sammy7

sure sorry then just delete the other one then if thats alright? hay ringer immortal assinine cretina moontana man etc i have reviewed the hox literature immortal if you will could you please write in a few sentences what you feel/believe/understand etc that literature to "show" if you will? then based on what you feel it "shows" could you please start running me through it step by step (yes this may be an arduous process i know) like based on whatever you feel it "shows" point me to say eg. "page 5 top left column' or "page 2 bottom left column" etc etc if you understand what im saying? ok thanks bye

lol i posted this before but why does it keep getting deleted please mod? to the original poster i personally find it interesting that in the game command and conquer "kains" side has the "hand of nod" comment please

im surpised at how well evolutionists know their bible lol (if you are one i presume?). i presume your belief of origins is whats commonly referred to as "the big bang" or "stellarnucleosynthesis" or something? id be interested to hear your personal beliefs...that said genesis 1 is the literal six days in the order that it is alleged to have happened (which i believe obv) genesis 2 appears to be a recap of the events of creation week in seemingly no apparent order....

yes that is the logic i follow lol

this is for immortal and ringer- i am going to bed soon, im at page 5 of the hox literature, it is quite long and will take a few more hours etc etc... i will read your literature ringer after i consume this one and discuss its points/or lack thereof with immortal ok about the telomere telomere literature, please both read it if you will immortal and ringer (click the link and the pdf should pop up, you can save it). i will give one example were they assign an unobserved cause in the past to an observation/effect today. it happens at least once more...( i will let you guys see if you can find where/how) "The data we present here demonstrate that a telomere-to-telomere fusion of ancestral chromosomes occurred, leaving a pathognomonic relic at" okay please notice the word "occurred" again here we see the assigning an unobserved cause in the past to this present day effect. again if this logic is used i can insert any insane unobserved story i want into being the cause and say thats what accounts for any observation i can make today...do you understand this? or am i on my own in this line of thinking lol? i will await your responses on this (and it does happen at least once more in the literature) and discuss it more if you want, then i will probably go to bed and continue the hox literature when i wake up...

ok i will review all these literatures and comment, i will not reply to posts like moontan man or the ones below just using analogies/metaphors... give me some time i will review the literatures and post...

no if you wont cite it then its not evidence, N-D-T is making the claim, its up to its proponents (if you are) to cite it.... if you do find it and cite it i would be happy to read it.... (NOT JUST AN OVERVIEW) here is the telomere telomere paper. http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf unfortunately thats not how the scientific heirarchy seems to operate...(JUST MY OPINION)

please link to just one literature then..i will only read and fail one from each person... ( i dont have infinity time lol) well maybe more if i think its worth it for some unknown reason... again not an overview actual literature....(no someones OPINION on that talk origins site does not count lol, we are trying to elevate this to level of science remember not hear-say... i have never even looked down a tunneling electron microscope or whatever but based on some vids i saw on youtube they seemed to define them somewhat this is a poor reference , i could find more but i dont think its terribly relevant to our discussion... if your referring to the nucleus or whatever...well..i only learned of imagining techniques 2 hours ago so i cant really comment... i dont see how its hugely relevant though given some of the vids on youtube can define them to some degree...

if the scientific model goes- hypothesis-observation-theory etc etc darwinian evolution/neo-darwinain theory/the general theory of macro evolution is stalled on the hypothesis stage.. (if this is not the right model please write out the precise right model thanks) i dont care what an overview says i need ACTUAL LITERATURE. on a topic like this an overview will not suffice...ACTUAL LITERATURE PLEASE lol. again we are back to the ol assign an unobserved cause in the past to an observed effect today.....when one starts noting this trend they dont think that it could possibly extend to the literature itself do they? lol please see the telomere telomere paper and comment on that for me..INTERESTING NOTE-francis collins himself referenced me this paper..... i dont know what else to say.....if no one can cite anything then the title of my post is accurate....comment away please. yes we BOTH did not observe the birth of the earth...when it comes to origins wether its cosmic evolution or creation...as we already know...these are faith based beliefs.... we can observe the earth right here in the present..what does that tell us? well that tells us we can observe the earth right here in the present...i cant make it more simpler than this. thanks for reading

lol i saw it. hi dimreepr thanks for the reply, my personal belief is biblical creationism if you will, i do not claim this to be"scientific", i take by faith genesis 1.1 to be a literally true. please see my other thread in speculations i just started.... thanks

hi please see my new thread in speculations...

my mistake thank you for pointing that out...

can we observe it right here in the present?......(no semantics about time please you know what i mean..i could elaborate on this further but i hope i wont need to)

ahh thanks dude, im new here just trying to get something going...gr8 links thanks

im sorry i didnt see the literature ( i dont want just an overview)....also even just by reading the overview i can see the same trait as in the telomere telomere paper-assigning an unobserved cause in the past to account for an observation today (this is plain and simply a story wether you like it or not, if one chooses to believe it, it is taken by faith that it happened)- i dont need to say the utterly insane things i could fit into this model if i wanted to and call it science...please cite the actual literature if you have it...

i watched your video, i left the guy a comment asking for literature for his claim "there is no limit to speciation"

i dont know what that is (yet) but if we didnt observe something then if we believe it happened it is taken by faith that it did....

hay thanks. well it is still a faith position. it is in the past. it was never observed. if one wishes to believe in it, it is taken by faith that it happened...could you please cite one piece of literature for that homeobox thing you said that has actually been observed? thanks i can hardly believe this... its in the "fusion of ancestral chromosome 2" paper as well.... they are attributing an unobserved cause in the past to an observed effect today...and it starts with the big fat presupposition----darwinian evolution is true.... i see circular reasoning here...do you? also could you please quote 3 ways it would be falsifiable?.....

thanks for the reply i didnt expect people to take to it so kindly lol. is there a model for this type-2 science? (i would be interested to see it) also about it being falsifiable......neo darwinian theory has this almost magic attribute of actually not being falsifiable....lol....i will await your comments before posting more. thanks

ok. please see dictionary definiton of science. . you have just reiterated what dawkins said ie-we dont observe it today, because it happened in the past. this is not science. (again see dictionary definition again) im not suggesting that because it isnt science that MEANS there was a creation event. i never said such a thing. by dawkins own admission N-D-T is a FAITH based position (please see 2nd video again from 16.00 onwards definition faith- faith-belief that is not based on proof

as you will see in my other thread yes it is faith based. yes i watched it also thanks

hi please see my other thread in speculations entitled "the general theory of evolution, neo darwinian theory is faith based" thanks

hay all just thought id throw a spanner in the works so to speak lol please watch these videos of the worlds frontman of neo darwinian theory saying himself that (my interpretation) macro-evolutionary "theory" has never been observed and the official story is it started and stopped a long time ago without observation. also please look in your nearest dictionary for the definition of the word "science". you will notice the words OBSERVABLE EMPIRICAL TESTABLE REPRODUCIBLE etc etc........that said please view the following and comment.... from 16.15 on, notice richard dawkins comment "thats true"................................................................................... here is a dictionary definition of "religion" from dictionary.com a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. thanks for viewing..( i will comment more on the religion definition once people have viewed/commented)

So you say atoms are observable without evidence of them being observable? well based on the vids i just saw they are somewhat observable right? (i have no scientific training in anything whatsoever) It has been watched and commented on, not that it has anything to do with how factual evolution is. well ok i have another vid if you are interested where dawkins confirms what hes saying in the above video ( not observable today, happened long time ago etc without observation..)......

lol i figured this out a few days ago that IMO the whole thing is built on a house of cards/a mirage... if you would like to know more please watch the dawkins video i posted above and comment more... ( i have another video too but will wait...)