Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
Written by: onewheeldave
But, if matter had existed for ever, then all protons would have decayed by now.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Written by: FireTomGeneraly one considers the total lack of credible evidence to be a bit of a give away...
And even if Jake doesn't like the idea of "morphogenetic fields" there is evidence that evolution happens also through a mere learning and realisation-process, stored in our genes and changing the programming. Or is there (peered) evidence against this theory?
Written by: FireTomWho say's they couldn't? If ants could share information accurately between themselves they might reach quite impressive computational power as a network. Of course insect brains are inherintly slower due to their layout and biochemistry...but only at the moment. One day we may be working for our insect overlords
What's the point? Just because humans enjoy their shape so much, they cannot believe, that ants (in a given timespan) might be able to develop a "higher intelligence" just alike???
Written by: FireTomI can't believe I'm saying this but the concept of non-omnipotent higher beings was explored a lot in the original series of star trek. Especially Star Trek V
Who knows what "god" looks like? Just because we believe to have been made in his image it doesn't mean that he looks human at all... and what would it matter to every days life anyways? We seem to be caught up in our own mindspace.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: jeff(fake)
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys
Written by: Patriarch917
Your knowledge of the Bible is as good here as in your previous posts. Please bother to look things up before you assert them.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said “stone people who do not follow the golden rule.”
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Written by: TheBovrilMonkeyWritten by: jeff(fake)
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys
Written by: Patriarch917
Your knowledge of the Bible is as good here as in your previous posts. Please bother to look things up before you assert them.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said “stone people who do not follow the golden rule.”
One last thing before I bow out of this thread in sheer frustration...
Patriarch, I'd like to know how you interpret those passages that jeff quoted and their teachings.
If they actually mean something other than the literal meaning, please, let us know because from where I'm sitting, I can see know reason to accept some parts of the bible as completely literal but other parts as some strange code that only the believers can fully understand. Especially if it's the parts that are written in the most straightforward ways that are apparently the coded sections.
Please, let us know what leveticus 19:19 means when it says
'Keep my decrees.
Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'
It seems fairly straightforward to me, but obviously I don't have enough faith to read the true message behind it.
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Written by: jo_rhymes
why cant you weave two different types of material together?
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Written by: Patriarch917
However, there is no “incontrovertible evidence” upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an “incontrovertible” meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is “incontrovertible” because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
Written by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasn’t happened
Written by: Patriarch917
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasn’t happened either
Written by: Patriarch917
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
Written by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasn’t happened#
Written by: Patriarch917
I do not think they were at their current levels when the flood occurred, and I am not sure why you would assume that I would think such a thing. The Bible says itself that the mountains were “lifted up” and the valleys “sank down” after the flood. The flood was not a gentle rising of water like the filling of a bathtub. The flood probably destroyed mountains, created new ones, shifted continents, and was likely accompanied by volcanic eruptions that caused an ice age. Constant sedimentary deposits would not have been the result of such a process. The main thing you would expect to find is evidence that at one point, every point on earth was under water. The other thing you would expect to find is lots of fossilized dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the earth.
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by: onewheeldave
Spiral, you're either missing the point I was trying to make, or arguing for one that I've yet to make any comment on.
I'm totally aware that steady-state theories are not taken that seriously by scientists- I'm very aware that the 'Big-Bang' theory is favoured and I am not arguing against it.
The point I was making was in response to a fundamentalist claim that God could have existed for ever.
Without going into too much detail (it's all covered in the earlier parts of this thread) I'm simply demonstrating why the universe could not have been in existence forever (ie could not have existed for an infinite time-span), using the fact that protons decay in a finite time.
To sum up, far from arguing for any kind of steady-state universe theory, I'm actually doing the opposite.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Written by: Patriarch917
However, there is no “incontrovertible evidence” upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an “incontrovertible” meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is “incontrovertible” because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: Patriarch917
As I said before (but you apparently missed), nowhere does it say that the penalty for these offenses is stoning. Jeff admitted that he made that part up because he dislikes Moses. I think he also may have meant to say "mules" rather than "donkeys," but I let that one slide.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Written by: spiralxLike how we can see the Andromeda galaxy? Or did God tinker with the speed of light just to confound astronomers?Written by: Patriarch917
However, there is no “incontrovertible evidence” upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an “incontrovertible” meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is “incontrovertible” because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion.
What starting assumption are you talking about? The age of the Universe is built from a long chain of scientific reasoning backed up by observations. In order to deny the end result you've got to be saying that at least one intermediate step is wrong... I'm curious at to which one(s) it is...?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by: Leveticus 20, chapters 9 and 10
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Written by: jeff(fake)
As for the bacteria in the lab people keep brining up I've done this myself so I'll tell you how it works. The bacteria themselves are all derived from a single founding cell originaly (if your doing it right) so all the bacteria will be clones of each other. If resistance is observed to emerge then this is due to an entirely novel mutation emerging. It most certainly was not present in the population at the begining of the experiment.
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Written by: FireTom
where it originates from etc.
Written by: FireTom
Also the fact that this universe is still expanding doesn't really disprove the said theory
Written by: FireTom
we might have to accept that certain things actually DO change
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: Patriarch917
However, there is no “incontrovertible evidence” upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an “incontrovertible” meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is “incontrovertible” because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion
That is true but by observational physics you can predict what might happen then test to see if your observations match your predictions. Each time you find another way to observe or test and your observations hold true the more sound a theory is.
I would like you to find a way of explaining red shift (the way in which we measure the distance of stars and the thus the speed that they are travelling by the amount of displacement from the wave form of light) this was observed then theorised and then tested it has undergone years of scrutiny and each time a new test or observation has been found they all mach up with the initial principal. So it is now a wide held belief that the galaxies around us are moving away thus the universe is expanding tracking this back we can estimate a time when the universe was all in one space this is how we come up with our current estimates of the age of the universe.
If you can find an explanation, theory or scientific paper that disproves that red shift happens and that the universe is not expanding I would be most impressed.
(Bit of topic sorry)
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
You seem to totally miss understand evolution and are contradicting yourself a lot you say that mutations can happen, you then go on to say that it is not a mutation but a trait already held within the genetic material???
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasn’t happened
Agvgggghggggggggggggg
You seem to totally miss the point of evolution. A dog can’t turn into a cat as they evolved along totally different lines.
Evolution doesn’t happen quickly it is a slow step by step process.
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: Patriarch917
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasn’t happened either
Yes. Yes it has…
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: Patriarch917
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
will you stop re quoting yourself evolution dose not happen in big steps (oops now I'm doing it) beneficial genetic information is added through mutation but only once in a while is seen as beneficial if the surrounding environment makes it beneficial.
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: Patriarch917
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasn’t happened#
So would evolution as it would disprove everything we have been saying but you have not been listening
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: Patriarch917
I do not think they were at their current levels when the flood occurred, and I am not sure why you would assume that I would think such a thing. The Bible says itself that the mountains were “lifted up” and the valleys “sank down” after the flood. The flood was not a gentle rising of water like the filling of a bathtub. The flood probably destroyed mountains, created new ones, shifted continents, and was likely accompanied by volcanic eruptions that caused an ice age. Constant sedimentary deposits would not have been the result of such a process. The main thing you would expect to find is evidence that at one point, every point on earth was under water. The other thing you would expect to find is lots of fossilized dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the earth.
There is one vital floor in your flood explanation well a few actually. firstly if you look at the amount of sedimentation you are talking about to the lowest levels at which we find land living fossils and then take all the known water on the planet (including atmospheric moisture) and mixed the two together which is what would be needed to lay down the sediment in the way you described it would be the consistency of mud there is to much sediment to be held in the amount of water we have.
Written by: Mint Sauce
Also if it was so dramatic as you claim “knock down mountains” why don’t we find animals from in my evolutionary opinion from different time periods in the same layers of sediment why are their no human or rabbit remains lying next to a T-rex and why don’t we have more fossils than we do. If it was a flood surly more things would have been fossilized at present we don’t find that many fossils as to be fossilized it takes just the right circumstances. And you said earlier thing are not fossilizes today well yes they are. if I fell into a peat bog and by chance was not dug up and burnt I would over many thousands of years be fossilized in to a fossils Tobi, the land then moved along by continental drift may be pushed up into a hill, erosion would ware away the hill and in a few million years ohhhhh look a focalized Tobi hand is poking out of the side of that rock over there. In a layer of rock from the post computerization era.
Written by: Mint Sauce
And finally what happened to all the swimming animals during the flood
and on my understanding only land animals where taken aboard the ark the rest where left to fend for themselves or did it have huge water tanks for the all the whales and stuff.
On a final note how big was the ark and how many animals were taken aboard must have been a big ship and what did they eat. You can’t grow sustainable crops on a ship. Did he take all the insects to or are they not animals.
Written by: Mint Sauce
spiralx
I don’t understand your post you seem to have just quoted the hole of Patriarch917’s post from earlier which I have answered could you clear this up thanks.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Written by: Patriarch917
I do not deny red shift, nor that the stars are all hurtling away from us. My first question to you is, do you accept the contention of the theory of relativity (that has been experimentally verified) that time is not a constant, but is distorted by both speed and gravity? My second question is whether you will consider the theory that the universe does not have an infinite size or mass.
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: jeff(fake)
As for the bacteria in the lab people keep brining up I've done this myself so I'll tell you how it works. The bacteria themselves are all derived from a single founding cell originally (if your doing it right) so all the bacteria will be clones of each other. If resistance is observed to emerge then this is due to an entirely novel mutation emerging. It most certainly was not present in the population at the beginning of the experiment.
even if it is encoded into there genetic makeup some form of mutation must have to occur to activate that gene ergo evolution
Written by: Patriarch917
Not if we’re talking about bat wings
Written by: TheBovrilMonkey
Why is it so hard to think that bat wings did indeed spring up like that?
If, as that article suggests, the wings were only controlled by a single gene, it'd be relatively easy for the wings to appear, it only takes one random mutation.
It's already been proved in labs that the theory of random mutation causing new characteristics works (I've seen this in person, so don't try to pass this off as unproven), why should it only apply to microbes when the basic mechanics are pretty much the same for all creatures?
Written by: Patriarch917
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasn’t happened either
I deleted your quote, since it says nothing about a series of transitional forms. This issue has been discussed in detail between me and Jeff(fake) earlier
Written by: Patriarch917
I already explained your first question (about the supposed arrangement of complexity) in an earlier post. In addition, I would point out that a mammal has been found with a dinosaur in it’s stomach. Do you really consider this to have disproved evolution
Written by: Live Science
It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.
Written by: Patriarch917
You are free to assert the theory that beneficial mutations have happened, and that these are capable of explaining the origin of species. However, no such beneficial chance mutation has yet to be observed. I’m not suggesting that this lack of evidence proves or disproves anything, but we should stick to the facts.
Written by: Patriarch917
Many animals can swim (including humans), but those animals that could not survive the flood by swimming were taken on the ark.
Written by: Patriarch917
The ark was approximately the size of 522 standard American railroad stock cars
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by: UraniumChipOxidationFacility
Erm..
"Genesis 7:2–3:
‘Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens'"
Had pigs been deemed "unclean" animals at that time?
Written by: Mint Sauce
Bovril put up a link for the bat wing argument
the wings were only controlled by a single gene so a small mistake in copying that gene during meiosis and bingo a wing of sorts. That would then be passed on to decedents.
Written by: Mint Sauce
some fossil records shows exactly that. Each transitional stage of evolution in the correct layer of sediment (of predicted time record) they would not be found in the same place as thousands of years elapse between each evolutionary step
In fact, we see many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record.
https://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9htfGc4m.J...nsp23150_lg.jpg
https://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyj9ynuJ...cts/whalevo.jpg
what we don’t see is any fossils in the wrong place if we did it would blow evolution out of the water (so to speak)
Written by: Mint Sauce
Written by: Patriarch917
I already explained your first question (about the supposed arrangement of complexity) in an earlier post. In addition, I would point out that a mammal has been found with a dinosaur in it’s stomach. Do you really consider this to have disproved evolution
that is why I used specific examples of human or rabbit as neither had evolved when dinosaurs were around the mammal found in your article is a 130 million year old mammal that evolved alongside dinosaurs
what I was saying is why don’t you find fossils from different time periods together in the same sediment layer as would be found in a flood.Written by: Live Science
It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.
this has and never will be part of evolution theory it is school yard science. It is a very unscientific article.
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: Patriarch917
You are free to assert the theory that beneficial mutations have happened, and that these are capable of explaining the origin of species. However, no such beneficial chance mutation has yet to be observed. I’m not suggesting that this lack of evidence proves or disproves anything, but we should stick to the facts.
what you seem to be saying is that mutations don’t happen… [explanation of what a mutation is deleted]
Ok I have no example to hand of this happening in large animals or plants but mutation does happen all the time
You seem to be deifying basic logic if you say that all of these mutations will be unbeneficial.
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: Patriarch917
Many animals can swim (including humans), but those animals that could not survive the flood by swimming were taken on the ark.
so what happened to the animals that did live in the sea but did not survive
Written by: Mint SauceWritten by: Patriarch917
The ark was approximately the size of 522 standard American railroad stock cars
not very big then and that article makes some pretty big ASSUMPTIONS none of witch have any prove to back them up
Any way I'm not getting into bible stuff this is evolution v ID may be another time or thread
Written by: UraniumChipOxidationFacility
Patriarch: What would it take, or what proof would you require that showed beyond all possible doubt that evolution does happen and will continue to happen, and it was, has and never will be God that is designing everything?
If that is the case....
Using the keywords [intelligent design v * evolution] we found the following existing topics.