Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

This is just hilarious....Sorry guys, but I am going to drop out of this one. The quote at the bottom of my signature should lend some explanation as to why.

I have climbed the ropes with Brocktoon before over a topic while he twists human history, reality, and the meaning of words to fit inside his padded walls. It gets nowhere. We all have to realize that there are a few dolts in this world we would never reach, even if logic came up and bit them in the ass they wouldn't know how to use it. Just how to twist it of course.

 

Your article is not scientific. Your "Dr." begins by stating that he is defending his agenda.

Enough propagadistic bullshit from the lunatic fringe crowd.

I shall give a definitive, verifiable, account of the first steps in the evolutionary process of life, as well as demonstrate that the formation of life from non-living beginings is not only practical, but inevitable. Further, the matter of complexed system evolving from simple systems will be illustrated.
After all, when brockton talks of "new", this is what he is trying to say: he doesn't accept complexity coming spontaneously from simplicity.

I invite our fanatic friends to read it, and dare them to offer rational objections.

Look for "The Evolution of the Universe: Life Inevitable."

 

Cabdiraz.. you and me agreeing on something is very surprising and even scary hehe.
And yet.. the chances of this happening are far far greater than even ONE single strand of DNA 'accidently' developing over Millions of years!

 

Oh man!

This should be RICH! I cant wait to see your latest work - 'LIfe Inevitable' appearing on our Hipforum Shelves!

 

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50743

An education awaits you, oh believer of corrupt nonesense.

Up to the challenge?

 

You are mistaking state of the art for belief. Theories are just that; they are not dogmatic belief.
They roll with the punches or are eventually demolished by factual observation.

The subject is currently a matter of debate between various sciences.

Also, it's a soft science, not a hard one. It cannot be mathematically described.

It's a matter of proabilities.

Geckopelli.


I submit that these 'theories', esp. the ice age one, have had decades of time to admit that the evidence reflects a very different version of events, yet the 'scientific establishment', has not yet rolled with the punches.
How long is eventually?

 

One reason I distrust the 'Established' Evolutionist crowd is because they deliberately allow the public to keep believing in theories or 'Evidence' - as long as it helps their cause.

'Lucy' was never thought to be anything more than a Giant Gibbon by MOST researchers, and yet 'Lucy' was absolutely touted as 'Proof' of an 'in-between'.
Most people dont even realise that all the professionals KNOW Lucy really IS a Giant Gibbon (Thanks to MRI).
So Evolutionists said 'Goodbye' to Lucy a few years ago..
.. and YEt...
'Lucy' is STILL drawn into textbooks (with added 'human looking skin and erected vertebrae supplied by artists).

You can still watch a documentry on 'Discovery' channel that talk about her 'as if' its important 'proof' we evolved from apes (which evolved from soup).

The Ice Age is another good one you brought up BlackGuard.

Millers Experiment is still cited by laymen and you never see Evolutions being interested in correcting that, even though it was disregarded decades ago.

Recapitulation can STILL be found discussed by Laymen.. even though Evolutionists themselves would 'Spit-Take' coffee if anyone brings up that Hoax in a serious converstion.

Honestly.. there are far too many to go over each one - yet there is almost NO Apology when just about ANY so-called 'Evolution Fact' is then disregarded by the same people who just 10 years earlier told us was 'Proof'.

It just makes it hard to trust these people.

 

Hey, I don't mind the supportive note, but let's be clear, I am 180 degrees off of the creationists microbus. I lean more towards science, warts n all. I do have seriously scientific studies as my reason to dismiss the ice age fable being taught now.

What info. can you offer me to add to my knowledge base? Why do you find it to be wrong?
Please, honestly, I would really like to know, I am not joking.

 

Im not that familiar with Ice-Age Research but I can tell you about one of the most amazing 'News Documentaries' I saw last year.

This guy is camped out in the NWT where he is going to prove once and for all how Old the Earth must be.

[This was all recorded on tape in case I didnt mention that]

So the crew follows his work while he begins taking Core-Samples.
For those who dont know - Every year there is a certain amount of Snow-Fall but not quite enough heat in the Summer to Melt all the last years snow.

If you take out a 'Core' you can see the 'Rings' .. much like how you would date a Tree (except this time the Years are lines up along the tube)

So long story short.. Im watching this and thinking "I know he wont get past about 7-8,000 years.

Yep... you guessed it - 8,000 Years of Winter/Summers.

He did NOT look impressed and you could just sense the .. almost 'Anger'.
Oh.. there was more at the bottom but it was basically a big mix of MUD, DEBRIS and ICE.
They tried to end the show by having him suggest that for Millions of years.. there must have been many chaotic seasons of mud, then water, then freezing, the melting and so thats why it was like this...

Hehe.. but they were truly fucked because that meant modern seasons were still only happening for the last 8,000 years (give or take a few)

This DID NOT FIT with ANYTHING that was 'Supposed' to have happened in any 'Official' Story.

And Im not gonna imply anything here but I have NEVER seen that documentary or study EVER again.
Not a single 'Peep' about it.

And yet.. this should have been touted as a MAJOR Discovery that would have us 'Rethink' the entire history of the Arctic.

Instead they seem to have disregarded it as an 'Abberation' and decided they will review all this data later when they can 'make sense of it'.

Whats crazy is - this was about as 'Hard Evidence' as you can get in this world.

Anyway.. if you ever see that documentary BlackG - let me know!
It was run on Global over there on the Coast but I cant recall the names involved.

VERY interesting and even more interesting how it 'Disappeared' afterwards

 

Brockton thinks watching the discovery channel and reading the bible equates with a Phd.

It doesn't. It doesn't even cover general science 101.

Let "brocktoon" post something not culled from a creationist anti-science web site, and answer questions himself. He doesn't understand the things he post, just as he has no clue as to what the scientific method is.

I went to some of his creationist sites. Most do not allow dissent to be posted- christians blowing smoke up one anothers asses is all that's premitted.

"How long is eventually?" Why, until they get it right, of course!

 

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46753

Just a reminder ...

 

Brocktoon -


The deepest ice core ever was over 3800 m in Antarctica. This sample dates from present to 400,000 years ago.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html

Ice cores in Greenland date to 110,000.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eismayewski.html

I am not familiar with the particular program you are talking about but failed ice-core dating projects are pretty common place - which is why you didn't see it splashed all over the news. It takes a high degree of scientific knowledge to find the right spot to get an ice core with any sigfnificant date range because:
1) In all but a FEW locations in the arctic snow melt is statistically equal to snow fall. Yes, a little snow builds up, but not enough to obtain clear dating results.
2) MOST of the artic is floating ice. Ice at the bottom of the sheet melts off continually into the sea.

Not knowing who/where/when this core was taken I can't refute the details. Lets just say that scores of core samples taken from precisely chosen locations around the world are able to cross-reference each other back well over 100,000 years. Deeper than that the ice is so closely compacted that you can only point out date ranges (not precise times), but those go back over 400,000 years.

 

Helpful Reminder Darrel.

This member has started three new Evolutionism Topics (in the same day) when there was already an active Evolutionism Topic being participated in.

Not Helpful to start redundant Topics all at once.

 

Give it up, juiceman.

The topics I started were all legit. but you go right ahead and lobby to get me band. It hasn't worked before, and it won't work again.

 

PopThree:

In this case, these were Snow Samples. In the Summer the top layer of (that years) snowfall would melt just slightly. So you would basically get Cores of Snow with 'Ice Lines' in them.

Im not very familiar with Ice Cores but I agree they are fairly complicated to analyse (and yes, probably why they arent, so to speak, 'Popular')
I was just recently reading up on the Greenland Cores so hopefully I can get back to you on that soon.

The Snow Cores were supposed to be a solution to the Ice Cores but i suppose they will abandon them now.

 

Brocktroon

Occam askes how any Thinking being could believe that the world was created
AS IS .

If it was..Then it was created to look like it was not created.
Agree?

For the world looks OLD to occam...
Billions of years old...beaches with a billion years of silicon deposits..sand...
Mountains worn by eons of storms and gravity.
Tectonic plates..Solidification of magma at surface temps...

This deception may be how your god wished it to be...
But WHY?

[Why would a god wish us to think the world was NOT created AS IS {ex nihilo}
For there are a million indications it evolved .. and NON that it was created]

Why would a god create a world that has the marks of a world evolved..
Deception

Occam

 

Your asking the wrong person the wrong question Occs.

Genesis is an account of a perfect planet which is then destroyed in a Global Cataclysm.
So there is really a first Creation.. then we have the next and current Creation.

If Genesis is right - then we expect to find features of the Earth eroded, washed out, re-arraigned, or buried in miles of debris.

In other cases - the reason you think the world looks very very old is because you have used your imagination to assume the appearance of age.
Or
You have pre-decided to accept something Evolved and therefore you state it evolved because it has evolved - therefore it appears to have evolved.

 

i think someone needs to take a basic class of physical anthropology before they start making absurd and false claims about darwinism

 

My high school science teacher had this same deluded view of evolution. In fact, this could be a quote from him. Keep in mind he also believed that men had one less rib then women.

The evidence for evolution is there, Brocktoon, wether you refuse to see it or not. And it doesn't have to disrupt your belief in god.

And to everyone else: Brocktoon will go hundreds of pages repeating the same nonsense, but hasn't he proved his ignorance to you enough? I don't know if you are getting humor out of it (and I admit, much of it is funny) or trying to defend the science he is foolishly and illogically attacking and mutilating to fit his views. You can't talk sense into everyone, and while I think we have all made an ambitious run of it, I think Brocktoon is just someone who won't be able to step away from his bias and take an objective look at the subject. I suggest giving up rather than encouraging his irrationality. It doesn't do people any good to fuel the fire of religious fools.

 

I agree.
Geckopelli probably did, but it was back in the 70's and that was using textbooks from the 1930's which referenced studies from the turn of the century.

Mui, that is one reason why Ive gone into detail about what Darwinism really is, why it made those claims and why it is no longer acceptable.