Jump to content

sammy7

Senior Members
  • Posts

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sammy7

  1. In what why are atoms observable? yes we cant see them but we can image them,instruments etc...they are "observable" I don't see why anyone would ask you questions about Creation when I already did before and you flat out said it wasn't scientific and has no explanatory power. im not trying to promote it as a "scientific model" dude if you really really want to know the truth (yes it can be a bit frightening at first i was kinda a bit scared to) i can show you...
  2. dear mod, i regret opening this thread. please lock her up lol thanks. also jorge i assume you are an immunologist. how do you feel about injecting kids with thimerosol daily? lol
  3. So, the start and stop of evolution were both unobserved? Who didn't say it? Dawkins? I'm a bit confused. Thanks. again my simplified interpretation- we dont observe it today because it both started and stopped happening in the (unobserved) past. i added the "unobserved" part.....i have more...again will wait
  4. ok so this is for asinine cretin, i will state how i interpret that (very very simplified down to the basics) if you concurr and would like to continue i will, if you disagree please say so, so-my interpretation- we dont observe it today because it both started and stopped happening in the past. i will add myself although he didnt say this but it needs to be pointed out -that both the start and stops of his story were both unobserved. (again i have left out the time he mentioned and the process etc etc.) if you find fault anywhere please say so... thank you. shall i continue lol?
  5. As far as I'm concerned, post on. I'm interested in your sources as well. The E. coli claims you were making before were somewhat interesting. ok thank you lol. ok so im going to start with some presuppositions-life is real, we are living human beings, we have senses, we can interact with the world around us, we are not just a brain in a vat hooked up to a bunch of wires or something lol etc etc, also (me personally) - when i hear words come out of another human beings mouth-i have to believe the message they intended to convey is what they intended to convey? if that makes sense? ie-they said what they said ok? so.... please watch the following video i will post again after i receive recognition that youve watched it... (i will ask i guess at the end/beginning of each post if you would like to keep going ok?
  6. ok i will just ask once-are both you guys actually interested in where im going with this? if the answer is 'no' i will stop posting on this forum....
  7. thanks for the enquiry , type in "richard dawkins stumped" on youtube...it is only over a minute long or so...i am trying to make a point with it (i also have another one but this one needs to be watched first)....
  8. This video looks genuine to me. Also many eyewitnesses give the time of impact making nonsense of digital skullduggery . hi i appreciate your objective reply as not everyone seems interested in doing it, that said the video you posted is of a plane hitting tower 1 or 2 (the twin towers) -no one doubts this, my "model" is for tower 7 (wtc-7). thank you.
  9. I CAN HARDLY BELIVE THIS IS AN ACTUAL "SCIENCE" SITE PLEASE SEE THE EXACT WORDING OF MY QUESTION ABOVE, I STARTED THE SENTENCE WITH " I CANT BELIEVE HE IS...... ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
  10. THIS SITE IS INSANE, PLEASE LISTEN TO THE ACTUAL VIDEO AS I POSTED AT 2.00 ONWARDS LOL, HE STARTS WITH "IF WE DO A REALLY GREAT JOB" IF YOU DONT BELIEVE HE SAID THAT THEN....WELL....THEN I DONT KNOW WHAT....
  11. "So, do you not consider the data of DNA sequencing to be empirical?" why would anyone question DNA sequencing. It is here today, observable. just as ringer posted a question about atoms, obviously we cant "see' them but they are observable. If a dictionary definition of a word doesnt mean anything to someone...then.... i dont know what........i can determine anything i want to mean anything i want if thats the case....... (get a dictionary look at definition of the word "science") . ill just say it once more.....SCIENCE=OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA. NO A PROCESS THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE BOTH STARTED AND STOPPED IN THE PAST WITHOUT OBSERVATION IS NOT SCIENCE! wether it be the "general theory of evolution" "the big bang" "aliens did a poo and a human being came out and landed on earth" "in the beginning god created the heveans and the earth" or "allah created everything" THESE ARE OUTSIDE THE FREAKING REALM OF SCIENCE!! lol (please read dictionary definition of the word science again). SOMEONE CAN BELIEVE EITHER ONE OF THE ABOVE BUT THE BELIEF IS BASED ON FAITH-NO ONE WAS THERE TO OBSERVE IT!!! ......... "And if not evolution, what explains the many observations?" this starts with the presupposition the "general theory of evolution" is true then works backwards, anyone could say the same thing about there own beliefs and do the same....again NOT OBSERVABLE NOT SCIENCE...PLEASE WATCH RICHARD DAWKINS STUMPED ON YOUTUBE- I WILL STATE IN SIMPLE TERMS HIS ANSWER HERE- WE DONT OBSERVE IT TODAY BECAUSE IT HAPPENED A LONG TIME AGO IN THE PAST. THIS IS NOT FREAKING SCIENCE . IT IS A FAITH BASED BELIEF AS IS ALL OTHER CREATION STORIES/ ORIGIN STORIES. if someone starts catching on here i have another video of dawkins were he agrees with the guy that it is "faith" based. please someone ask me for this vid.... again i have my own personal beliefs that are FAITH based (no one was there, no one observed it) and evolutionists have theirs...so do hara krishnas i guess..and buddhists..and hindus....THEY ARE ALL FAITH BASED. "Macroevolution as in speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. See the links posted above for more information" SPECIATION IS NOT MACRO EVOLUTION, THERE IS LIMITS TO HOW FAR WE HAVE OBSERVED THINGS GET. that talk origins page is thick thick evolutionary propoganda (no offense) if you believe you have JUST ONE LITERATURE SHOWING SOMETHING THEN LINK IT PLEASE ( I WILL ONLY REVIEW ONE AND FAIL IT AS AM NOT GOING TO KEEP DOING IT TO ENDLESS LITERATURES). THATS THE THING WITH THAT TALK ORGINS PAGE PEOPLE JUST ASSUME BECAUSE OF ALL THE WRITING ETC THAT IT CONTAINS ACTUAL EVIDENCE! ( again i can be rebutted here by posting just ONE literature..... THANKS FOR YOUR TIME PLEASE ASK ME ABOUT ANOTHER DAWKINS VIDEO AFTER YOU WATCH THE ONE ABOVE THANKS. ..
  12. hay thanks for the reply just my point though-no matter how many details you fit into a story, it is still just that.. a story (abiogenesis,molecule to amphibian to reptile etc) no one has ever observed some helium or carbon atoms or whatever turning them selves into "life"...nor has any observation been made of MACRO-evolution (yes you are right i dont know how this would be defined exactly but an attempt at explaining something usually comes after it has actually been OBSERVED) therefore both of the above-have no place in science, they have never been observed so they are stories/speculations/belief systems/religions (like creation events in other religions wernt observed either so no one calls them science) my distaste for richard dawkins comes from watching hours upon hours worth of interviews with him (maybe 9-10 total) and reading a number of his books (god delusion selfish gene some other one cant remember) and coming to the belief-he knows full well macro-evolution has never been observed and yet he INTENTIONALLY decieves people into believing that it is "scientific fact"...and a number of other comments he frequently makes (i will keep my calm here) like- "if you dont believe evolution you are either x or y or z" (he says it in such a matter of fact way) btw xyz is some random slandering term) it should also be noted imo i dont even know what his personal belief is, yes i know he says "im an atheist, agnostic, evolution is a scientific fact etc" BUT i dont even know if he believes what hes saying...ie he is the official spokesperson for the "theory of evolution" and everyone knows full well what hes going to talk about in interviews, when they read his book etc...so he has a "position" to fulfill if you will (this is my opinion obv)... macro evolution is the story i guess (i guess it doesnt even have a proper definiton as its never been observed) that a fish became a reptile which became an amphibian which became a human being or something (this has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, francis collins and dawkins both take this official stance ok? i have to take their word for it) so therefore this has no place in science/is speculation etc so it is a religious belief system like christianity is hindu is etc etc.... speciation is a cloudy area, it depends on how one individual would like to define it, nether the less they are micro-evolutionary changes (AS I UNDERSTAND IT RINGER MIGHT COMMENT MORE I WILL HAVE TO STUDY THIS MORE IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, BECAUSE DAWKINS AND COLLINS SAY MACRO-EVOLUTION ISNT HAPPENING TODAY THEN I HAVE TO ASSUME SPECIATION=MICRO EVOLUTION) so there is mutation(s), natural selection kicks in, and although they might have come from the same "kind" if you will they may not be interfertile (PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS MORE SOMEONE) so therfore under some classifications a new "species" has been "made", note that this started with a DOWNWARD trend of options/genetic information though....so this wouldnt classify as a macro-evolutionary change...yes also as someone who does believe the bible IMO the word kind is far far superior to any classification system man has come up with..(imo)... i will have to think about/read more about how to define the term "kind" though too... Change in allele frequencies in a population over time-if i have a few kids i have satisfied this criteria no? if yes then this doesnt qualify for macro-evolutionary change... Based on the above I think that you basically accept biological evolution. You seem to object to the plausibility of abiogenesis (which isn't evolutionary theory), and have questions about the history of life (i.e., bacteria to man). The things that you accept as "micro-evolution" are essentially the basic ingredients of evolution. What do you think? yes we observe mutations/natural selection/adaption (darwins finches)/ all the time these are all considered micro evolution...(and darwin piggybacked his opinions/beliefs off of this real life observation...) i accept micro-evolution (as a 5 year old child does when he says different coloured dogs etc) but i dont have any faith in macro-evolution (has never been observed therefore if someone wants to believe it it is taken by faith)... i also have no faith in matter turning itself into life/or cell or whatever (which has never been observed)..so if you wanted to know i was forced to believe by faith genesis 1.1 as for the origins of species/man lol "I think what you're doing here is just evasive incredulity. I think if you apply your principles consistently you'll face a reductio ad absurdum. Rather than bicker with you I'd just presume to encourage you to think about this a little more deeply and honestly." science by its very definiton (any dictionary i presume) observable/experimental etc etc how does any process that claims to have both started and stopped in the past, both without observation fit into this? a-it doesnt, it has no place in science (until man develops a time machine to go back in time and actually observe alleged process lol)...
  13. ....they both fall into the same category- in the past never observed-not science (see definition of science in the post 2 above) therefore if someone believes it, it is taken by faith that it happened....so evolutionism is a world religion just like all the others (obv they all have different beliefs though).....
  14. "What is "the theory of macroevolution," exactly? Evolution on the level of gene pools? Speciation? These are things based on observation and fact. I genuinely do not understand what you're saying." lol ok sorry, umm the last few pages of this thread will have some interesting points between me and ringer (although there not to clear cut i guess) macro-evolution=molecule to man, matter to human being , piece of bacteria (i dont even know the official story lol) to a human being. micro-evolution (this is a shit name for it because it is confusing) =speciation, variation within a kind, CHANGE OF ALLELE FREQUENCY OVER TIME, mutations etc etc..these are standard things that we observe today and have absolutely nothing to do with the the MACRO-evolutionary theory (other than people like richard dawkins get on tv and confuse absolutely everyone that they ARE the same thing and that because we observe micro-evolution today well...that somehow PROVES that a cell (or something) once somehow turned into a human being...(so the macro-evolution part has never been observed and the official story from dakwins etc is it happened in the past unobserved-not science etc etc)...so yeh ..please ask more questions if you want... just a quote from richard dawkins too lol -(if you dont belive me please google it you will find it somewhere i guess)- evolution has been observed.....it just hasnt been observed while its happening......... OH OK THEN THANKS FOR THAT RICHARD! lol so this is the kind of deception/switching and swapping of terms etc etc that is necessary to get us people to believe it... thanks for your time
  15. i dont know how to say it more clearly... (i dont care what you believe) THE THEORY OF MACRO EVOLUTION ISNT SCIENCE. (unless you dont believe richard dawkins and francis collins statements/views on it) therefore because this "process" was never observed if one wants to believe it (and i coulndt care less what you believe) it has TO BE TAKEN BY FAITH that it happened. IT IS A RELIGION JUST LIKE HINDU BUDDHISM CHRISTIANITY ETC ETC... i dont know how to put it more clearly thanks for your time...
  16. no offense but i can hardly believe how unscientific these so called "scientists" (misnomer) are (dawkins randi etc) im taking an objective look at the situation myself and hence why both models are up there, using the model please put in your points that you think are relevant thanks.
  17. atoms are OBSERVABLE (we both know that m8) they are here right now today (NOTICE THE WORD OBSERVE NOT LIMITED TO JUST SEEING WITH EYES)) so they are observable..ie-science.... so the official story for macro evolution is...we dont observe it today (richard dawkins and francis collins both say this, im happy to take there word for it) because it both started and stopped happening long ago in the past WITHOUT OBSERVATION..so evolution=religion it is taken by faith that this process once happened (as is creation event of any other religion christianity hindu whatever other ones there are...) once the laymen understands this they realise why they had such a problem with such statements as "evolution is a scientific fact". please ask my anything you want about biblical creation if you want )i dont believe any of the other creation stories i take by faith genesis 1.1. is true (as evolutionists take by faith their "process" once happened) thanks for reading... (n.b. mods yes religion is mentioned in this post but as we know from dawkins and francis collins statements evolution is a religion so.....)
  18. lol sorry cant help you then (dont even know who that is)
  19. it depends which "god" you are talking about? buddha? allah? if it is the god of the bible you are referring to then everything can be answered by reading what he claims is his book-the bible.
  20. definitions-a. science- The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. my emphasis-(OBSERVABLE!) religion-Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. (thefreedictionary.com) just a couple comments then 1-the nylon experiments and the ecoli experiments, if we both havnt seen the genetic literature on it we both cant comment (you can claim its evolution if you want/i can say its not) so this must be put aside till we both see it) just because the overview says "they evolved" well...i wont take their word for it (depends how they define it too) 2-"The term evolution is not deceptive, it means change in allele frequency over time. Terms such as that are exact, no room for interpretation" if that is how evolution is defined...well...then obviously every single person on the planet agrees.... 3-with fossils, no one was around to observe them dying and being fossilised or whatever, thats what im saying-it was never observed, anyone can make up a "story" about something that is claimed to have happened in the past without observation....and thats exactly what it is....a story (not science) yes i know its a fancy story x million years environment ecosystems etc etc , sorry mate its still just a story (see above definition for science) 4- for a genetic mutation to be considered one that gives n-d-t even slight credit we need to see *new* (not just a trait that is brought out under certain conditions/certain environments) "functional" genetic information arising from somewhere within an organisms own self i guess (not horizontal gene transfer (swapping of genes as i mentioned) not loss of specificity of an enzyme (so it accepts new substrates)or gene duplication etc etc. if this has hasnt been observed then n-d-t is a religion like everyother one (some supernatural power gave all these living things "extra" new functional genetic over long periods of time etc etc.) as the onus of proof is on n-d-t (it is the one making the claim to be "scientific fact") please cite just 1 literature right now you feel is the strongest evidence that can support this claim (please link it, those sites hurt my brain as they are full of deceptive/intended to deceive wording imo) just link to the strongest one youve got please (if you only have overviews then its a religion until the actual literature can be provided) just the strongest literature right now. thanks.
  21. the whole concept of electricity i guess, i used to be an electrician and i still dont even really know what it is....and that man was able to figure out how to burn things and figure out how to turn it into electricity...amazing imo
  22. yah yah the the husband and wife talkin bout that stuff (chris morris janet morris google them) actually do work for the government/defense contractors so i have no problem believing every word they say...
  23. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXrFbaCHM78 from 5.20 onwards we have a *possiblity* of thus observed phenomena
  24. for me personally when i realised neo-darwinian theory is void of all actual scientific evidence (see my other thread if you want to know) i was left with no other choice but to realise- wow wth genesis 1.1. is literal history of the world (not science cant prove it dont attack me just posting my belief/opinion lol) thanks for reading
  25. hay this fascinates me: 2 peter 3-6 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 4- is this referring to the concept of gradualism/uniformitarianism? ( ie evolutionary model says world has been as is essentially for x million years etc) 5-the scoffers are willingly ignorant of the creation+noahs flood 6-noahs flood (obv) so we have since darwin and lyell (150 years or so) this whole new concept of gradualism etc....(which replaced catastrophacism noahs flood)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.