Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Science & Spirituality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 28-12-2012, 08:18 AM
Arcturus Arcturus is offline
Master
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Matrix
Posts: 3,556
  Arcturus's Avatar
Kepler:Of course you need to allow for all possibilities, but at the end of the day you need to see where the evidence is pointing. The evidence points to humans and other modern primates sharing a common ancestor.

yes the point of the lloyd pye vid was that the evidence aint what its made out to be, even possibly laughable.


Sure, it's possible. But if you want to be convincing, you need to present some evidence. The fact that something is merely possible isn't that interesting.

well i did present another point of view...one that questions the current evidence. interest is a personal matter and i've no desire to be convincing.

It's good to question things, but at some point you need to do your due diligence and examine the different evidences for different ideas. Don't leave it at "some group somewhere in some time thought this, therefore this commonly accepted scientific idea may be incorrect". Why did those people think the way they did? Why do biologist come to the conclusions they do? If you consider these questions it becomes a bit easier to reach a conclusion.

to make an informed "scientific" view of the topic would require something like a degree in evolutionary biology, like i said, us with little of that can only wonder, seeing as we cannot be completely critical of the evidence, without indepth knowledge of it and even then there is no hard indisputable proof either way and if there were we couldn't evaluate. so i'll go on feeling to


These links still support the idea that humans and other modern primates share a common ancestor, which is what Animus27 originally said.

true. but this is a change in stance is it not...was it not lovejoy's examination of ardi that resulted in a change in the way that we view evolution? that following his research we no longer say "man evolved from apes or monkeys" because they showed it to be untrue. now this left the question of "well then what did we evolve from"...and the lame answer is "a common ancestor"...which of course we have no remains or proof of. funny how science races to fill the gaps and then a notion/idea (like common ancestor) becomes as good as a fact when it's pure assumption. so if the evidence points to no connection their only option was "common ancestor". if anything all this has given me even greater reason to question the "science".


Not at all. Science provides a model that is not "fixed" or "final". This is its strong point. The model is constantly changing as new evidence and data comes in. It is very much possible to draw conclusions, as long as you keep an open mind and continue to exam new ideas and new data (which is basically what science, as a process, is).

so long as it fits with your worldview? everything i've said could be completely wrong...that's what i like to hear. what is strange is why science isn't also asking the question, that is it possible we don't have a common ancestor? considering the notion is bourne of not having an answer. if anything it makes sense to wonder if the none answering answer is even valid. prove we come from a common ancestor or at least explain to me why it's a valid reasoning.

had a quick look at this http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06...e_i047161.html
__________________
Krishnamurti : With a Silent Mind http://youtu.be/YGJNqp7px3U

"There is no psychological evolution: there is only the ending of sorrow, of pain, anxiety, loneliness, despair and all that."

Last edited by Arcturus : 28-12-2012 at 09:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 28-12-2012, 10:01 AM
Morpheus Morpheus is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Matrix
Posts: 5,532
  Morpheus's Avatar
Post "Fall"

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
ok then, apparently we all (apes, humans and monkeys) evolved, apparently, from a common ancestor. doesn't make it true, but one must allow for all possibilities eh


Of course you need to allow for all possibilities, but at the end of the day you need to see where the evidence is pointing. The evidence points to humans and other modern primates sharing a common ancestor.

That pertains to, "The Matrix", and post, "Fall".


http://www.angelsghosts.com/angels_what_are_they.html

"What are angels?

The word “angel” in the original Hebrew and Greek languages means
“messenger.”
An angel is a spirit that brings a message. However, you and I are spirits and we too, can bring a message to another. Therefore, an angel is truly a person who brings a message to another person or persons, no matter which side of the grave.

Jesus communicated quite a bit with angels and gave us some clues as to who they are. We are told in the New Testament that Jesus was watched over by angels, that He could call 10,000 angels if he needed them, and that angels ascended and descended upon him. What does that mean?

Jesus quoted and interpreted Genesis 28 to Nathanael (when Jacob saw a ladder extending from the earth to the heavens):
“And he said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” - John 1:51

Nathanael truly saw the miracles, physical signs as well as the enlightened words Jesus spoke as he communicated and worked with angels. This was further demonstrated later in the New Testament to other disciples and has been called the
“Mount of Transfiguration” by bible scholars:

“And after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him.” – Matthew 17:1-3
Jesus was rolling back the veil which covers the eyes of mankind, and revealing what truly occurs behind our physical world.
He showed his trusted disciples the spirit world in action. The ascending and descending of messengers or angels is simply two-way communication between the spirit
(unseen realm) and the physical world (earth).

The messengers speak to us, as Moses and Elijah did with Jesus, and direct, guide and assist those on earth who are open to their communication.

__________________
"I believe there are two sides to the phenomena known as death. This side where we live, and the other side, where we shall continue to live.
Eternity does not start with death.
We are in eternity now." - Norman Vincent Peale

"There is no place in this new kind of physics for both the field and matter, for the field is the only reality." - A. Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 28-12-2012, 10:38 AM
Miss Hepburn Miss Hepburn is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southwest, USA
Posts: 12,913
  Miss Hepburn's Avatar
What is the name of the Congressman?
State and party, if you know.
Thanks
__________________
.,
,
,

"Prepare yourself for the coming astral journey of death
by riding daily in a balloon of divine perception.
Through delusion you are perceiving yourself as a bundle of flesh and bones...
Meditate unceasingly, that you quickly behold yourself as the Infinite Essence"

~Lahiri Mahasaya, the Guru of Yogananda's Guru

I have no scientific evidence for anything I say.







Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 28-12-2012, 03:00 PM
Seawolf Seawolf is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,346
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iolite
Our Forefathers were wise beyond their reasoning for stipulating the separation between Church and State. Even they could not have possibly have envisioned these morons in congress.
The whole system was set up to try to keep morons and corrupt leaders in check. Knowing the nature of humanity, the founding fathers wrote the constitution knowing that the system would eventually break down, but did their best to make it so it would last at least a little while.
__________________
"Just came back from the storm." -Jimi Hendrix
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 28-12-2012, 05:27 PM
Kepler
Posts: n/a
 
Thanks for the response, vecta3!


Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
yes the point of the lloyd pye vid was that the evidence aint what its made out to be, even possibly laughable.
So you just take Lloyd Pye’s (not a biologist) word for it, but then later claim that to make an informed view you need “something like a degree in evolutionary biology”?


Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
to make an informed "scientific" view of the topic would require something like a degree in evolutionary biology, like i said, us with little of that can only wonder, seeing as we cannot be completely critical of the evidence, without indepth knowledge of it .
This is a bit extreme. Why are you even discussing this if you don’t consider yourself qualified? I do not have a degree in evolutionary biology, but it turns out that some people do – and they write a lot of books and make documentaries and websites that allow lay people like myself to digest what’s going on in science. If you, vecta3, were presenting your own novel ideas, research, hypotheses, etc. concerning evolutionary biology, then I may wonder about your credentials and qualifications. But, since we are doing nothing new here and are simply summarizing information that is easily available on the internet and in books, I don’t see such a requirement as necessary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
and even then there is no hard indisputable proof either way and if there were we couldn't evaluate. so i'll go on feeling to
Evolutionary biology, like many sciences, is very complex. There isn’t ever going to be one simple “smoking gun” piece of evidence for something as complicated as evolution. What it sounds like you are saying here is “science is complicated, therefore I’ll just believe whatever I want” – which is rather weak.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
true. but this is a change in stance is it not...was it not lovejoy's examination of ardi that resulted in a change in the way that we view evolution? that following his research we no longer say "man evolved from apes or monkeys" because they showed it to be untrue. now this left the question of "well then what did we evolve from"...and the lame answer is "a common ancestor"...which of course we have no remains or proof of. funny how science races to fill the gaps and then a notion/idea (like common ancestor) becomes as good as a fact when it's pure assumption.
Watch the link to the video you posted. You’re misunderstanding it. The shift was from “humans evolving from something chimpanzee like” to “chimpanzees evolving from something human like”. In both cases, there was a non-human non-chimpanzee common ancestor - it was not simply invented to “fill in the gaps”.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
so if the evidence points to no connection their only option was "common ancestor". if anything all this has given me even greater reason to question the "science".
The evidence points to “no connection”? I’m not sure where this is coming from. Your conclusion to doubt the science is based on your misunderstanding of what is being presented.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
so long as it fits with your worldview?
What’s my “worldview”? Also, it’s very easy for someone to say the same thing to you. I think you may have simply ignored what you were actually responding to with that, so I’ll just post it again here:

Science provides a model that is not "fixed" or "final". This is its strong point. The model is constantly changing as new evidence and data comes in. It is very much possible to draw conclusions, as long as you keep an open mind and continue to exam new ideas and new data (which is basically what science, as a process, is).


Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
what is strange is why science isn't also asking the question, that is it possible we don't have a common ancestor?
Why do you think science hasn’t asked this question? Remember, humans sharing a common ancestor with other primates was not always an accepted idea (before Darwin, possibly a bit earlier? I’m not sure exactly). Science surely existed then. The question becomes – why did science shift into thinking humans might share a common ancestor with other primates?


Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
what is strange is why science isn't also asking the question, that is it possible we don't have a common ancestor? considering the notion is bourne of not having an answer. if anything it makes sense to wonder if the none answering answer is even valid.
Common descent was definitely not “bourne out of not having an answer”. Again, this possibly comes from your misunderstanding of the Lovejoy Ardi video above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
prove we come from a common ancestor or at least explain to me why it's a valid reasoning.
There is plenty of info here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vecta3
It's not surprising that things can be equally well explained by some greater "intelligent designer". Such a "higher power" can be invoked to explain just about anything. (The old "God put the fossils there to confuse humans" sort of thing.)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 28-12-2012, 05:30 PM
Kepler
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn
What is the name of the Congressman?
State and party, if you know.
Thanks
Paul Broun
Georgia Republican
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 30-12-2012, 10:53 AM
Arcturus Arcturus is offline
Master
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Matrix
Posts: 3,556
  Arcturus's Avatar
Kepler: Thanks for the response, vecta3!

So you just take Lloyd Pye’s (not a biologist) word for it, but then later claim that to make an informed view you need “something like a degree in evolutionary biology”?

i never claimed his was the truth but another opinion is all. what he says is either true, untrue or possible. and i said i'd need a degree to have a scientific viewpoint, not any viewpoint. whether it would still even be valid would still be up for question of course.

This is a bit extreme. Why are you even discussing this if you don’t consider yourself qualified? I do not have a degree in evolutionary biology, but it turns out that some people do – and they write a lot of books and make documentaries and websites that allow lay people like myself to digest what’s going on in science. If you, vecta3, were presenting your own novel ideas, research, hypotheses, etc. concerning evolutionary biology, then I may wonder about your credentials and qualifications. But, since we are doing nothing new here and are simply summarizing information that is easily available on the internet and in books, I don’t see such a requirement as necessary.

i do consider myself to have an opinion worth sharing, just not a scientifically (dis)empowered one...as i've already stated.



Evolutionary biology, like many sciences, is very complex. There isn’t ever going to be one simple “smoking gun” piece of evidence for something as complicated as evolution. What it sounds like you are saying here is “science is complicated, therefore I’ll just believe whatever I want” – which is rather weak.

that picture of man going from a hunched monkey to an upright human, looks about as basic an idea as one could have really. science hasn't explained it though has it? evolutionary biology or whatever, complex or simple...all they say is that we believe that men and apes have a common ancestry, yet they have zilch evidence of this. and, unlike you say, i don't have a belief, i'm just questioning. from one perspective one might say, ludicrous as it apparently, that maybe the fact that there is no evidence, means it might not be so..

Watch the link to the video you posted. You’re misunderstanding it. The shift was from “humans evolving from something chimpanzee like” to “chimpanzees evolving from something human like”. In both cases, there was a non-human non-chimpanzee common ancestor - it was not simply invented to “fill in the gaps”.

so you're saying then that science used to believe that we evolved from chimplike ancestors. i thought the notion that chimps evolved from human like ancestors to be superfluous to the idea that we didn't evolve from chimps. yes the anthropoligist still adheres to the common ancestor theory and that's where i see it gets weak for me. interesting how this scientific research backs up the native american view that they (apes and chimps) evolved from humans


The evidence points to “no connection”? I’m not sure where this is coming from. Your conclusion to doubt the science is based on your misunderstanding of what is being presented.

well yeah...the science states clearly that we did not evolve from chimps or monkeys, that's a fact as far as science is concerned. the common ancestor thing is purely hypothetical...so there is only "factual" evidence that suggests, at present, no connection of humans evolvong from apes or chimps. so i'm not doubting the science here at all, i'm agreeing with it...the point we separate is that i don't go on to assume, pretty much as fact, that there then must be a common ancestor.

What’s my “worldview”? Also, it’s very easy for someone to say the same thing to you. I think you may have simply ignored what you were actually responding to with that, so I’ll just post it again here:

Science provides a model that is not "fixed" or "final". This is its strong point. The model is constantly changing as new evidence and data comes in. It is very much possible to draw conclusions, as long as you keep an open mind and continue to exam new ideas and new data (which is basically what science, as a process, is)

i would say that your worldview is what seems logical to yourself. the rest sounds open minded but i can't say for one second that that is my experience of science or scientists. in fact i always thought new theories were/are generally laughed at and the proponents deemed charlatans. i watched a vid on the, apparently, excrutiatingly bad science behind the theory and manufacture of vaccines, yet it goes on. modern medicine kills 200,000 a year in the states, and thats scientifically based, sometimes on trials that can be manipulated and distorted. so science in some ways IS the pseudo science.


Why do you think science hasn’t asked this question? Remember, humans sharing a common ancestor with other primates was not always an accepted idea (before Darwin, possibly a bit earlier? I’m not sure exactly). Science surely existed then. The question becomes – why did science shift into thinking humans might share a common ancestor with other primates?

with no proof of common ancestry, just loads of hypotheses, it would seem, to me at least, a fair question to ask whether or not it's even a valid notion. perhaps the idea never existed before because, other than a similarity of appearance, there's no reason to assume a common ancestry.

Common descent was definitely not “bourne out of not having an answer”. Again, this possibly comes from your misunderstanding of the Lovejoy Ardi video above.

imo it was. yes we look similar, so what?


There is plenty of info here.

plenty of scientists refuting this "evidence"...so have some gone mad? if science has such an opened minded yet firm base, how can there be such different beliefs and ideas? isn't science supposed to do away with personal interest interfering with results? this site has plenty of scientific info that refutes darwin evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/evolution/


It's not surprising that things can be equally well explained by some greater "intelligent designer". Such a "higher power" can be invoked to explain just about anything. (The old "God put the fossils there to confuse humans" sort of thing.)
[i]
i don't know why fossils would be confusing? i'm certainly no christian and i'm not sure about higher powers etc...but what i do know is that scientists know alot less than what it outwardly presumes to. who's to say that the scientists that seem to be adequately raising some good questions about darwin evolutionary theory, are the only true scientists on the matter? i read your wicki piece which seem to contain the usual ideas that purport to support the theory of common ancestry, many of which are questioned by the site i linked to.

Problem 5: No Workable Model for the Origin of Life http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12...obl067431.html

Despite decades of work, origin-of-life theorists are at a loss to explain how this system arose. In 2007, Harvard chemist George Whitesides was given the Priestley Medal, the highest award of the American Chemical Society. During his acceptance speech, he offered this stark analysis, reprinted in the respected journal Chemical and Engineering News:

The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. It begins to place life, and us, in the universe. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea.21

Many other authors have made similar comments. Massimo Pigliucci states: "t has to be true that we really don't have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means."22 Or as science writer Gregg Easterbrook wrote in Wired, "What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn't given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time."23

Likewise, the aforementioned article in Cell Biology International concludes: "New approaches to investigating the origin of the genetic code are required. The constraints of historical science are such that the origin of life may never be understood."24 That is, they may never be understood unless scientists are willing to consider goal-directed scientific explanations like intelligent design.
__________________
Krishnamurti : With a Silent Mind http://youtu.be/YGJNqp7px3U

"There is no psychological evolution: there is only the ending of sorrow, of pain, anxiety, loneliness, despair and all that."
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 30-12-2012, 10:56 AM
Arcturus Arcturus is offline
Master
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Matrix
Posts: 3,556
  Arcturus's Avatar
i'll share the previous link here: from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06...e_i047161.html

Human/ape common ancestry has been a subject much discussed recently. A friend wrote me asking for links dealing with human/ape common ancestry. While there are numerous good articles that have talked about this issue from an intelligent design (ID) friendly perspective, I tried to provide him with some helpful links and information.

As a preliminary point, it's important to note that human/ape common ancestry is compatible with ID. Nonetheless, ID proponents are interested in taking a scientific approach to these questions, and the evidence suggests that even modest changes requiring two or more mutations before conferring any adaptive benefit could not arise via Darwinian evolution under any reasonable timescale involving human/ape common ancestry. As a result, questions about human/ape common ancestry should be on the table for people who really want to follow the evidence where it leads.

The basic issue is this: Despite the fact that human/ape genetic similarities are often overstated, YES, in many instances it is true that humans and chimps have very high levels of genetic similarity. Does this functional genetic similarity bolster neo-Darwinian evolution and human/ape common ancestry? Not at all. In fact, we could have predicted these similarities without any knowledge of Darwinian evolution simply by observing that humans have similar body plans to apes. If similar morphology implies similar genetics, then we could predict these high levels of similarities without even thinking about considerations pertaining to common ancestry.

But there's another important point to consider: Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent. That's a good principle to keep in mind as you investigate this issue: functional biological similarity is explained by common design just as well as it's explained by common descent. (In fact, in some cases--such as extreme convergent evolution--such similarity is explained much better by common design.)

There are a lot of good articles out there on this topic, but here is a summary of some articles germane to recent debates:

(1) Casey Luskin and Logan Paul Gage, "A Reply to Francis Collins' Darwinian Arguments for Common Ancestry of Apes and Humans," in Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues, edited by H. Wayne House (Kregel, 2008), provides a rebuttal to many of Collins' arguments for human/ape common ancestry:
"a. This article notes that the evidence for human chromosomal fusion simply shows that our human lineage underwent a fusion event and doesn't say anything about whether our lineage shares a common ancestor with apes. For another good article on problems with the telomeric evidence for human chromosomal fusion, see "Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity."

b. Collins cites much "junk DNA" as alleged evidence of our shared ancestry with apes, but this DNA turns out to NOT be junk at all.

c. Collins makes weak arguments that a couple mutation in a gene could have produced human cognition--this is an outlandish hypothesis that is easily rebutted.

d. For another recent rebuttal to Collins on the issue of junk DNA and human/ape common ancestry, please see "Francis Collins' Junk DNA Arguments Pushed Into Increasingly Small Gaps in Scientific Knowledge.

e. For background on functions for pseudogenes, see "Et tu, Pseudogenes? Another Type of 'Junk' DNA Betrays Darwinian Predictions".
"
(2) "Human Origins and Intelligent Design," Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, Vol. 4.1 (July, 2005).
"a. This article reviews the fossil evidence for human/ape common ancestry and finds that it is lacking.

b. There is also a less-technical version of this article here."
(3) "The myth of 1% human-chimp genetic differences"
"a. This article asks whether human/chimp genetic similarities are good evidence for common ancestry. As the journal Science has reported, it notes that human/chimp genetic differences are much more than the "1%" genetic difference we typically hear about.

b. This article also notes that human/ape genetic similarities might result from common design rather than common descent.

c. This piece asks what is the metric for demonstrating Darwinian evolution based upon genetic similarity. There doesn't seem to be one, and the argument often appears arbitrary.

d. In fact there are some parts of our genome, such as the human y chromosome, that are radically different from the chimp genome. For details, see: "Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans, Neanderthals Closer."

e. Geneticist Richard Buggs has an excellent article which argues that the degree of similarity between the human and chimp genome might be as low as 70%:

To compare the two [human and chimpanzee] genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless "junk DNA". However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This "copy number variation" causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.

Be sure to also read Dr. Buggs' follow-up article that answers questions and objections about his argument."
(4) "Study Reports a Whopping '23% of Our Genome' Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny"
"a. This article shows how the genetic data is actually painting a very confusing picture about human common ancestry with apes.

b. The paper reports: "For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee."

c. Another article which elaborates on similar problems is at "Primate Phylogenetics Researchers Swinging from Tree to Tree."

d. Likewise, Jonathan M. recently reported that ERV distributions conflict with the standard phylogeny of human/ape relationships.
"
(5) In the past few years quite a bit has been written on challenges to widely touted "missing links." Rebuttals can be found in articles like:
"a. Lucy: "My Pilgrimage to Lucy's Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism."

b. Ardi: "The Overselling of Ardipithecus ramidus."

c. Ida: "The Rise and Fall of Missing Link Superstar 'Ida'."

d. Neanderthals: For a discussion of why Neanderthals don't show anything like human/ape common ancestry, please see: "Does Giberson and Collins' Neanderthal Argument Demonstrate 'Common Ancestry'?""

not sure if i can sustain any more energy here so excuse if i don't reply, might do..
__________________
Krishnamurti : With a Silent Mind http://youtu.be/YGJNqp7px3U

"There is no psychological evolution: there is only the ending of sorrow, of pain, anxiety, loneliness, despair and all that."
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 30-12-2012, 10:52 PM
Chrysaetos Chrysaetos is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,079
  Chrysaetos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by norseman
"Planet Earth is about 9000 years old and the study of evolution, embryology, and Big Bang Theory is based on lies straight from the pit of Hell".
A Congressman responsible for crafting US government policy on science and technology.
I have no further comment to make [Today's i newspaper]
It's a shame that there's still so much ignorance about evolution and geology. There are two things to blame here; 1) educational system not spending enough time on this, 2) alternative crackpot stuff on the internet that people (who aren't trained in critical thinking) fall prey too. Anyone who has even a moderate amount of interest in animals and the natural world would realize it is about facts and observations.. not common use of the word ''theory''. But hey most people who deny it are usually people with law/business degrees or monotheists and religious fundies, Ie. people who usually have little interest in it yet run our world!!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-02-2013, 01:25 PM
William Schuck
Posts: n/a
 
Reconsidered!

Quote:
Originally Posted by norseman
"Planet Earth is about 9000 years old and the study of evolution, embryology, and Big Bang Theory is based on lies straight from the pit of Hell".
A Congressman responsible for crafting US government policy on science and technology.
I have no further comment to make [Today's i newspaper]

Are you so simple in thought and idea not to realize the position your statement places you. The only person who enjoys your attitude is you alone, so what have you accomplished with this limited remark?

Regards
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums