Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

what if

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


what if last won the day on May 29

what if had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

319 Excellent

1 Follower

About what if

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)

Recent Profile Visitors

511 profile views
  1. what if

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    dad, the pioneer and voyager anomalies are very real. they used the term "dark matter/ energy" because they didn't know what it was. it wasn't invented whole cloth because it indeed had an effect on those probes. i see. my opinion? you are here for the express purpose of making creationists look like babbling idiots. go away and please do not respond to any more of my posts. i'm sorry if that offends you.
  2. what if

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    it all boils down to cause and effect. you find a piece of your prized china laying on the floor shattered into a hundred pieces. what will be your first thought? "i've sinned now god is punishing me"? or are you going to take a more rational approach so you can prevent such things in the future? science works on rules and laws. it's because of these rules and laws that we were able to detect the undetectable dark matter/ dark energy. science was completely unaware of this phenomena until it started collecting telemetry from space probes such as pioneer and voyager. after a certain length of time these probes wasn't where calculations said they should be. there appeared to be some sort of "drag" involved. now, what should science do in this case? say something like "well god is doing it" or try to ascertain what this "mysterious substance" is? it's a good bet that science will go back and re-analyze everything it knows in regards to matter instead of throwing up its hands and saying "god did it, game over". this is the nature of science. also, don't be fooled into thinking that science has an answer for everything, because it doesn't. the nature of life is one such area. science has no idea what life is except to point to a living cell and say "that's life". the nature of time is another area that science can't deal with effectively. random events is yet another area that science can't deal with. it's important to keep this stuff in mind. one other thing, science is NEUTRAL on the concept of god. dawkins, and others like him, would like you believe that science is atheist in nature, and it isn't. there is no "war" between the two, nor are they at odds with one another. as a matter of fact our current animal classification scheme was created by a creationist and it has remained the de facto standard even in the face of modern biomolecular discoveries. james tour is another world renowned creationist scientist and is considered in the top 10 of the worlds biomolecular chemists.
  3. some of those positions would require "special knowledge" yes. for example knowing the various paint codes. but most would be of a generic type. running a punch press for example. the fact of the matter is that ford didn't even attempt this.
  4. what if

    My I.D Syllogism

    heh, the last time i pm'ed you it went on for 13 pages.
  5. what if

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    and that right there is the dilemma mike. even science had to concede that life didn't arise by some random process, i've posted the link stating such.
  6. what if

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    i can't imagine a time or place where 2+2 doesn't equal 4. also, i'm not on this site to argue for or against a god. i am basically here to kick the modern synthesis in the face.
  7. what if

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    the cell can best be envisioned by a computer and the program it runs.
  8. what if

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    yeah, you are getting close to the idea.
  9. what if

    My I.D Syllogism

    i apologize. it's just being cooped up in this house is making me nuts. my tight financial situation doesn't help. as you may or may not know, there is no evidence of which came first prokaryote or eukaryote. this is one example of conjecture becoming chiseled in stone fact. it's being depicted in this manner to show increasing complexity. also, this is one reason "evolution from the first cell" should be separate from "abiogenesis". from what i've learned about the workings of the cell, evolution is a no brainer. the real question is how (abiogenesis) this was accomplished. it's really no different than a group of light switches beating a grand master champion. one you understand that those light switches are being manipulated by a very complex program then the answer is obvious. the same thing applies to the cell. this is the primary reason darwinism is being defended so vigorously, it HAS to be kept simple, and the cell is very far from simple. don't worry mike, i haven't seen anything that rules out a god. you would be hard pressed to find in my 1800 or so posts where i said i believed in macro-evolution.
  10. what if

    My I.D Syllogism

    i don't remember making an argument. i've posted my view of how the cell might work and i've supported that view with links to various science sources. i'm confident that the view i have is correct, regardless of how you feel about the subject. you mean . . . we aren't really here???? i have REPEATEDLY stated that science has NO CLUE how life arrived here. i have recently provided a link that science has even given up on the random chemistry bit. IOW, the cell DID NOT simply bootstrap itself from a pond of random reactions. so don't come at me like i am "this" or "that".
  11. what if

    My I.D Syllogism

    because i kicked darwinism out the door, that's how. until you fully realize just how complex the eukaryote cell is then you can never understand my position. and i haven't the patience to try and explain it to you. edit: BTW, the very thing you rail against happens every time a female becomes pregnant. also, your original premise was microbe to man, then it all of a sudden shifted to a matter of abiogenesis. please don't bother me with such nonsense blitz, you know full well i have been brutally honest in the area of evolution.
  12. what if

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    dad, origins sciences? there are various ideas on how things came to be. but that's all they are, ideas. the current model is the "big bang" model but it has various problems. all science can really do is ascertain what is being observed today and try to fit it all together into some coherent model. where it all came from, or where it will end up, is unknown. as to the origins of life, it too has so far eluded a solution. science has no idea what life is except to point to a living cell and say "that's life". science has no idea how life arrived here but it HAS concluded it didn't happen by any kind of "random chemistry". IOW, science has basically come to the conclusion that life DID NOT simply arise from a pond of goo. so, what exactly is the story here? for a scientist, this sort of thing is enough to drive a person crazy.
  13. what if

    My I.D Syllogism

    i hate to disagree with blitz and killur but once the eukaryote cell (a microbe) arrived on the scene, then the microbe to man scenario becomes a definite reality. this however doesn't come close to explaining how the cell arrived here. the matter of HOW this was achieved is unknown, science has no explanation for it and is at a total loss at how it was achieved
  14. what if

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    this is the major complain i have against dawkins and others of his ilk. they try to portray science as some kind of "anti god" paradigm, and it isn't. science, at its core, is a method of ascertaining a model of our reality. it is very good at determining things that are tangible, not so good at things that are not. time is one such intangible, and science can't really tell you what it is. god is another intangible that science simply cannot deal with. there are quite a few things like this that science simply can't deal with effectively. dawkins and others like him takes this opportunity to turn science into some kind of anti religious paradigm and it simply isn't true. i think it is disgusting how science is being used in this manner.
  15. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/30/george-floyd-protests-riots-violent-outside-agitators-minnesota/5291658002/ why doesn't the media report this for what it is? it's flat out TERRORISM. shortly after 911 our leaders put in place strong measures to fight this type of nonsense but it was systematically gutted by various lawmakers. to them i ask, are you happy? put your thumbs in your suspenders and tell everyone how proud you are.

Important Information

Our Terms