Spirituality
01 Mar 14
05 Mar 14
Richard Dawkins:
describes creationism as "lamentable ignorance" and "anyone who has been shown the facts (RJHinds) and still believes the world is less than 10,000 years old, there's got to be something wrong with them. To give an idea of the magnitude of the error, to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old (RJHinds), given that we know the world is actually 4.6 billion years old, is equivalent to believing that the width of North America, right across from New York to San Francisco, is less than 10 yards. That's the scale of the error we're talking about. So you've either got to be staggeringly ignorant (RJHinds), which most of them are, or if you're not ignorant, you've got to be insane."
" We are cousins of all living creatures, that we have a history of four billion years of slow, gradual EVOLUTION..."
06 Mar 14
Originally posted by woodypusherGee, just WHO can we be talking about here🙂
Richard Dawkins:
describes creationism as "lamentable ignorance" and "anyone who has been shown the facts (RJHinds) and still believes the world is less than 10,000 years old, there's got to be something wrong with them. To give an idea of the magnitude of the error, to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old (RJHinds), given that we know the ...[text shortened]... our billion years of slow, gradual EVOLUTION..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Is6GLlWAw
22 Mar 14
Originally posted by woodypusherRichard Dawkins:
Richard Dawkins:
describes creationism as "lamentable ignorance" and "anyone who has been shown the facts (RJHinds) and still believes the world is less than 10,000 years old, there's got to be something wrong with them. To give an idea of the magnitude of the error, to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old (RJHinds), given that we know the ...[text shortened]... our billion years of slow, gradual EVOLUTION..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Is6GLlWAw
Here is an example of him demonstrating his ignorance.
23 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it is demonstrating your brainwashing. You are so thoroughly brainwashed by your so-called religion you can't see the world right in front of you. All you see is a construct built 6000 years ago and that ONLY because you read it as an analysis of other humans, where it does not say anything about the age of the universe in the bible so all you are doing is sniffing the ass of the people who put that BS tale together.
Richard Dawkins:
Here is an example of him demonstrating his ignorance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
23 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonhouseNatural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.
No, it is demonstrating your brainwashing. You are so thoroughly brainwashed by your so-called religion you can't see the world right in front of you. All you see is a construct built 6000 years ago and that ONLY because you read it as an analysis of other humans, where it does not say anything about the age of the universe in the bible so all you are doing is sniffing the ass of the people who put that BS tale together.
Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279:28-29 (2 January 1998).
DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.
Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354-1356 (20 September 1991). Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536-8 (10 June 1993). Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Paabo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19-30 (Jul 11, 1997). Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature's ancient secrets, Nature 413:358-359 (27 September 2001).
Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.This proves the bacteria could not be more than 10,000 years old
Vreeland, R. H.,W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407:897-900 (19 October 2000).
Soft tissue and blood cells have been found in a dinosaur proving it is less than 10,000 years old.
Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952-1955 (25 March 2005).
23 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsCalibrating the mitochondria DNA:
[b]Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.
Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279 ...[text shortened]... e vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952-1955 (25 March 2005).[/b]
What she really said:
DNA studies of the remains of the last Russian tsar, Nicholas II illustrate troubling questions in forensics and the dating of evolutionary events. The Tsar inherited two different sequences of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from their mother, a condition known as heteroplasmy that was previously considered rare but which new studies show may occur in at least 10% and probably 20% of all humans. This may mean that mtDNA mutates perhaps as much as 20-fold faster than expected, according to two controversial studies. Since evolutionists had assumed that mtDNA mutations occur at a steady rate, these studies cast doubt over the dating of such events as the peopling of Europe. The new results are already prompting changes in DNA forensics procedures.
There is ZERO in there saying ANYTHING about life forms being only 6000 years old.
You jump on ANYTHING that has the SLIGHTEST hint of refuting evolution.
You lose yet again. Check your meds, you are slipping.
The only way you are ever going to be close to genius is if you shake hands with Richard Dawkins.
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonhouseIt shows that things are not as old as evolutionist claim them to be. They are no more than a few thousand rather than millions. That means there is not enough time for al that evolution to happen.
Calibrating the mitochondria DNA:
What she really said:
DNA studies of the remains of the last Russian tsar, Nicholas II illustrate troubling questions in forensics and the dating of evolutionary events. The Tsar inherited two different sequences of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from their mother, a condition known as heteroplasmy that was previously cons ...[text shortened]... he only way you are ever going to be close to genius is if you shake hands with Richard Dawkins.
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI can understand that you see evolution as bogus if you hold the age of earth as only 6000 years old, there are simply no time for evolution to happen. But the fact is that the Earth is considerably much more old. Evolution has been around for billions of years, and what we see around us, in all variations of species, is a proof of that.
It shows that things are not as old as evolutionist claim them to be. They are no more than a few thousand rather than millions. That means there is not enough time for al that evolution to happen.
The science of geology gives you enough proof of the age of the Earth.
You really have to reconsider the 6000 year old Earth, it's simply wrong!
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasI believe 6000 years is closer to the age of the earth than 4.5 billion years.
I can understand that you see evolution as bogus if you hold the age of earth as only 6000 years old, there are simply no time for evolution to happen. But the fact is that the Earth is considerably much more old. Evolution has been around for billions of years, and what we see around us, in all variations of species, is a proof of that.
The science of ...[text shortened]... e age of the Earth.
You really have to reconsider the 6000 year old Earth, it's simply wrong!
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou put the nail on the head with your first words: "I believe". That is the difference between science and dogma. Science doesn't go with 'I believe', science goes with evidence where you say, the evidence points here, there has been nothing substantial refuting it so I go with what the evidence points to. If the evidence changes, your working theory changes.
I believe 6000 years is closer to the age of the earth than 4.5 billion years.
It is not tied to some preconceived notion of what people thought went on 4000 years ago when they knew nothing about atoms, atomic dating, geology, moving continents and so forth.
Your belief is simply that, a belief and you have nothing else in your bag but the belief of other people who put up opinion video's with no real science or science refuted decades ago.
This post is me being nice.
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou may not realize it, but you go on belief too. You believe the evidence points to billions of years and I believe the evidence points to thousands of years for the age of the Earth.
You put the nail on the head with your first words: "I believe". That is the difference between science and dogma. Science doesn't go with 'I believe', science goes with evidence where you say, the evidence points here, there has been nothing substantial refuting it so I go with what the evidence points to. If the evidence changes, your working theory chang ...[text shortened]... ion video's with no real science or science refuted decades ago.
This post is me being nice.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThe difference here is that you believe of religious dogmatic reasons. You don't think for yourself. You just - believe. Blindly.
You may not realize it, but you go on belief too. You believe the evidence points to billions of years and I believe the evidence points to thousands of years for the age of the Earth.
25 Mar 14
This is more of what I understand about evolution:
The fossil evidence shows that living species emerged suddenly and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms to advanced ones as evolution claims.
The fossil evidence shows man came into existence in just the same form as he is now, and that he has come down to the present with absolutely no evolutionary development.
The following is what other men of science understand about evolution:
"It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. In fact, quite to the contrary, science will progress in a much faster and healthier manner when it is freed from the insistence of a theory full of dogmatism, prejudice, nonsense, and fabrication."
The American biologist G. W. Harper
It is enough to look at the history of science to realise what an invalid and irrational thing it is to claim that "evolution is the basis of biology." If the claim were true, it would mean that no biological sciences had developed in the world before the emergence of the theory of evolution, and that they were all born after it. However, many branches of biology, such as anatomy, physiology, and paleontology, were born and developed before the theory of evolution. On the other hand, evolution is a hypothesis that emerged after these sciences, which Darwinists are trying to impose on these sciences by force.
Science is based on observation and experimentation. Evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothesis regarding an unobservable past. Furthermore, the theory's claims and propositions have always been disproved by science and the laws of logic. Science will suffer no loss, of course, when this hypothesis is abandoned.
The philosopher Professor Arda Denkel, one of the foremost names in Turkish science.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou show very well that you don't understand evolution.
This is more of what I understand about evolution:
The fossil evidence shows that living species emerged suddenly and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms to advanced ones as evolution claims.
The fossil evidence shows man came into existence in just the same form as he is now, and that he has come down to the present with absolutely no evolutionary development.
"The fossil evidence shows that living species emerged suddenly and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms to advanced ones as evolution claims."
No, that's the creationists evilution, not the science evolution. You have to hold them apart.
"The fossil evidence shows man came into existence in just the same form as he is now, and that he has come down to the present with absolutely no evolutionary development."
No, that's another example of evilution, the story invented by creationists.
If you want to discuss science in the science forum, then you have to discuss science, and not your evilution religion. Your evilution is just your religious opinions that is better discussed in spiritual forum.
25 Mar 14
4 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasI see he making his usual shamefully stupid baseless obviously-false assertions (either lies or wild delusions that are way out of it to say the least -not sure which ) as always. This is part of the reason why I now block his posts so that I don't see them; his comments are all just so ignorant and stupid they make me groan. He does endlessly speak a vast load of crap, doesn't he!
You show very well that you don't understand evolution.
"The fossil evidence shows that living species emerged suddenly and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms to advanced ones as evolution claims."
No, that's the creationists evilution, not the science evolution. You have to hold them apart.
"The fossil evidence shows ...[text shortened]... ion. Your evilution is just your religious opinions that is better discussed in spiritual forum.