Darwinism

[zaangalewa]

You are not a Catholic - so you are not really on my side, isn't it? And if a Catholic is an atheist, then he is on my side, because there will be a reason, why he stays to be a Catholic, even if he never got the belief in god or lost his belief in god.

Catholics still believe that Jesus saves.

To be honest: I do not believe this. I do not like this anglicism. I believe god heals. He is not my savior - he is my healer, my redeemer. I always need him - I'm never save.

After that, it gets confusing. There's no point for me to get into our differences here. What I am saying is you ended up believing in atheist scientists and they are usually wrong; That makes you wrong, too, in science.

Sigh. ¿Repression?

For example, I brought up that the magnetic field dissipating means that the Earth is still young.

The Earth is some billion years old. The Mars is by the way a little older. Mars is a surviving proto-planet. Very astonishing.

If the Earth was old, then there would be no magnetic field. The findings back up the creation scientists and do not back up the atheist scientists.

Under our feet work since billions of years a huge number of nuclear power plants. It's not only the sun which produces our energy. Whatever. The world is some billion years old - perhaps it is a little younger, than we we thought, but for sure some billion years old. And it has a magnetic field, which sometimes breaks down.

 

[james bond]

o be honest: I do not believe this. I do not like this anglicism. I believe god heals. He is not my savior - he is my healer, my redeemer. I always need him - I'm never save.

Huh?

If you do not, then that's all folks.

 

[zaangalewa]

o be honest: I do not believe this. I do not like this anglicism. I believe god heals. He is not my savior - he is my healer, my redeemer. I always need him - I'm never save.

Huh?

If you do not, then that's all folks.

Okay. My choice was once to go back from a safe position to this planet here, because ... asked me to do so. But your choice seems to be to prefer to like to go to hell. I suggest to you: Do not misuse any longer the Christian religion for your absurde ways not to think and to ignore reality.

 

[zaangalewa]

Happy Pentecost I wish to everyone during this heavy times of Corona. God may enlighten everyone and help everyone, independent from any religion or any belief.



Bewahre uns, Gott, behüte uns, Gott,
sei mit uns auf unsern Wegen.
|: Sei Quelle und Brot in Wüstennot,
sei um uns mit deinem Segen. :|

Bewahre uns, Gott, behüte uns, Gott,
sei mit uns in allem Leiden.
|: Voll Wärme und Licht im Angesicht,
sei nahe in schweren Zeiten. :|

Bewahre uns, Gott, behüte uns, Gott,
sei mit uns vor allem Bösen.
|: Sei Hilfe, sei Kraft, die Frieden schafft,
sei in uns, uns zu erlösen. :|

Bewahre uns, Gott, behüte uns, Gott,
sei mit uns durch deinen Segen.
|: Dein Heiliger Geist, der Leben verheißt,
sei um uns auf unsern Wegen. :|

 

[zaangalewa]

... Did Noah really take 10,000,000 species of animals on his pleasure cruise? ...

Why not? First of all the story of Noahs ark understands every child - and every child is able to save the world in a shoebox. It minimizes the animals. That's why I think this is the main reason, why this story is written in this way. But indeed it's not clear when this story really had happened ... or much more fascinating: When this story will happen.

In case Noah lived in the future and his spaceship is a kind of ball with a 10 mile radius and 5 yards room height, then it would be a kind of onion with 3511 decks. This would be nearly 50,000 squaremiles. Costa Rica is only a little bigger. Should be enough space. If you are able to pack Costa Rica into a spaceship, then you had for sure solved this not existing problem, Noah II.

 

[LittleNipper]

LittleNipper: according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.

Twelve! And there are 10,000,000 species of animals. "Proof"

Did Noah really take 10,000,000 species of animals on his pleasure cruise?

Could you provide the exact link to the LiveScience article? I looked for it but couldn't find it. I'm thinking you are confused as to what you read,

How do you define a species? And you do realize that the vast majority of species are aquatic --- do you not? Noah was told by GOD that only the air breathing land animals would be sent to Noah. And so GOD selected and sent those HE desired to save within the ark. Also, realize that every modern breed of each species was represented by only an original set of parents under Noah's care.

 

[LittleNipper]

150 Years Later, the Fossil Record Still Doesn't Help Darwin
BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. * |
MONDAY, MARCH 02, 2009

“Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.1 But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?
Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.
Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.”
The first supposed transitional form offered in the report is Sahelanthropus. This 2001 discovery was first hailed as a transitional form in the ape-to-human line, but controversy over its transitional status immediately ensued. Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris was skeptical, saying that its skull features, “especially the [canine teeth],”3 were characteristic of female gorillas, not human-like gorillas. Senut and her colleagues also disputed that Sahelanthropus was even in the ancestry of humans at all: “To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped [creature that walked on two feet].”4 In other words, Sahelanthropus is at best a highly disputed fossil of an extinct ape, having no clear transitional features.
LiveScience also listed a medium-neck-length fossil giraffe named Bohlinia and the “walking manatee” as transitional forms. However, Bohlinia is just variation within what is still clearly the giraffe kind and doesn’t answer the question, “Where did the giraffe kind come from?” Such variations within kinds do not refute the creation concept, but rather are predicted by it.5 And the “walking manatee” walked because it had fully formed, ready-to-walk legs, hips, nerves, and musculature. The article does not mention that this particular fossil is shown elsewhere to be a dead-end species, “transitioning” to nothing, according to evolutionists.6
The LiveScience article, borrowing from geologist Donald Prothero, also claimed that Moeritherium is “the ultimate transitional fossil,” the ancestor of elephants. This was an amphibious mammal, shaped like a hippo, with a mobile, muscular lip fused with its nostril. But it had none of the real characteristics of an elephant—not the trunk, size, tusks, nor the specialized weight-bearing knee joint structure.7
The “classic fossil of Archaeopteryx” is not a transitional form either, but was fully bird. Its “reptile-like” teeth and wing claws are found in some birds today.8 Many reptiles have no teeth, but nobody claims that they evolved from birds. And the discovery of a “frog-amander” has yet to be agreed upon as transitional by evolutionists. John Bolt, a curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, told National Geographic that “it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.”9
Other extinct creatures had “shared features,” physical structures that are found in different kinds of living organisms. However, “shared features” are not transitional features, which is what Darwin needed. There is no scientific evidence to refute the idea that shared features were designed into creatures by a Creator who wisely formed them with the equipment to live in various shared habitats.
Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory—they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.10 Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Brian Thomas is, according to his bio, a “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research,” and young Earth creationist. Indeed, Thomas is the source of most of the content that comes out of the Institute’s website on a day-to-day basis (excluding their various magazines etc.). According to the bio, he specializes in biology, problems in evolution, origin of life, and dinosaurs, though his forays into astronomy and cosmology are frequent. He does, apparently, have a masters degree in biotechnology, and has a background as a school teacher, but, needless to say, those qualifications do not quite put him in the position he wants in order to authoritatively ponder the questions he likes to, well, not ponder, really, but rather have knee-jerk, preset opinions about.

Mr. Thomas’s primary contributions to the ICR’s website is his Daily Science Updates, or ICR News (same thing, apparently). The articles tend to cover some-weeks-old news on matters scientific that Thomas attempts to shoehorn into a creationist framework (unsurprisingly usually rather desperately). And no, the content rather quickly reveals that Thomas does precariously little research on the topics at hand, apart from looking at the press release and paper itself. A good example (among many) might be his article “Distant Watery Planet Looks Young”, which asked whether the red dwarf orbiting exoplanet Gliese 1214 b could have held on to its atmosphere for billions of years against the solar wind while orbiting so close to the star, and lamented that “[T]he scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these,” which is false, but – you know – persecutions of Christians and all that. A typical example of Thomas’s densely moronic approach to scientific findings is here (and here). Thomas also weighed in on the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba, classifying it unhesitatingly as an ape (without much further thought) and thereby avoided even the caution of the AiG.

As if you read or understand a word of that....

As if you read or contributed your own investigations and evolution experimentation to prop up Darwinism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

150 Years Later, the Fossil Record Still Doesn't Help Darwin
BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. * |
MONDAY, MARCH 02, 2009

“Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.1 But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?
Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.
Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.”
The first supposed transitional form offered in the report is Sahelanthropus. This 2001 discovery was first hailed as a transitional form in the ape-to-human line, but controversy over its transitional status immediately ensued. Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris was skeptical, saying that its skull features, “especially the [canine teeth],”3 were characteristic of female gorillas, not human-like gorillas. Senut and her colleagues also disputed that Sahelanthropus was even in the ancestry of humans at all: “To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped [creature that walked on two feet].”4 In other words, Sahelanthropus is at best a highly disputed fossil of an extinct ape, having no clear transitional features.
LiveScience also listed a medium-neck-length fossil giraffe named Bohlinia and the “walking manatee” as transitional forms. However, Bohlinia is just variation within what is still clearly the giraffe kind and doesn’t answer the question, “Where did the giraffe kind come from?” Such variations within kinds do not refute the creation concept, but rather are predicted by it.5 And the “walking manatee” walked because it had fully formed, ready-to-walk legs, hips, nerves, and musculature. The article does not mention that this particular fossil is shown elsewhere to be a dead-end species, “transitioning” to nothing, according to evolutionists.6
The LiveScience article, borrowing from geologist Donald Prothero, also claimed that Moeritherium is “the ultimate transitional fossil,” the ancestor of elephants. This was an amphibious mammal, shaped like a hippo, with a mobile, muscular lip fused with its nostril. But it had none of the real characteristics of an elephant—not the trunk, size, tusks, nor the specialized weight-bearing knee joint structure.7
The “classic fossil of Archaeopteryx” is not a transitional form either, but was fully bird. Its “reptile-like” teeth and wing claws are found in some birds today.8 Many reptiles have no teeth, but nobody claims that they evolved from birds. And the discovery of a “frog-amander” has yet to be agreed upon as transitional by evolutionists. John Bolt, a curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, told National Geographic that “it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.”9
Other extinct creatures had “shared features,” physical structures that are found in different kinds of living organisms. However, “shared features” are not transitional features, which is what Darwin needed. There is no scientific evidence to refute the idea that shared features were designed into creatures by a Creator who wisely formed them with the equipment to live in various shared habitats.
Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory—they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.10 Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Brian Thomas is, according to his bio, a “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research,” and young Earth creationist. Indeed, Thomas is the source of most of the content that comes out of the Institute’s website on a day-to-day basis (excluding their various magazines etc.). According to the bio, he specializes in biology, problems in evolution, origin of life, and dinosaurs, though his forays into astronomy and cosmology are frequent. He does, apparently, have a masters degree in biotechnology, and has a background as a school teacher, but, needless to say, those qualifications do not quite put him in the position he wants in order to authoritatively ponder the questions he likes to, well, not ponder, really, but rather have knee-jerk, preset opinions about.

Mr. Thomas’s primary contributions to the ICR’s website is his Daily Science Updates, or ICR News (same thing, apparently). The articles tend to cover some-weeks-old news on matters scientific that Thomas attempts to shoehorn into a creationist framework (unsurprisingly usually rather desperately). And no, the content rather quickly reveals that Thomas does precariously little research on the topics at hand, apart from looking at the press release and paper itself. A good example (among many) might be his article “Distant Watery Planet Looks Young”, which asked whether the red dwarf orbiting exoplanet Gliese 1214 b could have held on to its atmosphere for billions of years against the solar wind while orbiting so close to the star, and lamented that “[T]he scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these,” which is false, but – you know – persecutions of Christians and all that. A typical example of Thomas’s densely moronic approach to scientific findings is here (and here). Thomas also weighed in on the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba, classifying it unhesitatingly as an ape (without much further thought) and thereby avoided even the caution of the AiG.

As if you read or understand a word of that....

As if you read or contributed your own investigations and evolution experimentation to prop up Darwinism.

Of course i have read about and understand evolution. I have to correct your lies about it every time you post.

 

[Hollie]

LittleNipper: according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.

Twelve! And there are 10,000,000 species of animals. "Proof"

Did Noah really take 10,000,000 species of animals on his pleasure cruise?

Could you provide the exact link to the LiveScience article? I looked for it but couldn't find it. I'm thinking you are confused as to what you read,

How do you define a species? And you do realize that the vast majority of species are aquatic --- do you not? Noah was told by GOD that only the air breathing land animals would be sent to Noah. And so GOD selected and sent those HE desired to save within the ark. Also, realize that every modern breed of each species was represented by only an original set of parents under Noah's care.

Please provide some credible evidence for Noah's Ark, "animals two by two'', so we can evaluate your claim. We can then examine your credible evidence for the gods from where we can begin to evaluate your claim that: "every modern breed of each species was represented by only an original set of parents under Noah's care.''

The above is largely rhetorical as we both know that the creationist response is:

"... because I say so'', followed by:

"the gods did it''

 

[ReinyDays]

Why did Noah carry Covid-19 on his ark?

 

[ding]

LittleNipper: according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.

Twelve! And there are 10,000,000 species of animals. "Proof"

Did Noah really take 10,000,000 species of animals on his pleasure cruise?

Could you provide the exact link to the LiveScience article? I looked for it but couldn't find it. I'm thinking you are confused as to what you read,

No. Stop reading like a child.

Come back with an adult argument.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LittleNipper: according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.

Twelve! And there are 10,000,000 species of animals. "Proof"

Did Noah really take 10,000,000 species of animals on his pleasure cruise?

Could you provide the exact link to the LiveScience article? I looked for it but couldn't find it. I'm thinking you are confused as to what you read,

No. Stop reading like a child.

Come back with an adult argument.

Come back with an adult book, instead of that iron aged farce with absurd, magical events in it.

 

[ding]

LittleNipper: according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.

Twelve! And there are 10,000,000 species of animals. "Proof"

Did Noah really take 10,000,000 species of animals on his pleasure cruise?

Could you provide the exact link to the LiveScience article? I looked for it but couldn't find it. I'm thinking you are confused as to what you read,

No. Stop reading like a child.

Come back with an adult argument.

Come back with an adult book, instead of that iron aged farce with absurd, magical events in it.

Not sure what you are expecting from oral accounts that were passed down for thousands of years but you are without excuse for reading them like they were written yesterday.

Try being an adult instead of a child. Here's how an adult processes it.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if you start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

You have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. You shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, you are so far removed from these events that you no idea of the original meaning, and instead read them like the idiot that you are. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. You read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make yourself feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom. Shame on you.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Brilliant, ding. Simply brilliant.

Let's Examine Claims of Atheists

AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com

 

[Hollie]

Brilliant, ding. Simply brilliant.

Let's Examine Claims of Atheists

AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com

That tedious cut and paste you were fawning over and the graph from someone’s blog you dump into various threads is meaningless. There is no source for the graph so no reason anyone should take it seriously.

More importantly, you make a common mistake among religious extremists in suggesting retention rates for religions correlates to the truth or validity of those religions.

Belief in religions and miracles and supernaturalism is governed primarily by happenstance of parentage and place of birth. When reason and dogma conflict, one has the opportunity to embrace either reason or dogma. We are social animals, and like most other good social animals it is always less stressful to follow leaders, especially religious leaders, like sheep. I am certain that ignoring the obvious is much more comforting to you than doubting that certain absurdities are true. You are not alone.

But it is not a particularly good process for discerning truth.

So, be my guest. Embrace futility. Some of us prefer to do otherwise.