Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

what if

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    2,814
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    109

Everything posted by what if

  1. what if

    Covid ... we blew it

    i completely agree. i got my first shot just a few hours before i was to turn in for the night and i slept like a baby. i woke up the next morning invigorated, ready to take on godzilla himself, i even met vice president putin.
  2. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    for those that thinks this "supernatural" stuff is so much nonsense: "I worked with a seller who claimed their house was haunted by a ghost who lived in the basement," says Jennifer Stauter Kornstedt, a Zillow Premier Agent in Wisconsin. "When I arrived for the open house, I heard banging noises coming from the basement. I went to investigate but could not find the source of the noise. Then the phone rang three times with only static on the other end." Stauter Kornstedt says she and the seller agreed to disclose the creepy companion to any potential buyer even though they didn't have to under to Wisconsin law. Ultimately, the homeowners decided to stay in their house, but Stauter Kornstedt says she's been spooked ever since. http://zillow.mediaroom.com/2019-10-29-Selling-a-Haunted-House-Heres-What-You-Need-to-Know the important thing to remember is there are laws on the books concerning this stuff. you simply CANNOT ascribe that to fantasy.
  3. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    good. i'm glad we got that cleared up. evolution is one of those words that needs to be hung by the neck until dead, simply because every time it is uttered it almost invariably needs provisioned. it means this on monday, that on tuesday, and some else on wednesday. regardless of what you may think, atoms and molecules follow rules and laws, no manner of gods, rain dances, voo doo, or witchcraft is going to change that. it's the job of science to find these laws. if there is indeed a god then science will never solve abiogenesis, and so far, a solution isn't even on the horizon. i'll try to keep that in mind.
  4. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    think? what do you mean by "think"? are you telling me that creationist do not agree with MICRO EVOLUTION? evolution is a bonefide, dyed in the wool FACT. the problem you seem to be having is with MACRO evolution, and NOWHERE do i say MACRO EVOLUTION is a fact. furthermore, the EVIDENCE for macro evolution doesn't exist either. okay, i'll cede this point to you. i have indeed made various claims about the workings of the cell. 2 of them were the cellular restart and the exact same genome can give rise to a great many life forms. i made these claims based on how i pictured evolution and both turned out to be correct. this implies to me that my idea has merit and is most probably correct. with this in mind i've made other claims about evolution such as the sandbox concept and the "reject map" concept. i've yet to see any confirmation of these last 2. is this what you are talking about? also, i'm working on the premise that the cell isn't intelligent but operates on a program instead. plus, in my opinion epigenetics and regulatory networks make use of so called junk DNA, both in the construction of the networks themselves and in rapid evolution such as immunity. now tell me, how much of the above has been verfied? only the first 2 i mentioned. as crazy as it sounds i seem to have an instinctual feel for this stuff. why is that? i've thrown darwin out the window that's why. well that's the job of science, to make discoveries. aren't you just a teeny bit curious as to how the cell came together? you say you are a man of science, how can you NOT be curious about this stuff? so, let's not chastise those that DO look for the answers. koonin agrees with you. let's see, oh yeah, he called it a victorian concept that belongs in a museum. well, like it or not, evolution is a fact.* now, before you go judging that comment, MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE, you aren't judging it through those darwinian glasses you seem to be constantly wearing. * every time i say this are you going to force me to include the atoms to man scenario has not been demonstrated nor is there any evidence for macro evolution?
  5. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    an even BIGGER part of the problem is that you are stuck in that no mans land of darwnism. i DO NOT see evolution as darwinism, it's FAR more complex than "genetic mutation/ natural selection" in fact, that phrase needs to be banished from the theory in my opinion. you are probably picturing the cell as some simple blueprint that governs everything, and it isn't. the cell is nothing short of a full blown genetics engineering lab. tell me, just how complex would such a lab be mike? what exactly are you thinking when you read my posts? from everything i know about evolution, NONE of it discounts a god, NONE OF IT. the existence of evil does FAR more at discounting god than evolution. sometimes i feel like rowing over there on my 2 by 4 and beating you with it. i think you can tell by the aggregate of my posts that i'm NOT anti god. just try to relax, eh?
  6. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    i honestly don't know what to say anymore on this site. i have REPEATEDLY said science has no clue as to how the first cells arrived here. i have REPEATEDLY said that science has NO EVIDENCE for how phyla arrived here. these are the facts. how mike twists this around to "bare assertions" is anyones guess.
  7. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    your entire post is based on these first 2 sentences, and it's a strawman. my actual quote is: how would you like to hear this? "god created all the animals"? i would imagine that it's your type of idiocy that the men of science has envisioned to put up a "united front" against. i have. paper after paper after paper after paper. i'm sorry if none of them contain the phrase "god created all the animals".
  8. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    i must provision my last post. science has not solved the atoms to man scenario. science has not solved, nor has evidence for, how phyla arrived here. this, in my opinion, is what is generally called macro evolution.
  9. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    evolution as i know it is a reality, no question about it. the major issue here is abiogenesis and to a lessor extent LUCA. (how it all started) in this regard science is at a complete loss to explain how the first cell arrived here. science knows that the first cells were more complex than the bacteria of today and have even surmised they might not have been anything resembling cells. i know this much, and any chemistry teacher will verify it, proteins for a given task did not gradually evolve, it's either all or nothing. this implies not one mutation at a time but a great many of them consisting of the correct amino acids and the right locations and often at the right time. the chances of this happening for just one protein are astronomical. those that think the cell "gradually" arrived here are wholly misinformed. but yes, once the cell arrived evolution is a fact, no question about it. you only need to realize just how incredibly complex the cell is.
  10. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    i think the issue is being muddled. science is nothing more or less than simply finding the laws and rules that model reality as we know it. whether there is a god or not does nothing to alter that. the thing that bothers me is whether creationists or atheists will influence the judgement of science. we are already seeing this sort of thing in peer review when "allusions to ID" gets removed from science papers. we also see this sort of thing with phrases such as "forming a united front against the creationists". this is plain wrong. we see this sort of thing when we see creationists referred to as "nutters" and "wing nuts". this isn't science, science couldn't care less if you believed in a god. i firmly believe that this aversion to creationists has hampered science in regards to evolution because certain discoveries has been dismissed because they "alluded to ID".
  11. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    not as darwin envisioned it. darwin envisioned a simple process, and evolution is very far from simple. atoms formed simple molecules which combined to form more complex molecules which combined to form a "proto cell" which was the mother of all life. the above process, although simple in theory, is fatally flawed. science has concluded that the first cell, the alleged "proto cell" (AKA LUCA) was more complex than existing bacteria of today. i believe this is a subtle attempt of science at admitting the cell is indeed irreducibly complex. i'm not sure what all of this ultimately means but i AM sure the darwin crowd aren't too happy about it.
  12. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    i noticed the same thing after i read the post a few times. it's a well known fact that the result of a chemical reaction seldom exhibits any of the properties of the starting material. this alone is one of the major stumbling blocks to proteins "gradually evolving". proteins suited for a given task do not "gradually" arrive here, it's all or nothing. anyone with a good high school understanding of chemistry will recognize this fact. i also noticed you didn't address the second part of the post concerning catalysis. i put the numbers in to make it easier to address. 1. abiogenesis is defined by the rules and laws of chemistry, not by "science". for example, the "science" of aerodynamics has nothing whatsoever to do with abiogenesis. in order to be correct number 1 should read: 1. abiogenesis is defined by the rules and laws of chemistry. 2. It is possible there is no methodologically natural cause for evolution's common ancestor of life. incorrect, it is NOT possible for atoms and molecules to react that do not follow rules and laws. we might discover a new law or rule during this process but it would apply to similar atoms and molecules. we cannot escape this. this is the MAJOR REASON science has been unable to duplicate abiogenesis. this is why science has concluded that the cell HAD to be complex from the get go. 3. If there is no actual science cause for evolution's ancestor of life then that ancestor is not science. i believe you are using incorrect terminology, you keep referring to "science" but the correct term is "the rules and laws of chemistry". you might not be aware of this but science has already concluded that the "proto cell" that gradually evolved into todays life forms didn't exist, it was ALREADY complex, simply because science cannot throw the rules and laws of chemistry out the window whenever it suited them. 4. If a common ancestor is not science, then it follows evolution cannot be my analysis would be the cell uses a "reject map" to keep track of what works and what doesn't, then uses this information to catalyze macro evolution. this analysis is supported by the fact that almost all phyla appeared suddenly during the cambrian. conclusion: i feel your analysis is flawed due to the fact you are juxtiposing "science" with the "rules and laws of chemistry".
  13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0PoHkHOSKA
  14. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    to a certain degree yes. of course this only applies to something you have to NOT to believe ( other than words such as ridiculous or ludicrous). for example in my opinion, you personally have no reason to not believe in god simply because you find the concept absurd. and i'll wholeheartedly agree with that, but there are other intangibles that you are either missing or dismissing. if you are missing them then you are ignorant, if you are dismissing them then you are biased and bigoted. i cannot explain to you what these intangibles are, you must experience them for yourself. but i do know this, science is not the end all be all of knowledge. in my opinion all things are possible until i find a good reason to rule them out, and i've found no reason to rule out god. you are probably sitting there thinking "but it's so absurd" and i'll agree with you, but there are other things equally absurd that are verified facts. just a little something for you to chew on. this is probably one of the reasons i've been labeled as a closet creationist.
  15. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    like i said before, this goes beyond something i can adequately explain. it displays a certain closed minded attitude, biased and bigoted. i don't care what science has told you, the universe and everything in it DID NOT come from nothing. yes, yes, yes, they have pages and pages of arcane mathematical proofs that "demonstrates" it did, but like i pointed out above this kind of "proof" can indeed be meaningless. if you have spent as much time as i have frying your brain over this stuff you will definitely see that time, life, and the universe are connected by a common thread, you cannot pull on one without affecting the others.
  16. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    good question. i'm not so sure you can. for example, you have 2 gases O2, H2 (oxygen and hydrogen) that when you combine them will result in an explosion but yet their product is water which is incapable of supporting an explosion. is it logical to assume the result from the starting material? is it logical for catalysts to play a larger role in organic chemistry than in inorganic chemistry although they both follow the same rules and laws? i constantly run into this type of thing and it's a strawman type of reasoning. for example i'll present an argument against natural selection, this will be twisted around to i'm a creationist, evolution denier, anti science, ignorant, uneducated, the list goes on ad nausem, the material i present will likely not even be addressed and if by chance it is i misunderstood it, the author didn't mean what he said, the author retracted, i find it amazing the mental contortions these people will resort to. this is EXACTLY the type of garbage mclintock and others like her had to endure. the really unfortunate part is, it's effective. mclintock quite publishing her work because of it and it's highly likely why waddingtons work was ignored.
  17. recycle those plastic bottles. some of these are pretty clever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWTKBGnndrg
  18. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    "atheist" is probably the most disgusting word i've ever heard. there isn't a true scientist alive that will stand up there and say "there is no god". as a matter of fact i believe the reason someone wants to turn this into "a war" is that science is keenly aware of the non linear side of physics, of things that lack an adequate explanation. in short, they are worried, worried the world will find out that life was born complex, the alleged "proto cell" is a joke. for the life of me, and i've given it my best shot, i cannot rule out god, yes it's about as ridiculous as it can get but i cannot deny the evidence either. what evidence you say? like i said, there are things which simply cannot be explained and this is one of them. ridiculous you say? since when did that prevent you from believing the effects precede the cause? but, but, but, we have the math to prove it ! i have the math to prove mandelbox too, except it cannot exist.
  19. what if

    We're Being Talked About

    oh my, here we go. talk about cherry picking, i guess this guy forgot to consider my posts here i have openly stated more than 10 times i thought the god concept was ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous, and irrational. i guess he just focused on the posts where i said i simply couldn't throw the concept out of the window. it always amazes me how such people can embrace the absurdities of quantum physics such as the effects preceding the cause but ignore other absurdities because they simply don't want to believe them. closet creationist, yup i've heard it before. at least i'm not a rigid, close minded stick in the mud. i gotta check out that thread to see what's up.
  20. what if

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    NASA could prove conclusively that we went to the moon by performing a relatively simple experiment. that would be by launching a satellite designed by a group of universities and having the downlink sent DIRECTLY to those universities. so far, NASA has not done that. i don't know, something about this just doesn't make sense. there is no question in my mind that we had the capability to get there. why wouldn't we go if we had the capability to do so? there are only 2 reasons i can think of 1. radiation. 2. once on the moon we didn't have the capability to get them back. the problem is, both of these have a work around. we could have assembled a heavier craft in LEO but this would require multiple launchings and would take longer than the 10 year span envisioned by kennedy.
  21. what if

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    here is a 3 hour 30 minute video that has a lot of information relevant to the moon hoax. there are a number of things i find curious but what interests me the most is presented at 1:56:15. wires on the moon in my opinion this looks highly suspicious. keep in mind that this is official NASA footage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=KpuKu3F0BvY&feature=emb_logo
  22. what if

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    kennedy was also entertaining the idea that the US and russia pool their efforts to go to the moon, which makes him a TRIPLE satanist. the man was downright evil !
  23. what if

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    sorry KB, JPL isn't now nor was it ever managed by NASA. the same can be said of grumman, boeing, and an entire horde of sub contractors. what about REAL influences such as von braun? this man was a bonifide hard core nazi SS. 100's of concentration camp workers died in his fabrication facilities of peemunde. what happened when he came here? he renounced ALL of that and practically transformed huntsville. this is all a matter of the public record of the history of huntsville and i suggest you educate yourself before you go throwing wild butt claims around like so much sand.
  24. what if

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    i found a couple of files that goes into the origins of NASA and how it all came about. both are NASA monographs. monograph 2 an annoted bibliography of the apollo program (NASA-TM-109852) by roger d. launius and j. d. hunley this publication has an entire chapter dedicated to NASA management. monograph 8 legislative origins of the national aeronautics and space act of 1958. this file specifically discusses how the space act came about. i have both of these files but i can't seem to be able to delete previous uploads. -
  25. what if

    Covid ... we blew it

    i'm a skeptic. then again i probably wouldn't get too worried about it until bodies start getting stacked up like firewood along the streets. one of the reasons i don't get too worked up about it is because the locals here simply don't wear their masks, even the cops don't wear any but you are expected to follow social distancing while in their offices. plus i have no need to go out and about except to pay my bills and do a little grocery shopping, which i try to do in as few trips as possible. cabin fever forces me out of the house at night to drive around the country. i have a few friends i help out with transportation and none of them wear masks, their kid has to for school though. i don't know, it's really hard for me to get all agog over covid, especially when i read it isn't easily transmitted between people.
×

Important Information

Our Terms