32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 08:06 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:

There is a zillion evidence evolution is not true but you choose to ignore it!

There is a zillion evidence but you just can't tell us what it is.

You only make claims that the evidence exists but when we examine it, it isn't really factual evidence. You provide us with vague statements or easily disproven claims.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 09:07 am
@parados,
Quote:
There is a zillion evidence but you just can't tell us what it is.


of course I can

just start here e.g.

Quote:
Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson quickly became a best selling underground classic, with over 200,000 copies sold and translations in more than 13 languages. This massive work spawned waves of resistance and wonder amongst the scientific community, with over 900 pages of well-documented evidence suggesting that modern man did not evolve from ape man, but instead has co-existed with apes for millions of years!

Michael Cremo lectures to academic, popular, and scientific audiences around the world in a continuing challenge to Darwinian evolution.

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/




Quote:
Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race presents a representative sample of this anomalous evidence suggesting that humans have been on the earth for millions of years, ,just as the ancient Sanskrit writings of the Vedic literatures describe. The Vedic histories inform us that humans have existed since the beginning of the day of Brahma, about 2 billion years ago.

Cremo and Thompson conclude that even the conventionally accepted evidence does not offer a cohesive picture of the missing link; instead, the multiplicity of proposed evolutionary linkages among the hominids in Africa creates a very confusing scheme of human evolution. They call for a drastic revision of the now-dominant assumptions about human origins.





And there is so much more to show that evolution is ONE BIG HOAX.

But, I guess, evolutionists are pretty selective in their 'evidence' of course.


Holy cow , what **** evolution really is!
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 09:12 am
Quote:
New Evidence Challenges Darwin’s Theory
Best-selling Author Further Defies Evolutionists


http://www.humandevolution.com/hdcover.jpg

Human Devolution contains solid scientific evidence showing how a subtle mind element and a conscious self that can exist apart from the body have been systematically eliminated from mainstream science by a process of knowledge filtration. "Any time knowledge filtration takes place you can expect a great deal of resistance, criticism, and ridicule when it is exposed and challenged," says Cremo.

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 09:14 am
Just some examples:

Quote:
Grooved Sphere from South Africa


http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/groovy.jpg

Figure A2.9

A metallic sphere from South Africa with three parallel grooves around its equator (photo courtesy of Roelf Marx). The sphere was found in a Precambrian mineral deposit, said to be 2.8 billion years old. [p. 813, Forbidden Archeology][
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 09:16 am
Quote:


http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/cents.jpg

This coinlike object, from a well boring near Lawn Ridge, Illinois, was reportedly found at a depth of about 114 feet below the surface (Winchell 1881, p. 170). According to information supplied by the Illinois State Geological Survey, the deposits containing the coin are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old. [p. 801, Forbidden Archeology]
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 09:16 am
Quote:

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/lettr.jpg


Raised letterlike shapes found inside a block of marble from a quarry near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Corliss 1978, p. 657; American Journal of Science 1831, vol. 19, p. 361). The block of marble came from a depth of 60-70 feet in strata dated 500-600 million years old. [p. 797, Forbidden Archeology]
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 10:14 am
@Quehoniaomath,
And there we have it. More vague statements that are no more than typical conspiracy theory. Pick out a few items that aren't well documented and then claim they disprove the rest of the overwhelming evidence without ever addressing anything.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 11:21 am
@parados,
Its amazing how quick the fool is to buy into all this "Von Deniken" like crap and yet totally deny strong evidence based science of which he is perfectly ignorant (that he proves by continuously quoting things, uch as that which "evolutionists believe" when they do not). He thinks hes in touch with some big truth when all he is doing in enriching some fraud douche bags pocket who has flocks of gullible people about him. Giorgio Tsoukalous is one of the latest frauds who knows that he can make lotsa money by bypassing science and blaming everything on aliens and having a contract with cable TV.

You better watch or Quahog's gonna put you on ignore like he did me.

Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 11:30 am
and yes..selective of course


i have a laugh!!
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 01:20 pm
Charlatans write books like "Forbidden Archeology" for the gullible.

Scientists submit their work to scientific journals for peer reviews.

Cremo and Thompson have never submitted any of their work for peer review, almost certainly because it would never stand up to scrutiny.

It is fun reading...and people who thrive on conspiracies probably find it more than fun...they find it compelling.

Arguing with Q on these questions can lead nowhere...but it is fun activity...and for some, it is compelling fun.


0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 02:23 pm
@farmerman,
It is interesting how Q can believe that humans coalesced into physical form out of a non physical spiritual being but doesn't believe that life can occur from the interaction of chemicals because there is no evidence of it ever happening.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 02:28 pm
What is much more interesting about him is that he can discount with certainty the hard work of scientists who have actually submitted their work for peer review...

...yet has no trouble accepting with the same kind of certainty the "work" of what may easily be quacks.


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 04:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Amazing Innit?
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 10:39 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
FIRST, I guess you give up on trying to show us here the article clip even mention DNA. As far as the above comment,I suspect that, once again, you are trying to hide behind a bag of hockeypucks with gibberish.
      ... and second, you obviously don't have DNA combinatorics confirmation of your 'inferences' based on mumbo-jumbo assumptions ... unless you don't even understand the question.
farmerman wrote:
Common ancestry refers to the phenotype, not the genotype
     Can you name two species with one and the same genotype and different phenotype ... only.
farmerman wrote:
COEXISTING species cannot be common ancestors of each other STILL HOLDS UNIVERSALLY
     The co-existence does not exclude one of the species to eat the other and to have some 'common aminoacids' ... which is not necessarily 'break-through discovery of evolution'.
     May I ask you something else. If your rule of exclusion is valid and true (of which I doubt), this will exclude for the present day reptiles and the present day birds to have common ancestry, not to speak that it will exclude the possibility for the humans to have anything in common with the chimps as genetics - which is one of the others mind-blowing 'break-through "discoveries" of evolution'. ... and how did you come to know that it 'holds universally', when you have no living creatures known outside the biosphere of the Earth.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 03:10 am
@Herald,
Im sorry, I have to call a halt to this idiocy. Youre actually becoming more and more obtuse as the days go on.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 03:49 am
@Quehoniaomath,
"science" from the Krishna Creationists.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 09:42 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Im sorry, I have to call a halt to this idiocy. Youre actually becoming more and more obtuse as the days go on.
     FM, I will start believing that you understand anything, whasotever, of microbiology and genetics ... and evolution hardy after you succeed to make an auto-implant replica of a tooth and succeed to re-implant it back on the place of a lost tooth. The key phrase here is 'hardly after that and not before'. Until then I have the right to consider all of your 'evidences' and 'break-through findings' as fables for idiots ... for most of them are not too much away from that.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 11:30 pm
@Herald,
Better be careful about whose knowledge you denigrate and why, Herald, because I hate to tell you this but we're pretty much there already about replacing teeth. (Actually, I don't hate it at all, I'm enjoying the hell out of it) And it's because evolution forms the background for research in gene therapy and microbiology, and particularly in replacing teeth. Just this summer a Harvard team announced proof of concept in stimulating regrowth of teeth by stimulating adult stem cells with low-intensity laser light in rats (who are useful to model humans since evolutionarily they have the same protein sequences which serve as growth factors as humans do.)

And in another approach to replacing teeth:
Quote:
Dental pulp progenitor/stem cells have the capacity to differentiate into odontoblasts and they provide a potential for dentin repair and regeneration by gene therapy. To develop a successful ex vivo gene therapy to induce reparative dentin formation rapidly and effectively after treatment of caries, we developed a three-dimensional pellet culture system of pulp cells electrotransfected with growth/differentiation factor 11 (Gdf11). The viability after electrotransfection was more than 85%, and the efficiency was about 70% as determined by flow cytometry. After 10 days of culture, the total amount of type I and type III collagen was 3-fold higher in the pEGFP-Gdf11-transfected pellet than in the control. Real-time RT-PCR analysis demonstrated that the expression of markers of odontoblast differentiation (alkaline phosphatase, dentin matrix protein 1 [Dmp1], dentin sialophosphoprotein [Dspp], enamelysin, and phosphate-regulating gene with homologies to endopeptidases on X-chromosome [Phex]) was increased in the pEGFP-Gdf11-transfected pellet compared with the control on day 14. On the basis of this in vitro evaluation, an in vivo investigation in the dog was performed. Autogenous transplantation of Gdf11-transfected cells cultured as a pellet on amputated pulp stimulated reparative dentin formation. Thus, Gdf11 gene therapy may be potentially used in endodontic treatment in dentistry.


Farmerman's been right all along. You deniers have been wrong all along. For a century and a half.
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 10:16 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Better be careful about whose knowledge you denigrate and why
     Before talking about denigration of knowledge first you will have to prove that this is knowledge at all (theoretical and practical understanding of a particular subject, the origin of the human species in this case).
MontereyJack wrote:
but we're pretty much there already about replacing teeth.
    This 'replacing teeth' as you disparagingly call it, is a medical science at a brand new level of understanding and practice. If you are at a level of 'replacing teeth' perhaps you have had replaced the 'theory' of evolution with something more plausible and more feasible. Anyway.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2014 08:06 am
herald says:
Quote:
This 'replacing teeth' as you disparagingly call it, is a medical science at a brand new level of understanding and practice. If you are at a level of 'replacing teeth' perhaps you have had replaced the 'theory' of evolution with something more plausible and more feasible. Anyway.


Um, no, Herald, I'm not "disparaging" it. You're the one who's disparaging knowledge, in particular the knowledge of evolution, which has led to the breakthroughs in genetics that led to its mechanism, DNA, and the gene therapies that that has produced (as in tooth regeneration). You are the one who fails to see that evolution has produced precisely the theoretical and practical knowledge you demand. And you've produced nothing to offset that.
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 05:23:56