Huge!!! Black Hole next doer
posted on June 12th, 2009, 3:13 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on June 12th, 2009, 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zaxx you're on the hitlist now .... 
run for the hills....
but on a side note, who can truly prove evolution any more than the flood - at least not with the "facts" being invoked for the rest of it. (which most scientists are admitting as a result of the great melt).
Not even the big bang theory is completely explainable by modern scientific knowledge - not even the "soda pop" theory is sufficient as per Stephen hawkings himself.... rather amusing when human beings with 300 years of regurgitated Greco-roman know-how that itself was ripped off from the Sumerians, ancient Egyptians and Aryans try to pass judgment on the state of the universe.
Humble pie anyone?
run for the hills....
but on a side note, who can truly prove evolution any more than the flood - at least not with the "facts" being invoked for the rest of it. (which most scientists are admitting as a result of the great melt).
Not even the big bang theory is completely explainable by modern scientific knowledge - not even the "soda pop" theory is sufficient as per Stephen hawkings himself.... rather amusing when human beings with 300 years of regurgitated Greco-roman know-how that itself was ripped off from the Sumerians, ancient Egyptians and Aryans try to pass judgment on the state of the universe.
Humble pie anyone?
posted on June 12th, 2009, 3:18 pm
I agree, You cant prove something you can't observe. You can make an educated guess, but no more. Weather people take it as fact or fiction it up to them.
Oh, and I won't run, because I really don't have to post. He just asked for a response, so I gave him something to talk about.
One last thing. I have been on the hit list scene I said the Big bang was a theory not fact.
Oh, and I won't run, because I really don't have to post. He just asked for a response, so I gave him something to talk about.
One last thing. I have been on the hit list scene I said the Big bang was a theory not fact.
posted on June 12th, 2009, 3:25 pm
Funny you should mention evolution Serpicus: I'm doing research on the evolution of a sense organ (and associated target areas) that seems to be heavily conserved throughout the Arthropods--quite interesting actually.
So what's this "great melt" you speak of? May I have a citation please? You mentioned "the flood" again: could I please have a citation--I mean, to completely disprove the entirity of the fields of geology and physics (where'd that water come from again?), I think I'd like to at least see one paper or at least some evidence.
Really though, you guys really think that you know more than the thousands of papers, labs, and scientists that actually do research on this stuff?
You may wish to look up (or read my post) to figure out what a theory is Adm. Zaxxon: you seem intent on equating theory with hypothesis and even conjecture
. I do find it amusing that you think I have some special interest in you though. I'm sure you'll be surprised, but I'm more interested in what Mimesot has to say to be honest.
So what's this "great melt" you speak of? May I have a citation please? You mentioned "the flood" again: could I please have a citation--I mean, to completely disprove the entirity of the fields of geology and physics (where'd that water come from again?), I think I'd like to at least see one paper or at least some evidence.
Really though, you guys really think that you know more than the thousands of papers, labs, and scientists that actually do research on this stuff?
You may wish to look up (or read my post) to figure out what a theory is Adm. Zaxxon: you seem intent on equating theory with hypothesis and even conjecture
. I do find it amusing that you think I have some special interest in you though. I'm sure you'll be surprised, but I'm more interested in what Mimesot has to say to be honest.posted on June 12th, 2009, 3:35 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on June 12th, 2009, 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe we are being misunderstood - at least my post was.
all I am saying, is that there is not enough fact to cock-sure support evolution. That incompleteness of fact stretches to flood theory as well.
Both require certain assumptions and allowances. Even the big bang is based on the premise of the cosmological principlewhich in turn is drawing on the copernican principle.
When we speak of facts, there are no facts to support evolution as a fact in of itself. Hence evolution is still called a theory by even the scientific community.
No one is denying that creatures were formed in phases. But you can also not deny that even Dawkins accepts that today we do not see the "evolution" of beings as an evident ongoing process.
He cant even cite genetic mutation or evolutionary process that is increasing the information in a genome which is the core of his hardcore hypothesis on evolution.
Whatever a person may subscribe to, be it raw scientific evolution, HPB's gnostic root race version of evolution, religious evolution as described in genesis or the vedas or the quran - whatever it may be, they ALL say essentially the same thing just from different angles, and no one angle is complete.
Nor is that one angle even completely 100% accurate.
Hence while we are all learning about our origins, no one is in the position to cast one specific approach as being more pragmatic or more grounded than another.
A good example we see is science rooting the theories of universal expansion in Newtonian dynamics. But by 2007 they have other theories that render what was "fact" 10 years ago, to be incorrect conjecture today.
Hence even Scientific principles involve a leap of faith in certain principles and assumptions to arrive at its conclusions.
That's what I was saying. And from Zaxx's clarification, it seems that was what he was saying. Hope this helps reach a mutually acceptable resolution.
posted on June 12th, 2009, 3:37 pm
Last edited by mimesot on June 12th, 2009, 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Adm. Zaxxon wrote:I will merely say that even if the boot fits, it doesn't mean it is the shoe you are looking for. The closest thing to the truth is also the farthest thing from it.
Well, when I buy field-boots for my gf she will throw them round my ears, if her buy her buy her comfortable geox-shoes she will not, even if they are not the red flameco-shoes. So, I can make plans, which are closer to my girls "truth" and worse plans. The good shopping differs from the bad ones by the reaction I get, and after several tries, I am able to find better solutions. I may never find the perfect shoe, but I can descriminate the worse decisions.
The same way can distinguish better from worse theories; the ptolemeic is not as good as kopernicus', kepler's is even better, and einstein's description is the best at the moment. Thus it can not be the farthest model from truth. (I cannot tell which is the farthest, as I can eaily find a worse model)
Conclusivly I must say NO to your statement.
And don't tell me girls are easier to handle than the universe. :lol:Be a little more careful with such terms (as "farthest") mate.
PS: Please do not respond to my posts only. Anyone deserves respect, and if one doesn't, pay it even so. (I think this is not only a christian rule, isn't it)
posted on June 12th, 2009, 3:51 pm
posted on June 12th, 2009, 3:51 pm
posted on June 12th, 2009, 3:56 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on June 12th, 2009, 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Al right, I will go with evolution, Because I greatly enjoy debating the topic. I will not only give you papers, but psychical evidence that may or may not proove the flood and dis proove Evolution, However this all depends if we are willing to accept each others facts. No matter either way. It will not stop me.
Starting with the flood stuff. You should look at these sites
Noah's Ark found. Great Evidence.
Noah's Ark Found? Turkey Expedition Planned for Summer
Has Noah's Ark Been Found? - ABC News
Team believes it found Noah's Ark
Next For now Ill give one study. Tho Ill give more than one source, because this one seems Biased.
Dinosaur and Human Co-existence: FOOTPRINTS
http://www.dinosaursandman.com/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=15&catid=14
This doesn't necessarily Dis prove Evolution, but it shows how completely wrong it is about Again Time.
Now Ill ask a question. Quote from Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
In other words Why are we still looking for the missing links? This is why they are missing.
btw are you a Darwinist?
Starting with the flood stuff. You should look at these sites
Noah's Ark found. Great Evidence.
Noah's Ark Found? Turkey Expedition Planned for Summer
Has Noah's Ark Been Found? - ABC News
Team believes it found Noah's Ark
Next For now Ill give one study. Tho Ill give more than one source, because this one seems Biased.
Dinosaur and Human Co-existence: FOOTPRINTS
http://www.dinosaursandman.com/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=15&catid=14
This doesn't necessarily Dis prove Evolution, but it shows how completely wrong it is about Again Time.
Now Ill ask a question. Quote from Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
In other words Why are we still looking for the missing links? This is why they are missing.
btw are you a Darwinist?
posted on June 12th, 2009, 4:09 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on June 12th, 2009, 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
posted on June 12th, 2009, 4:15 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on June 12th, 2009, 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I will not say I can completely disprove any theory, or prove my own to you, but I will provide arguments, and evidence, and I will let you decide what you believe to be the truth. 
posted on June 12th, 2009, 5:33 pm
Since we wish to use such reputable and unbiased sources such as "bible.com"... I give you Ron Wyatt, ladies and gentleworms.
Ron Wyatt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interesting how nobody else has found it, eh, and how the story never made it big? Sadly however, the Ark has been found again... only this time on a different mountain top . Hazrat Nooh (a.s)'s Arc (ship) found ....World stunned! - GupShup Forums
However, of course there is this too (well, we just went to three countries...): Has Noah’s Ark Been Found in Iran?
Though I hate to say it, a group of Rabbi archaeologists who made it their life to study biblical artifacts disagree with the dimensions posted in the first article (which can't be accurate anyway, since it is a major mistranslation) and the mountain it should be on anyway. Oh well.
I love the Dinosaur/human tracks one though: conveniently destroyed after being found. OOo I smell a world-wise conspiracy! Interesting how I can't seem to find any corroborated evidence either: and wow, a 30 inch foot print! I never knew we were descended from those (plus I thought it was supposed to be modern man that lived wiht the dinosaurs) . Hmm, if this is a different species of human... then oops, there must be evolution, right? Your links contradict eachother it seems.
There is no such thing as a missing link, by the way: just a convenient way for non-scientists to misunderstand evolutionary thinking. In fact, we are all links.
As for your wonderful quote mining, I suggest you read the whole of Darwin's quote (and the paper that accompanies it please) "Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form. But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on...."
I'm afraid the real answer is that it's turtles all the way down (after the elephant of course). I mean, that's more reasonable than an Arc that contained a minimum of 200 million species on board.
So you are saying your creator is unimaginative? This an example of horrible logic: it's like me saying that all cars were designed by the same person because they usually have four wheels and one engine.
I guess you haven't done much looking then
Yes you can in fact. It's called cladogenesis. Genetics has a leg up on you I'm afraid.
Came first? Without environmental (or any) constraints, there can be no adaptation. That's part of the postulates of the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium afterall. Why does it matter what way and why a creature adapts to you? It seems that every religious person I come across feels the need that there must be some purpose out there. However, in this case you seem to have misunderstood the research: we are talking about common ancestor which is a population. Perhaps members of this population forage by the water side and others farther inland. From there introduce genetic drift, mutation, foraging and mating opportunities, and I'm sure your imagination is good enough to think of how we get from there to here. Just look at the Apple Maggot to Hawthorne or any of the other myriad examples of speciation.
Feel free to leave it at that though Serpicus: we've already had this argument before. You seem fine with being able to toss out the evidence because of a lack of enough proof to satisfy yourself, but eager to accept beliefs that have no basis in lieu of that. If you never show a willingness to explore new things for fear of discovering more interesting and logical outcomes, you will stagnate. Take your belief against the Big Bang for instance: you say it doesn't matter because the theory will change in 10 years from now--but that hasn't stopped partical physiscists from discovering new ways to make things invisible or the way bosons interact and thus developing new theories which let us build faster computers and let you in turn type. Wrong research still expands our knowledge and allows us to refine theories: no research (as in the case of just studying the same book over and over) means no progress, no understanding, and ultimately, no intelligence.
Ron Wyatt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interesting how nobody else has found it, eh, and how the story never made it big? Sadly however, the Ark has been found again... only this time on a different mountain top
. Hazrat Nooh (a.s)'s Arc (ship) found ....World stunned! - GupShup ForumsHowever, of course there is this too (well, we just went to three countries...): Has Noah’s Ark Been Found in Iran?
Though I hate to say it, a group of Rabbi archaeologists who made it their life to study biblical artifacts disagree with the dimensions posted in the first article (which can't be accurate anyway, since it is a major mistranslation) and the mountain it should be on anyway. Oh well.
I love the Dinosaur/human tracks one though: conveniently destroyed after being found. OOo I smell a world-wise conspiracy! Interesting how I can't seem to find any corroborated evidence either: and wow, a 30 inch foot print! I never knew we were descended from those (plus I thought it was supposed to be modern man that lived wiht the dinosaurs)
. Hmm, if this is a different species of human... then oops, there must be evolution, right? Your links contradict eachother it seems.There is no such thing as a missing link, by the way: just a convenient way for non-scientists to misunderstand evolutionary thinking
. In fact, we are all links.As for your wonderful quote mining, I suggest you read the whole of Darwin's quote (and the paper that accompanies it please) "Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form. But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on...."
I'm afraid the real answer is that it's turtles all the way down (after the elephant of course). I mean, that's more reasonable than an Arc that contained a minimum of 200 million species on board.
A common architect as it were, that is using the same method of creating different buildings.
So you are saying your creator is unimaginative? This an example of horrible logic: it's like me saying that all cars were designed by the same person because they usually have four wheels and one engine.
One looks at source 1 and 2 as proof of big bang or evolutionary theory. Another looks at source 3 and 4 to arrive at flood or genesis theory or root race theory.
I guess you haven't done much looking then
Can we conclusively demonstrate why certain genetic traits are remembered by genomes that lead to the evolution of a finch, versus certain genetic traits that are forgotten by the finch's genome yet retained by the horse.
Yes you can in fact. It's called cladogenesis. Genetics has a leg up on you I'm afraid.
also, what came first - adaptation or environmental constraints. Take for example the idea that certain creatures left the land to become modern sea-faring whales, while other reptiles went airwards. Why adapt in that way and not another.... why is the same parent/ancestor animal becoming a dugong archetype, and the other moving towards the modern cow?
Came first? Without environmental (or any) constraints, there can be no adaptation. That's part of the postulates of the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium afterall. Why does it matter what way and why a creature adapts to you? It seems that every religious person I come across feels the need that there must be some purpose out there. However, in this case you seem to have misunderstood the research: we are talking about common ancestor which is a population. Perhaps members of this population forage by the water side and others farther inland. From there introduce genetic drift, mutation, foraging and mating opportunities, and I'm sure your imagination is good enough to think of how we get from there to here. Just look at the Apple Maggot to Hawthorne or any of the other myriad examples of speciation.
Feel free to leave it at that though Serpicus: we've already had this argument before. You seem fine with being able to toss out the evidence because of a lack of enough proof to satisfy yourself, but eager to accept beliefs that have no basis in lieu of that. If you never show a willingness to explore new things for fear of discovering more interesting and logical outcomes, you will stagnate. Take your belief against the Big Bang for instance: you say it doesn't matter because the theory will change in 10 years from now--but that hasn't stopped partical physiscists from discovering new ways to make things invisible or the way bosons interact and thus developing new theories which let us build faster computers and let you in turn type. Wrong research still expands our knowledge and allows us to refine theories: no research (as in the case of just studying the same book over and over) means no progress, no understanding, and ultimately, no intelligence.
posted on June 12th, 2009, 5:37 pm
posted on June 12th, 2009, 5:39 pm
OK whatever. I'll admit, I'm wrong if that is what you meant. Sorry, I'll fix it. 
I'll admit, I'm wrong if that is what you meant. Sorry, I'll fix it. posted on June 12th, 2009, 5:41 pm
Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on June 12th, 2009, 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
posted on June 12th, 2009, 6:29 pm
Wow, I said it was biased, so I got another. Ad you used Wikipedia? Ah who cares. 
Ok, your "Fourm" says that they found a panel, and has a link, that (atleast for me) doesn't work. But I will respond any way. Did you consider that maybe the panel fell off? If there was a flood, then a piece of wood would have traveled far.
The other one says they found a formation of petrified wood, that is in the shape of a flood. This is verry interesting, and I would like to learn more, but either way it is still an ark. weather this one is real or the one I posted about is real, we cannot know for sure because neither one has been heavily excavated to be sure. Either way if we have one ark it is still an ark, and it is heavy evidence in support of the flood.
However, I would say we should stay out of the flood, because it seems that it has been resolved that the bible is not a valid source in this debate. Other wise we wouldn't be arguing.
As for Evolution being more reasonable I completely disagree. as it says there were only two of eash type, so we would get two dogs, two cats and so on and so fourth. this does not mean two great danes, and two foxes, it merely means Only two dogs. We get other types through breeding, which I suppose is a form of micro-evolution. So there would be no need for 200 million species on board. and by the sises of the boat, it could probably carry that amount. Any we are back to the flood which unless you wish to continue I'll stay away from it.
After you stop the quote he talkes about the inconsistencies of the focel record, and says that in the future we should find thousands of missing links that are in between evolutionary stages. we have found none. This is pretty conclusive evidence that shows he is wrong. we would have at least found a few. And don't say a Neanderthal is a link between apes and humans because if that were so there would be no apes left. If "Natural Selection" said it was best for them to adapt and evolve, then apes would have died out long ago. And we would have found, as darwin says, at least many half ape half human remaines.
I'm not quiet sure what you ment by saying "I'm afraid the real answer is that it's turtles all the way down (after the elephant of course)."
I was not laughing at you or your theorys. I was laughing at my big mistake. I'm sorry if you mis under stood. But it is ok.
I didnot say I trust observable evidence at all. All I said was Science relies on observation too much to prove something we can not observe. So again, I canon proove the flood, just like you canot evolution or dis proove the flood.
I'm not quiet sure what you mean by the first statement? Were you there to see us evolve from whatever you believe we evolved from? The bible is not the only piece of evidence tht talkes about Jesus, or Moses, Iseaih. How about David, or Saul. do you think the bible is the only source that talkes about great kings of Israel? At least we have found an ark, and the oldest known history book that talks about exact measurements and specifics right down to what it is made of. Do you have detailed evidence that is that detailed? Can we recreate the amino acid thingy that is supposed to have created life? Can we see evolution? Not adaptation, but real Macro evolution? You ask for proof and Citation, but I see none for evolution.
btw I cant type fast, so sorry to keep you waiting.
Ok, your "Fourm" says that they found a panel, and has a link, that (atleast for me) doesn't work. But I will respond any way. Did you consider that maybe the panel fell off? If there was a flood, then a piece of wood would have traveled far.
The other one says they found a formation of petrified wood, that is in the shape of a flood. This is verry interesting, and I would like to learn more, but either way it is still an ark. weather this one is real or the one I posted about is real, we cannot know for sure because neither one has been heavily excavated to be sure. Either way if we have one ark it is still an ark, and it is heavy evidence in support of the flood.
However, I would say we should stay out of the flood, because it seems that it has been resolved that the bible is not a valid source in this debate. Other wise we wouldn't be arguing.
As for Evolution being more reasonable I completely disagree. as it says there were only two of eash type, so we would get two dogs, two cats and so on and so fourth. this does not mean two great danes, and two foxes, it merely means Only two dogs. We get other types through breeding, which I suppose is a form of micro-evolution. So there would be no need for 200 million species on board. and by the sises of the boat, it could probably carry that amount. Any we are back to the flood which unless you wish to continue I'll stay away from it.
After you stop the quote he talkes about the inconsistencies of the focel record, and says that in the future we should find thousands of missing links that are in between evolutionary stages. we have found none. This is pretty conclusive evidence that shows he is wrong. we would have at least found a few. And don't say a Neanderthal is a link between apes and humans because if that were so there would be no apes left. If "Natural Selection" said it was best for them to adapt and evolve, then apes would have died out long ago. And we would have found, as darwin says, at least many half ape half human remaines.
I'm not quiet sure what you ment by saying "I'm afraid the real answer is that it's turtles all the way down (after the elephant of course)."
I was not laughing at you or your theorys. I was laughing at my big mistake. I'm sorry if you mis under stood. But it is ok.
I didnot say I trust observable evidence at all. All I said was Science relies on observation too much to prove something we can not observe. So again, I canon proove the flood, just like you canot evolution or dis proove the flood.
Dominus_Noctis wrote:
By the way Adm. Zaxxon: you know that the same principals which we use to date stars and galaxies and planets we use to communicate with our satellites: so how exactly do we manage to get one so wrong and the other so right?
One last thing before I forget: you said that observable evidence is the only sort you trust: when did you go visit the Arc and the dinosaurs last? Or for that matter Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, Isiaih name your prophet of choice. I mean, I guess all of history before your birth is improbable.
I'm not quiet sure what you mean by the first statement? Were you there to see us evolve from whatever you believe we evolved from? The bible is not the only piece of evidence tht talkes about Jesus, or Moses, Iseaih. How about David, or Saul. do you think the bible is the only source that talkes about great kings of Israel? At least we have found an ark, and the oldest known history book that talks about exact measurements and specifics right down to what it is made of. Do you have detailed evidence that is that detailed? Can we recreate the amino acid thingy that is supposed to have created life? Can we see evolution? Not adaptation, but real Macro evolution? You ask for proof and Citation, but I see none for evolution.
btw I cant type fast, so sorry to keep you waiting.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests