Originally posted by vishvahetu
When i apologized before, for being rude and arrogant, I meant that I apologized if people thought I was rude and arrogant, because I dont want to be...........and my frankness and harsh words are not rude and arrogant, and I wanted people to know when i choose the words that I choose, that I am not intending to be rude and arrogant. ( i hope thats sort ...[text shortened]... turned to give the public the truth about evolution. ( i should say non evolution)

vishva

I'm aware of the book and i have read many reviews. I won't be reading it.

A review by Dr Colin Groves who is a paleoanthropologist best sums it up for me -

"What is curious is that an essentially religious organisation feels the need to justify themselves by recourse to science - but their discourse is scientistic, not scientific." In this, they are no different from any other creationists. Try to think ourselves into the mindset of a religious fundamentalist: "I believe in my sacred texts. I am aware that science does not support their veracity. My belief is not wrong - that is axiomatic - therefore science must be. I must look into this science business, to find out where it went wrong."

It's just more creationist tosh, and you're just another creationist seeking to pollute our 'collective unconscious' with more ancient fairytales. You're in the same boat as the creationist Christians who you think you are better than.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
When i apologized before, for being rude and arrogant, I meant that I apologized if people thought I was rude and arrogant, because I dont want to be...........and my frankness and harsh words are not rude and arrogant, and I wanted people to know when i choose the words that I choose, that I am not intending to be rude and arrogant. ( i hope thats sort ...[text shortened]... turned to give the public the truth about evolution. ( i should say non evolution)

vishva

If you were to take the time to read some properly referenced academic material on the subjects covered in "Forbidden Archaeology" you might find that what you accept as "100% true" actually isn't.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm aware of the book and i have read many reviews. I won't be reading it.

A review by Dr Colin Groves who is a paleoanthropologist best sums it up for me -

[i]"What is curious is that an essentially religious organisation feels the need to justify themselves by recourse to science - but their discourse is scientistic, not scientific." In this, th 're in the same boat as the creationist Christians who you think you are better than.

You wont read the book, but you will read reviews from the very persons who are doing the cover up.....thats a conflict of interest.

For every dishonest scientist who gives the book a negative comment, there is 3 honest scientists who will praise "Forbidden Archeology"

Please dont go to the very persons who are trying to discredit the book for your info, and I would suggest you read it yourself and make an informed judgement....but please dont read it with a fault finding attitude, just have an open mind.

You could take the scientific approach and do an experiment.....by getting your friends to chip in 5 bucks each and buy the book, then read it (twice) and make your informed comment to all of us.

And I dont accept the christian creationist therory (Genesis) its bunk.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You wont read the book, but you will read reviews from the very persons who are doing the cover up.....thats a conflict of interest.

For every dishonest scientist who gives the book a negative comment, there is 3 honest scientists who will praise "Forbidden Archeology"

Please dont go to the very persons who are trying to discredit the book for your ...[text shortened]... ll of us.

And I dont accept the christian creationist therory (Genesis) its bunk.

vishva

For every dishonest scientist who gives the book a negative comment, there is 3 honest scientists who will praise "Forbidden Archeology".

I'd like to see a list of scientists who accpet the 'evidence' in this book. Can you post them please.

If i ever come across the book in the library i'll get it out, but i won't be parting with my money for it.

And I dont accept the christian creationist therory (Genesis) its bunk.

Look at that, we finally agree on something. I think we'll leave our discussion on this moment of consensus.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]For every dishonest scientist who gives the book a negative comment, there is 3 honest scientists who will praise "Forbidden Archeology".

I'd like to see a list of scientists who accpet the 'evidence' in this book. Can you post them please.

If i ever come across the book in the library i'll get it out, but i won't be parting with my money fo ...[text shortened]... ally agree on something. I think we'll leave our discussion on this moment of consensus.[/b]

Hi, ....there are lists out there in the world, of scientists who dont accept Darwins evloution therory, and I actually saw one list with 1500 signitures on it, but I dont know where to find it again.

There is a list of 600 scientists at a web site called disscent of Darwin somewhere, but even if I showed you a list of 10.000 scientist, it doesnt really show the real amount, because out of 100 scientist who are not convinced about Darwins evolution therory, only 1 out of 100 will put their name on a list (they want to keep their job)

I think the die hard scientist who publicly support evolution, are the ones who have written a book on the subject, and/ or are teaching it somewhere, and have a monetary attachment to the support of it, and are not quiet ready to admit it is a faulty therory.

Maybe they teach it at a posh school and are head of the science department, and have been teaching it their whole life, so to make a turn around is very difficult to do.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Hi, ....there are lists out there in the world, of scientists who dont accept Darwins evloution therory, and I actually saw one list with 1500 signitures on it, but I dont know where to find it again.

There is a list of 600 scientists at a web site called disscent of Darwin somewhere, but even if I showed you a list of 10.000 scientist, it doesnt real ...[text shortened]... e been teaching it their whole life, so to make a turn around is very difficult to do.

vishva

Yeah, there's also the pesky problem of the evidence that supports the theory. That'll keep a few of those scientists believing ....
Damn that evidence!

Originally posted by amannion
Yeah, there's also the pesky problem of the evidence that supports the theory. That'll keep a few of those scientists believing ....
Damn that evidence!

What dont you not understand about fabriacted evidence and fudging the figures.....if you think the evidence isnt fudged then where is YOUR evidence that its not (theres none)

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
What dont you not understand about fabriacted evidence and fudging the figures.....if you think the evidence isnt fudged then where is YOUR evidence that its not (theres none)

vishva

Wow, that's some wicked rhetorical judo. What, in your opinion, is the strongest bit of evidence against modern evolutionary theory?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Hi, ....there are lists out there in the world, of scientists who dont accept Darwins evloution therory, and I actually saw one list with 1500 signitures on it, but I dont know where to find it again.

There is a list of 600 scientists at a web site called disscent of Darwin somewhere, but even if I showed you a list of 10.000 scientist, it doesnt real ...[text shortened]... olution therory, only 1 out of 100 will put their name on a list (they want to keep their job)

Well considering that there are millions of 'scientists' in the world, even if only 1 in 100 of the dissenters put their name on the list and the list came to 1500 signatures (neither of which you have provided any evidence for) then that still represents a tiny fraction of scientist who dissent.
The vast majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution to be factual - and a significant proportion do so based on knowledge of the evidence - not because somebody told them it was true.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
In light of a couple of discussions recently (with Mr Jay & RC) i've started a seperate thread. The evolution of cetaceans ie. whales, dolphins and porpoises, states that these mighty beasts were once land based mammals who over millions of years evolved to life in the water. The genetics, DNA and fossil record backs this up, but of course our good frien ...[text shortened]... stating 'becasue the Bible says so' ain't cutting it today.

We'll start here.

Because the "science" that backs the claim that cetaceans' evolved at all is pure fabrication. The genetics, DNA and fossil RECORD created by scientists is just so much nonsense.

The sad part is that so many people who haven't a clue about the so called "science" behind evolution are buying this junk. Everything I read about evolution sounds like a fairy tale. There's no hard evidence at all. It's like swimming through a sea of trillions of bits of microscopic pieces of a puzzle millions of years old and saying you can see the picture. 🙄

Your so called "science" hasn't proved a thing. It's pure speculation by an imagination devoid of the knowledge of God.

"In the beginning God created..."

Originally posted by josephw
Because the "science" that backs the claim that cetaceans' evolved at all is pure fabrication. The genetics, DNA and fossil RECORD created by scientists is just so much nonsense.

The sad part is that so many people who haven't a clue about the so called "science" behind evolution are buying this junk. Everything I read about evolution sounds like a fairy ...[text shortened]... nation devoid of the knowledge of God.

[b]"In the beginning God created..."[/b]

May I offer a book to you (Science and Health) to view starting on page 502: vs. 21 EXEGESIS?

This is it's beginning sentences there~


Genesis i. 1. In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth.


24 The infinite has no beginning. This word beginning
is employed to signify the only,--that is, the eternal ver-
ity and unity of God and man, including


27 the universe. The creative Principle--Life,
Truth, and Love--is God. The universe reflects God.
There is but one creator and one creation.

And a few more verses~



6 Genesis i. 2. And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the
spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


9 The divine Principle and idea constitute spiritual har-
mony,--heaven and eternity. In the universe of Truth,
matter is unknown. No supposition of error


12 enters there. Divine Science, the Word of
God, saith to the darkness upon the face of error, "God
is All-in-all," and the light of ever-present Love illumines
15 the universe. Hence the eternal wonder,--that infinite
space is peopled with God's ideas, reflecting Him in
countless spiritual forms.


18 Genesis i. 3. And God said, Let there be light: and
there was light.


Immortal and divine Mind presents the idea of God:
21 first, in light; second, in reflection; third, in spiritual and
immortal forms of beauty and goodness. But


this Mind creates no element nor symbol of
24 discord and decay. God creates neither erring thought,
mortal life, mutable truth, nor variable love.

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
May I offer a book to you (Science and Health) to view starting on page 502: vs. 21 EXEGESIS?

This is it's beginning sentences there~


Genesis i. 1. In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth.


24 The infinite has no beginning. This word beginning
is employed to signify the only,--that is, the eternal ...[text shortened]... y. God creates neither erring thought,
mortal life, mutable truth, nor variable love.

t&l I'm assuming that "Science and Health" is the title, but who is the author?

I see that you interspersed some excerpts from that book in between verses 1-3 of Genesis 1. Are they supposed to be an interpretation of the meaning of those verses?

Originally posted by josephw
Because the "science" that backs the claim that cetaceans' evolved at all is pure fabrication. The genetics, DNA and fossil RECORD created by scientists is just so much nonsense.

The sad part is that so many people who haven't a clue about the so called "science" behind evolution are buying this junk. Everything I read about evolution sounds like a fairy nation devoid of the knowledge of God.

[b]"In the beginning God created..."[/b]

Because the "science" that backs the claim that cetaceans' evolved at all is pure fabrication

Got any evidence for this brazen statement? Or is it just your unguided expert opinion?

The genetics, DNA and fossil RECORD created by scientists is just so much nonsense.

If that's the case, you'll have no problem demonstrating to me how and why that is?!

The sad part is that so many people who haven't a clue about the so called "science" behind evolution are buying this junk

What about the people who do have a clue, like myself, who have taken the time to read books, jornals, webpages on the subject. How how am i buying this junk'?

Everything I read about evolution sounds like a fairy tale

That's exactly how i feel about Jesus. At least we share some common ground.

There's no hard evidence at all

Another one of your forte's here, an unsubstantiated, innacurate, ignorant statement. Now have you got anything to back that up?

Your so called "science" hasn't proved a thing

Really?! What are the hospitals like in the US? The infrastructure? NASA? What's the quality of food and water like where you live? What's your life expectantcy? Sorry, my mistake, you only mean the 'science' that contradicts your Christian faith.

Now have you got anything sensible to say?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Because the "science" that backs the claim that cetaceans' evolved at all is pure fabrication

Got any evidence for this brazen statement? Or is it just your unguided expert opinion?

The genetics, DNA and fossil RECORD created by scientists is just so much nonsense.

If that's the case, you'll have no problem demonstrating to me how ...[text shortened]... tradicts your Christian faith.

Now have you got anything sensible to say?[/b]

Sensible?

Like insisting that life evolved without one shred of concrete evidence?

The "science" behind evolution is spurious at best.

I said: The genetics, DNA and fossil RECORD created by scientists is just so much nonsense.

You said: If that's the case, you'll have no problem demonstrating to me how and why that is?!

I say: You go first since you're the one insisting that there is such a thing as evolution, and that there is a "record" of genetic, DNA and fossils evidence.

Originally posted by josephw
Sensible?

Like insisting that life evolved without one shred of concrete evidence?

The "science" behind evolution is spurious at best.

I said: [b]The genetics, DNA and fossil RECORD created by scientists is just so much nonsense.

You said: If that's the case, you'll have no problem demonstrating to me how and why that is?!

I say: Y a thing as evolution, and that there is a "record" of genetic, DNA and fossils evidence.[/b]

You appear to be of the mindset that willfuly repeating something somehow makes it true.

The "science" behind evolution is spurious at best.

So you keep stating, i'm asking you to prove it. How is the science spurious, and could you kindly point out where the scientists have erred.

You go first since you're the one insisting that there is such a thing as evolution, and that there is a "record" of genetic, DNA and fossils evidence

I'm afraid the onus is on you Joseph. Evolution is a scientific fact, as concrete a scientific fact as the Earth travels round the Sun. That's why it's taught in schools, college's and Universities worldwide.

Now explain to me why land based mammals couldn't have adapted to life in water. What's stopping them?