| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: Science Disproves Evolution |
 |
|
Complex Molecules and Organs 4
b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity
of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse
types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for
evolution.
One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in
fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-
Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]
Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size,
extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very
early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated
designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only
the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some
trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all
directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton,
“A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19
September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat
of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd
edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.]
Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye
lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes:
An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2
February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early
trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or
acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear
‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of
the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,”
Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]
The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part
of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of
a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that
acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of
nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array
of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists
had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once
again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.”
Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August
2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed
today’s technology.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
IlBeBauck@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
On Jun 24, 1:45 pm, Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Complex Molecules and Organs 4
b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity
of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse
types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for
evolution.
One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in
fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-
Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]
Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size,
extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very
early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated
designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only
the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some
trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all
directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton,
“A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19
September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat
of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd
edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.]
Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye
lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes:
An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2
February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early
trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or
acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear
‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of
the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,”
Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]
The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part
of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of
a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that
acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of
nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array
of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists
had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once
again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.”
Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August
2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed
today’s technology.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873
|
REPLY: Accidents, nothing but bloody useless accidents ! Is that
all mankind really is ?! Just a chance fluke from some accident Pond
Scum ? It works well for the person who wants to live as they like
doesnt it ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ken
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
On Jun 24, 2:55 pm, "A Trolling Webtv Fuckhead wrote:
| Quote: |
REPLY: It works well for the person who wants to live as they like
doesnt it ?
|
Works well for you too, doesn't it?
Doesn't stop you from driving around in a gas guzzler RV or your gas
guzzler corvette or carrying a concealed weapon which is against your
state's laws, FOOL
Oh Yeah
Right
You don't need to answer to man's laws, you can make up your own rules
Just like your phony assed Dr. Dino, who didn't need to obey man's
laws either.
He's doing 10 years in the slammer for it.
How long will you serve ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ken
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: More creatioNUT BS from Palu |
|
|
| On Jun 24, 11:45 am, Pah...@gmail.com wrote: the usual CCPed crapola |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Complex Molecules and Organs 4
b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity
of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse
types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for
evolution.
|
They don't appreciate it, because it doesn't. Why should it?
We know that similar features have evolved independently many times.
In fact, I posted a link recently where we have observed in the
laboratory the same feature evolving in different samples, with
different mutations:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
It is sad that mangled snippets of really fascinating science are
being posted here in some sort of appeal to the argument from
personal incredulity, which in any case isn't a valid logical argument.
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mark
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:53 am Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
"Ian Smith" <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
news:fPWdnQYvOqSL0fzVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
| Quote: |
Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
Complex Molecules and Organs 4
b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity
of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse
types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for
evolution.
They don't appreciate it, because it doesn't. Why should it?
We know that similar features have evolved independently many times.
In fact, I posted a link recently where we have observed in the laboratory
the same feature evolving in different samples, with different mutations:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
It is sad that mangled snippets of really fascinating science are being
posted here in some sort of appeal to the argument from personal
incredulity, which in any case isn't a valid logical argument.
|
Well, how about some cohesive, intelligent, reasoned thought.... as opposed
to just cut & paste ..?
It's argument from some others' perspective... it's sort of meaningless
really..
.........??
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mark
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
<IlBeBauck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0352cb5e-85f0-47bf-a809-cabfee49430a@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 1:45 pm, Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Complex Molecules and Organs 4
b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity
of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse
types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for
evolution.
One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in
fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-
Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]
Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size,
extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very
early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated
designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only
the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some
trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all
directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton,
“A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19
September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat
of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd
edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.]
Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye
lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes:
An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2
February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early
trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or
acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear
‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of
the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,”
Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]
The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part
of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of
a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that
acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of
nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array
of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists
had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once
again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.”
Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August
2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed
today’s technology.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873
|
REPLY: Accidents, nothing but bloody useless accidents ! Is that
all mankind really is ?! Just a chance fluke from some accident Pond
Scum ? It works well for the person who wants to live as they like
doesnt it ?
Instead of asking questions........ you should attempt to answer those
posed to you.....
However, mankind is NO accident... it's a prelonged evolution that is a
selection process..... a natural selection.... established, proved and
without doubt....
It's no accident......
AS so many of your obtuse and confused ideas show, you are incapable of
understanding and comprehending facts and evidence. The problem is
you..........
You actually, although you cannot see this, have need of psychological and
psychiatric treatment..
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
mark wrote:
| Quote: |
X-No-Archive: yes
IlBeBauck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0352cb5e-85f0-47bf-a809-cabfee49430a@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 1:45 pm, Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
Complex Molecules and Organs 4
b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity
of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse
types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for
evolution.
One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in
fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-
Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]
Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size,
extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very
early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated
designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only
the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some
trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all
directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton,
“A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19
September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat
of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd
edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.]
Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye
lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes:
An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2
February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early
trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or
acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear
‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of
the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,”
Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]
The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part
of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of
a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that
acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of
nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array
of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists
had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once
again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.”
Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August
2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed
today’s technology.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873
REPLY: Accidents, nothing but bloody useless accidents ! Is that
all mankind really is ?! Just a chance fluke from some accident Pond
Scum ? It works well for the person who wants to live as they like
doesnt it ?
Instead of asking questions........ you should attempt to answer those
posed to you.....
However, mankind is NO accident... it's a prelonged evolution that is a
selection process..... a natural selection.... established, proved and
without doubt....
It's no accident......
AS so many of your obtuse and confused ideas show, you are incapable of
understanding and comprehending facts and evidence. The problem is
you..........
You actually, although you cannot see this, have need of psychological and
psychiatric treatment..
|
John Safran put it superbly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
Ian Smith wrote:
Another from John Safran, this time for the Mormons.
It includes a sequence where John Safran goes door knocking in Salt
Lake city trying to "convert" Mormons to "atheism" using Origins as
his bible (note for the intellectually challenged: it is a spoof, it
is funny specifically because this doesn't normally happen, atheism
isn't a religion, we don't go banging on doors etc etc):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fic56JN7aIw
Look out for the religious tolerance, where one guy hits John Safran
with a garden rake.
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mark
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
"Ian Smith" <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
news:iZOdnZeBwpennf_VnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
| Quote: |
Ian Smith wrote:
John Safran put it superbly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg
Another from John Safran, this time for the Mormons.
It includes a sequence where John Safran goes door knocking in Salt Lake
city trying to "convert" Mormons to "atheism" using Origins as his bible
(note for the intellectually challenged: it is a spoof, it is funny
specifically because this doesn't normally happen, atheism isn't a
religion, we don't go banging on doors etc etc):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fic56JN7aIw
Look out for the religious tolerance, where one guy hits John Safran with
a garden rake.
|
Thanks for that........ good fun..
Is it just me or do others get frustrated beyond belief by the responses to
examples of *christian* behaviour in others...
It's impossible to draw a pattern but we hear, read and see evidence from
four corners of the world of the behaviour of so called christians ranging
from spoken abuse, through physical violence and right up to child/adult
abuse and even killing all in the defence of this superstition.... only to
be told by *other* christians that these perpetrators are not *really*
christians....!
It frustrates the hell out of me..
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
mark wrote:
| Quote: |
It is sad that mangled snippets of really fascinating science are being
posted here in some sort of appeal to the argument from personal
incredulity, which in any case isn't a valid logical argument.
Well, how about some cohesive, intelligent, reasoned thought.... as opposed
to just cut & paste ..?
It's argument from some others' perspective... it's sort of meaningless
really..
|
... or even argument in support of their own position, instead of
sniping at science?
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
IlBeBauck@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
On Jun 24, 5:12 pm, "mark" <no-oneh...@noads.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
X-No-Archive: yes
IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0352cb5e-85f0-47bf-a809-cabfee49430a@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 1:45 pm, Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
Complex Molecules and Organs 4
b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity
of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse
types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for
evolution.
One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in
fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-
Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]
Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size,
extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very
early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated
designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only
the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some
trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all
directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton,
“A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19
September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat
of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd
edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.]
Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye
lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes:
An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2
February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early
trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or
acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear
‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of
the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,”
Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]
The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part
of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of
a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that
acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of
nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array
of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists
had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once
again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.”
Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August
2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed
today’s technology.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873
REPLY: Accidents, nothing but bloody useless accidents ! Is that
all mankind really is ?! Just a chance fluke from some accident Pond
Scum ? It works well for the person who wants to live as they like
doesnt it ?
Instead of asking questions........ you should attempt to answer those
posed to you.....
However, mankind is NO accident... it's a prelonged evolution that is a
selection process..... a natural selection.... established, proved and
without doubt....
It's no accident......
AS so many of your obtuse and confused ideas show, you are incapable of
understanding and comprehending facts and evidence. The problem is
you..........
You actually, although you cannot see this, have need of psychological and
psychiatric treatment..
Mark- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
REPLY: This 'natural selection' is the biggest misnomer ever
invented ; it is the dream of a 19th century scientist who had his
own personal problems with God. The way you describe Natural
'Selection' , you give credence to some intelligence being involved.
There is NO intelligence whatsoever involved . In fact, it is
mutational accidents upon accidents ... every centimeter of the
way.... that we are supposed to believe occured. 10^40,000 th
probability from an Atheist world reknown Scientist indicates that it
aint me who needs the psychiatric treatment ; it is those who espouse
desperate religious ideas posing as real science ! You dont have
that much FAITH Mark, and never could. So, why dont you want God to
be real in your life ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ken
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
On Jun 25, 4:22 am, "A Trolling Webtv Fuckhead wrote:
The same bullcrap this fuckwit ALWAYS spouts without ANY supporting
evidence other than his own fundamentalistic delusions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mark
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
<IlBeBauck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96a160cd-8158-4493-9d64-a56d2c348d82@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 5:12 pm, "mark" <no-oneh...@noads.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Instead of asking questions........ you should attempt to answer those
posed to you.....
However, mankind is NO accident... it's a prelonged evolution that is a
selection process..... a natural selection.... established, proved and
without doubt....
It's no accident......
AS so many of your obtuse and confused ideas show, you are incapable of
understanding and comprehending facts and evidence. The problem is
you..........
You actually, although you cannot see this, have need of psychological and
psychiatric treatment..
|
**********
REPLY: This 'natural selection' is the biggest misnomer ever
invented ; it is the dream of a 19th century scientist who had his
own personal problems with God. The way you describe Natural
'Selection' , you give credence to some intelligence being involved.
There is NO intelligence whatsoever involved . In fact, it is
mutational accidents upon accidents ... every centimeter of the
way.... that we are supposed to believe occured. 10^40,000 th
probability from an Atheist world reknown Scientist indicates that it
aint me who needs the psychiatric treatment ; it is those who espouse
desperate religious ideas posing as real science ! You dont have
that much FAITH Mark, and never could. So, why dont you want God to
be real in your life ?
***********
As if to confirm my point with ease, you demonstrate exactly the
pyschological problem (s) I referred to...... namely, you are unable to
accept reality - rejecting evidence and facts in favour of supporting a
superstition. Treatment is actually what YOU need....
Just to further this point of not being able to accept presented and known
facts - which in their turn, create some reality to the world you exist in..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060224090021.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402071538.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024083652.htm
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/515537/
Just a snapshot, nothing in particular, of the evidence from scientific
research that PROVES evolution from natural selection...
There are masses, literally thousands, of documented research papers, that
explain the FACTS.
Your illness may prevent you from reading, understanding and then accepting
the facts....but facts they are.
You are not the first, and will not be the last, person to live their life
in a cocooned, unreal existence that denies how things are because they
contradict some irrational, pyschologically constructed belief system. It's
Walter Mitty land and the Emperors New Clothes all wrapped up into one....
Believe in some superstitious deity if you wish, that's your perogative,
but don't push your belief down the throats of others OR, much more
importantly, ignore or deny facts when given to you..
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mark
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
<IlBeBauck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96a160cd-8158-4493-9d64-a56d2c348d82@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 5:12 pm, "mark" <no-oneh...@noads.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
X-No-Archive: yes
Instead of asking questions........ you should attempt to answer those
posed to you.....
However, mankind is NO accident... it's a prelonged evolution that is a
selection process..... a natural selection.... established, proved and
without doubt....
It's no accident......
AS so many of your obtuse and confused ideas show, you are incapable of
understanding and comprehending facts and evidence. The problem is
you..........
You actually, although you cannot see this, have need of psychological and
psychiatric treatment..
|
**************
REPLY: This 'natural selection' is the biggest misnomer ever
invented ; it is the dream of a 19th century scientist who had his
own personal problems with God. The way you describe Natural
'Selection' , you give credence to some intelligence being involved.
There is NO intelligence whatsoever involved . In fact, it is
mutational accidents upon accidents ... every centimeter of the
way.... that we are supposed to believe occured. 10^40,000 th
probability from an Atheist world reknown Scientist indicates that it
aint me who needs the psychiatric treatment ; it is those who espouse
desperate religious ideas posing as real science ! You dont have
that much FAITH Mark, and never could. So, why dont you want God to
be real in your life ?
**************
Oh, here's another little interesting piece.
Stick with it...... just under 10 minutes, around 4 minutes in you'll get
the the evidence for evolution from jawless fish to human followed by some
death blows to the nonsens of creationism...
Now dilv, you are going to HAVE to watch this to be presented with some
facts.. ignoring it, or discounting it, or just not bothering re-inforces
the paranoid delusion from which. it appears, you are suffering.
Then after you've watched it, perhaps you'll post your response with answers
to the facts therein..?
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
70 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
