I think you were meant for each other.Very good indeed. :lol: Pahu has a perpetual bullshit machine.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion I am most assuredly in the Darwin / Dawkins evolution camp.Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE (warning, crude language)
Who gives a fuck about crude language? I certainly do not. Folk can swear all day. It’s bad manners that I object to. It is possible to use very civilised language whilst being very inconsiderate and bad mannered.
Here is someone whose language is impeccable.
Has anyone noticed that the OP question *Science disproves Evolution* has been totally corrupted. In the last 6 pages the discussion has become about the accuracy of Biblical scripture as an Historical document, which has nothing to do with Science, but is being used as the basis for *The Bible disproving Evolution*, in spite that the highest authority of Biblical scholars have declared "Evolution to be True" The fact is that not a single argument from scientific sources has been made to disprove evolution. How on earth did that happen?I warned about this several pages ago. We even tried to start some threads in the Religion forums. I told ya it would be a rabbit hole...
Pahu,
Just take it easy and watch this: Religion Evolves – Baba Brinkman Music Video - YouTube
Not only do animals evolve. Religion evolves.
I reckon that religion does evolve … in a manner as described by Charles Darwin, clearly this evolution has no overwhelming desire to place intellect as a high priority.
Has anyone noticed that the OP question *Science disproves Evolution* has been totally corrupted. In the last 6 pages the discussion has become about the accuracy of Biblical scripture as an Historical document, which has nothing to do with Science, but is being used as the basis for *The Bible disproving Evolution*, in spite that the highest authority of Biblical scholars have declared "Evolution to be True" The fact is that not a single argument from scientific sources has been made to disprove evolution. How on earth did that happen?SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals. Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory. Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist]. "It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236. "The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95. "Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times. " `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve]. "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist]. "One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976). "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist]. "The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240. "It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist]. "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century]. "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France]. "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139. " `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429. "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist. "I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his]. "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. "When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159. "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197. "With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199. "The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327. "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102. "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8. "The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm
Meteoritic Dust
Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young.
[In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 82. Rapid Cooling]
What a load of utter crap you posted. And no, I’m not going to bother refuting your bullshit because you are obviously immune to reality.
What a load of utter crap you posted. And no, I'm not going to bother refuting your bullshit because you are obviously immune to reality.Fundamentalism is tough.
Meteoritic Dust Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences44.html#wp1260699]You must have missed this article.
The Earth is made up from a collision with Theia. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/planet-earth-is-actually-two-planets-study-suggests/ar-BBp8Mxq?li=BBnb7Kzand
Pure nickel shows a significant chemical activity that can be observed when nickel is powdered to maximize the exposed surface area on which reactions can occur, but larger pieces of the metal are slow to react with air at ambient conditions due to the formation of a protective oxide surface. Even then, nickel is reactive enough with oxygen that native nickel is rarely found on Earth's surface, being mostly confined to the interiors of larger nickel–iron meteorites that were protected from oxidation during their time in space. On Earth, such native nickel is found in combination with iron, a reflection of those elements' origin as major end products of supernova nucleosynthesis. An iron–nickel mixture is thought to compose Earth's inner core.[4] Pure native nickel is found in tiny amounts, usually in ultramafic rockshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel
Meteoritic Dust Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences44.html#wp1260699]You must have missed this article.
The Earth is made up from a collision with Theia. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/planet-earth-is-actually-two-planets-study-suggests/ar-BBp8Mxq?li=BBnb7Kz andAre you trying to counter his confirmation bias or something?! How dare you!Pure nickel shows a significant chemical activity that can be observed when nickel is powdered to maximize the exposed surface area on which reactions can occur, but larger pieces of the metal are slow to react with air at ambient conditions due to the formation of a protective oxide surface. Even then, nickel is reactive enough with oxygen that native nickel is rarely found on Earth's surface, being mostly confined to the interiors of larger nickel–iron meteorites that were protected from oxidation during their time in space. On Earth, such native nickel is found in combination with iron, a reflection of those elements' origin as major end products of supernova nucleosynthesis. An iron–nickel mixture is thought to compose Earth's inner core.[4] Pure native nickel is found in tiny amounts, usually in ultramafic rockshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel
Has anyone noticed that the OP question *Science disproves Evolution* has been totally corrupted. In the last 6 pages the discussion has become about the accuracy of Biblical scripture as an Historical document, which has nothing to do with Science, but is being used as the basis for *The Bible disproving Evolution*, in spite that the highest authority of Biblical scholars have declared "Evolution to be True" The fact is that not a single argument from scientific sources has been made to disprove evolution. How on earth did that happen?Good catch
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
(a) membrane targets and patterns
(b) cytoskeletal arrays
(c) centrosomes
(d) ion channels, and
(e) sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code)
(f) Gene regulatory networks
Dembski and J.Wells: The design of life, general notes, page 16:
What Besides DNA Controls Development? If DNA does not control development, what does? Actually, there is good evidence for the involvement of at least two other factors in the developing egg: the cytoskeleton and the membrane. Every animal cell contains a network of microscopic fibers called a cytoskeleton. These fibers include microtubules, which are known to be involved in patterning embryos. For example, one of the gene products involved in head-to-rear patterning of fruit fly embryos is delivered to its proper location by microtubules; if the microtubules are experimentally disrupted, the gene product doesn’t reach its proper destination and the embryo is grossly deformed. Microtubules consist of many identical protein subunits, and each subunit is produced according to a template in the organism’s DNA. What matters in development is the organization of microtubule arrays, and the organization of a microtubule array is not determined by its subunits any more than the layout of a house is determined by its bricks. Instead, microtubule arrays are formed by organelles called centrosomes, which are inherited independently of an organism’s DNA. Centrosomes play a central role in development: a frog egg can be induced to develop into a frog merely by injecting a sperm centrosome—no sperm DNA is needed. Another non-genetic factor involved in development is the membrane pattern of the egg cell.
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from (a) membrane targets and patterns (b) cytoskeletal arrays (c) centrosomes (d) ion channels, and (e) sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code) (f) Gene regulatory networks Dembski and J.Wells: The design of life, general notes, page 16: What Besides DNA Controls Development? If DNA does not control development, what does? Actually, there is good evidence for the involvement of at least two other factors in the developing egg: the cytoskeleton and the membrane. Every animal cell contains a network of microscopic fibers called a cytoskeleton. These fibers include microtubules, which are known to be involved in patterning embryos. For example, one of the gene products involved in head-to-rear patterning of fruit fly embryos is delivered to its proper location by microtubules; if the microtubules are experimentally disrupted, the gene product doesn’t reach its proper destination and the embryo is grossly deformed. Microtubules consist of many identical protein subunits, and each subunit is produced according to a template in the organism’s DNA. What matters in development is the organization of microtubule arrays, and the organization of a microtubule array is not determined by its subunits any more than the layout of a house is determined by its bricks. Instead, microtubule arrays are formed by organelles called centrosomes, which are inherited independently of an organism’s DNA. Centrosomes play a central role in development: a frog egg can be induced to develop into a frog merely by injecting a sperm centrosome—no sperm DNA is needed. Another non-genetic factor involved in development is the membrane pattern of the egg cell.Another cut and paste - won't even put quotes around it, eh? So what do you think that paragraph tells us (or not) about life or evolution. Have you given this stuff enough thought to explain what you're trying to get us to see? Because I don't see how this very selective cherry picking explains a thing. You folks make a habit of injecting huge gaps, where there aren't that many. It's that sort of cherry picking and ignoring exercise that raise a red flag, phony in motion.
I’ll repost this list of valuable resources for learning about the pageant of evolution and how we got it.
I can repost it as often as you cut and paste some weirdness (heck you might encourage me to expand on it) from folks who are convinced they understand God
(I never could understand that level of self-centered arrogance that enables a human to think they know God.
Makes me wonder how little time those people ever actually put into trying to comprehend “Creation”* and the God behind it,
but I digress)
The story is not fully resolved, but boy of boy is it a fascinating, coherent and detailed story.
Something your cheap cut’n pastes don’t get close to.
Index: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 {1} Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/earths-heat-moisture-engine.html Saturday, January 9, 2016 {2} Co-evolution of Minerals and Life | Dr Robert Hazen http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/2-coevolution-of-minerals-and-life.html Thursday, January 14, 2016 {3} Evolution of Carbon and our biosphere - Professor Hazen focuses on the element Carbon http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/3-evolution-carbon-biosphere-hazen.html Saturday, January 23, 2016 {4} Evolution - Considering Deep Time and a Couple Big Breaks http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/4-evolution-deeptime-moon-geomagnetic.html Saturday, February 6, 2016 {5a} The Most Beautiful Graph on Earth - A. Hessler http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/most-beautiful-graph-on-earth.html Sunday, February 7, 2016 {5b} Earth's Earliest Climate - By Angela Hessler http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/earths-earliest-climate-by-hessler.html Sunday, February 14, 2016 {6} Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere - easy version http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/6-evolution-earths-atmosphere-easy.html Thursday, February 18, 2016 {7} Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine, visualized http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/7-global-heat-moisture-distribution.html Friday, February 19, 2016 {8} Atmospheric Insulation Explained - appreciating our climate engine http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/8-atmospheric-insulation-explained.html*I've got this curios mantra that'll pop into my head unbidden, it's a line from a long ago essay. "God is Creation, why slam our origin story into a two-dimensional freeze frame." For the record, to me Evolution and Creation are the same thing. And God,… well like the Good Book says, God Passes All Human Understanding
Rapid Cooling
If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth. The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.
[In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 83. Moon Recession]
Rapid Cooling If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth. The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences45.html#wp1350743]Please present your (their) calculations.
Has anyone noticed that the OP question *Science disproves Evolution* has been totally corrupted. In the last 6 pages the discussion has become about the accuracy of Biblical scripture as an Historical document, which has nothing to do with Science, but is being used as the basis for *The Bible disproving Evolution*, in spite that the highest authority of Biblical scholars have declared "Evolution to be True" The fact is that not a single argument from scientific sources has been made to disprove evolution. How on earth did that happen?Good catch Well it looks that we are going to speed up evolution. This little lecture explains we are on the verge of creating entirely new species. This may be of interest to the topic. Gene editing can now change an entire species forever http://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_kahn_gene_editing_can_now_change_an_entire_species_forever? check this out, really. This is going to change chemical biology forever.
Really Pahu, until you link something other than creationscience.com or similar sites, and present your data and interpretations that contradict the scientific consensus, you’re not going to get anywhere with this crowd. You have to either do science the way science is done, or prove that the scientific method is flawed.