An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Community Team, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

While there is certainly proof that mutations do occur in nature; There is absolutely no real evidence to support the theory of evolution at this time (for over the past 150 years of "Dino-digging"). Including the sedimentary column.
18
27%
There probably is evidence to support this theory, yet scientist are at a loss to explain it appropriately.
17
26%
Scientist are great at making shit up when they have no evidence to prove something that is false to begin with.
8
12%
I believe in Santa. He's a real person that lives all the way deep at the north pole and brings me presents every year. The presents prove that he's real. I also leave him milk and cookies to snack on and while I don't ever see him, I just know with all my heart, that he is the one who eats all the cookies and milk. Or, I wish I had a dogasaur like Dino.
23
35%
 
Total votes : 66

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Lootifer on Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:46 pm

Holy crapsticks Viccy my man; if you aren't going to be quiet could you at the least take a course in plain english?
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Symmetry on Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:31 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Now we are expected to believe that the whale actually evolved from land mammals who found the waters more enticing as a food source?

Yes, basically.

isn't that like reverse evolution?

No.

They can't make up their minds which is better for survival, in the water, out of the water?

Where and how survival is easiest depends on circumstances, and circumstances can and do change. It's called "evolutionary pressure" iirc.



Your main problem is that you think evolution should be like a lot of parallel lines, neatly progressing from one species through intermediate forms to another species. It's actually closer to a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.


Kudos on the Dr Who reference.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Timminz on Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:31 pm

Image
jay_a2j wrote:lets not be so quick to judge Hitler
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store
Medals: 55
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:28 am

Timminz wrote:Image


Perhaps you are just trying to keep the conversation going but posting a photo of a magazine that publishes articles for money is not evidence. If I were paid to, I would also say that evolution is a real science. But thankfully I am not at the point in my life where I would sell out my principles and the truth for a mere loaf of bread. Yet I understand that in this world there are people who would sell their very souls for even less.

Here are the facts in case you are interest. The following is a very condensed version of the 14 facts posted in my Original Post. This condensed version posted below can be read in it's entirety at...

evolution-facts.org

The Best Examples of Evolution have Proven Worthless

In all the other "evidences of evolution" which we have examined in this book, we have not found one indication of any transition across species.

But, the evolutionists tell us that, in the fossil record, there are TWO times when one species evolved into another. These are considered very important, and have been widely publicized, so we shall discuss each one now in some detail:

Eohippus and the Horse Series

1 - THE HORSE SERIES
30 DIFFERENT HORSES—

In the 1870s, *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged these fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were put on display at Yale University. Copies of this "horse series" are to be found in many museums in the United States and overseas. Visually, it looks convincing.

"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."
—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

FOURTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES—

When we investigate this so-called "horse series" carefully, we come upon 14 distinct problems that negate the possibility that we have here a genuine series of evolved horses. We discover that the evolutionists have merely selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from small to large, and then called it all "a horse series."

1 - Different animals in each series.

In the horse-series exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits in the museums—with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

2 - Imaginary, not real.

The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.

3 - Number of rib bones

. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern horse.

4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types

of teeth between these two basic types.

5 - Not from in-order strata.

The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)

6 - Calling a badger a horse.

The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have suction cups on their feet!)

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus), is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."
—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.

7 - Horse series exists only in museums.

A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.

8 - Each one distinct from others.

There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.

[Note]
The Horse Exhibit claims that the evolution of the horse occurred over a period of 55 million years. Apparently they have at least, approximately 20 different horses over a 55 million year period. This is unheard of in Archeology but what is really unheard of is the selection of fossilized bones. That there are only 30 different horses over 55 million years is way too selective. If they have that many horses, then why not just one example of intermediate species between each horse? To say that each horse is an intermediate species to the next is not gradual evolution over millions of years or just plain logical. You just don't go from dog to horse in 30 simple steps. Why then would that require 55 million years?
-Viceroy63

9 - Bottom found at the top.

Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis.

10 - Gaps below as well as above.

Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.

11 - Recent ones below earlier ones.

In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.

12 - Never found in consecutive strata.

Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.

13 - Heavily keyed to size.

The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size; and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly horses.

14 - Bones, an inadequate basis.

In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together.

A STUDY IN CONFUSION—

In view of all the evidence against the horse series as a valid line of upward-evolving creatures (changing ribs, continental and strata locations), Britannica provides us with an understatement:

"The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line."—*Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.

Scientists protest such foolishness:

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."
—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . .

[Note]
Just to make this part even more clear, some of the early horses are more complicated in design and function then the simpler and more modern day horses. This would suggest a de-evolutionary process and not an evolutionary one.
-Viceroy63

As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."
—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

"Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.’

"When scientists speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth, he then contradicted himself.

". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."
—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

EOHIPPUS, A "LIVING FOSSIL"—

*Hitching has little to say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary transition:

"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."
—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

NOT A HORSE AT ALL—

(*#2/11 The Horse Series*) Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus has nothing to do with horses.

"In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse."
—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969), p. 149.

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."
—*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—

*David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."
—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family."
—*The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.

NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE—

A leading 20th-century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series:

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."
—*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Earlier, *Simpson said this:

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."
—*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

SAME GAPS APPLY TO ALL OTHERS—

The same gap problem would apply to all the other species. After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then gives the startling admission:

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

OTHER SERIES—

(*#4/2 Other Series*) In addition to the Horse (Equus) Series, there are five other primary series which have been worked out by dedicated evolutionists, all of which are much less well-known or publicized.

These are the Elephant (Proboscidean) Series, the Titanotheres Series, the Ceratopsian dinosaur Series, the Foraminifera Series, and the Bivalve Series.

When one views the charts and pictures of the Horse Series, a common element is noted: Various animals are placed together in the paintings. The common feature is that they all have five characteristics in common: longer than average legs, long body, long neck, long tail, and an elongated head. Placing pictures of several creatures with these five characteristics together—and then adding a short imaginary mane to each—gives the impression that they are all "horse-like." All but one is available for examination only in fossil form.

Then we turn to the Elephant Series, and find that the animals all have a heavy torso with corresponding stouter legs, a drawn-out pig-like or elephant-like nose, and possibly tusks. All but one of the eleven is represented only in fossil imprints or bones. Here is a classic statement by a dedicated evolutionist on the non-existent "Elephant Series."

"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the elephant], where ‘in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.’ "
—*G.A. Kirkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.

The Ceratopsian Series is composed of three dinosaurs with bony armor on the back of the head while two of them have horns in different locations.

The last two, the Foraminifera Series and the Fossil Bivalve (clam) Series, are simply variously shaped shells which look very much alike in size and general appearance.

On one hand, it appears that some of these series are simply different animals with similar appearance tossed together. On the other, the possibility of genetic variation within a species could apply to a number of them. We could get the best series of all out of dogs. There is a far greater number and variety of body shapes among dogs than among any of the above series. Yet we know that the dogs are all simply dogs. Scientists recognize them as belonging to a single species.

[Note]
If all these men of science agree that evolution is not a real science, then why is it being taught in schools and universities as factual science?

Why don't publications such as National Geographic do an expose on such lies and reveal them for what they are, hoaxes perpetrated by charlatans who only desire to line their pockets with money rather than speaking the truth?

Could publications like National Geographic be part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

Why are documentaries still done on evolution and dinosaurs in particular? Could it all be part of a system of entertaining the public and feeding them what they want to believe?

Could we be so ignorant, simply because we choose to be?

Could this explain the title of my Article, "An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance."?

I must now express a theory of my own. Man is such a proud creature that to admit fallibility is beyond his grasp of possibility. He would rather argue to the death an erroneous assumption than to admit that he was wrong; That he believed in a lie. And in a worse case scenario where evidence is presented to support the truth that Man is wrong he will defend his position to the point of cursing and screaming and kicking, insulting the presenter of the errors of his ways and telling him that he is either Stupid for not believing the lie or is just plain ignorant of the truth and that the presenter of the truth is the big bad "Troll" who is doing wrong in Conquer Club forums by posting such contrary points of views.

That's my theory anyway!
-Viceroy63

To Timminz:

Yes; I did post the cover of National Geographic to illustrate the depth of the deception. That it goes as far as even television and Radio with every documentary that is made and every topic of debate exercised. But it was you who posted the larger photo displaying that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Simply put, I had to respond to that.

As to whether or not you or anyone else post of even reads this, it's a win/win situation no matter how you look at it. If I have silence and even anger some with the truth to the point where they say to me, I don't talk to trolls and so I am not posting any more comments then that means that I won my argument with the truth.

But if on the other hand I am some how able to awaken people's consciousness, even if just a little, even if they don't respond out of shame and disgust for having been duped into believing in a lie in the first place, even so then, I would have served a much greater purpose that you or even I myself could imagine. The advancement of the human condition. So it's all win/win babe.

That's the way that I see it anyway. And as for the truly ignorant, let them continue to wallow in their ignorance. I just thank my God that I am not one of them.

As a man lives, so also shall he die.
-Viceroy63.

BTW: I am not trying to bury anything. If anything is true, it's the fact that my comments get buried under a host of negative erroneous words by others. Why would you even make that assumption? But it's all gravy, as it is all written and documented facts on this thread.
Last edited by Viceroy63 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:26 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Timminz on Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:56 am

You were the one who posted the cover. I was simply pointing to the actual article, so as to keep anyone from incorrectly assuming that the article was pointing out legitimate problems with Darwin's theories.

If you weren't trying to bury all that dishonesty in your giant diatribes, then I wouldn't have even have posted at all.
jay_a2j wrote:lets not be so quick to judge Hitler
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5555
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store
Medals: 55
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AAFitz on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:00 am

Viceroy63 wrote:
Timminz wrote:Image


Perhaps you are just trying to keep the conversation going but posting a photo of a magazine that publishes articles for money is not evidence. If I were paid to, I would also say that evolution is a real science. But thankfully I am not at the point in my life where I would sell out my principles and the truth for a mere loaf of bread. Yet I understand that in this world there are people who would sell their very souls for even less.



Whats sad, is you don't realize that's exactly what you have done.

But in this case, all you got paid for your soul was ignorance, ironically enough.
john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"
User avatar
Lieutenant AAFitz
 
Posts: 7222
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 84
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AAFitz on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:08 am

Viceroy63 wrote:Before anyone starts saying that I am attacking scientist and science everywhere let me just say, I am not. But when it comes to the Darwinian theory of evolution that life on this planet arose from lower life forms, that is a flat out lie and it is a documented fact that every single piece of evidence that these evolutionist scientist have put forth in support of the theory of evolution, has either been a terribly bad misrepresentation or a flat out fabrication.


This could not possibly be more of a contradictory statement, and so obviously, that it can only be labeled as unintelligent.
john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"
User avatar
Lieutenant AAFitz
 
Posts: 7222
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 84
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Metsfanmax on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:57 am

Viceroy63 wrote:Perhaps you are just trying to keep the conversation going but posting a photo of a magazine that publishes articles for money is not evidence. If I were paid to, I would also say that evolution is a real science. But thankfully I am not at the point in my life where I would sell out my principles and the truth for a mere loaf of bread. Yet I understand that in this world there are people who would sell their very souls for even less.


You mean like the people who sell out their souls to an invisible sky daddy, based on nothing at all?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Neoteny on Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:12 am

Viceroy, since you seem to have a very poor understanding of what actual scientists know about evolution, and the evolution of horses in particular, I'll provide the link below for your educational purposes.

http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/09/13 ... evolution/

Maybe after you have an idea of what scientists are actually saying about horse phylogeny without the cherry-picking, I would be happy to answer any specific questions you have, though I would prefer to take them one at a time.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Lieutenant Neoteny
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Medals: 29
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby DoomYoshi on Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:38 am

Viceroy, the evolution of the horse family is an old concept. It used to be that eyes were taken as a perfect example of convergent evolution, and now we know that it is divergent evolution. I could bring up old posts about the evolution of eyes, and prove that they are wrong, but why bother? Why not argue against current evidence?

1 - Different animals in each series.

Scientists very often disagree about how a phylogeny fits together. Eventually, a consensus will be reached, but even long accepted phylogenies are frequently overturned. Sometimes they are upheld though (Protostomes and Deuterostomes were predicted by Dev. Biologists and upheld by molecular evidence).

2 - Imaginary, not real.

Oh?

3 - Number of rib bones

This is controlled by a single group of genes called the Hox genes. If you turn one on later, or earlier, the number of rib bones change. It's not as if there is a gene called Rib18 and it turns into Rib19 only.

4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types

Why would there be?...

5 - Not from in-order strata.

Something evolving to be larger doesn't mean it can't later evolve smaller. The whole concept of Natural Selection is that you will evolve to whatever the conditions are, not some ideal form. You must remember that the "goal" of evolution was not to make a perfect Horse. There is no "goal" which is why it is almost impossible to predict what is upcoming.


6 - Calling a badger a horse.

Just because people aren't sure of an exact phylogeny doesn't mean that evolution is wrong.

7 - Horse series exists only in museums.

This really is a weird point. The authors are grasping at straws, to put it politely.

8 - Each one distinct from others.

Once again, I ask you to define intermediate species. Also, I want you to write a list of the exact conditions required for fossilization over millions of years. You need to understand that not everything that dies becomes a fossil.

9 - Bottom found at the top.

FIrst, I repeat that we don't need to know the phylogeny for evolution to be correct. Second, just because one species derives from another doesn't mean that the parent species dies off.

10 - Gaps below as well as above.

At this point, the article becomes trolling. Most of the points are about why constructing phylogenies isn't perfect. I can't find somebody who says they are though.


11 - Recent ones below earlier ones.

This point is exactly the same as point 9.

12 - Never found in consecutive strata.

This is a repeat of point 7.

13 - Heavily keyed to size.

This one is bordering on an outright lie.

14 - Bones, an inadequate basis.

So, what is the point of the preceding 13 arguments. If bones can never find anything, why bother arguing any specifics? Why not just posit: "Since bones are useless for developing phylogenies, no evidence of evolution can ever be found".

VIceroy, you are being scammed. These people are performing a legerdemain by relying on your incomplete knowledge of what is being proposed by evolutionary theories.
show
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class DoomYoshi
Entertainment Coordinator
Entertainment Coordinator
 
Posts: 3872
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (8) Clan Achievement (16)
Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (5)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby betiko on Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:40 am

viceroy do you really expect any credibility after what you just did with the national geographic cover? :lol: :lol:
You show the cover that is only there to sell paper with an impactfull title as a "proof" to your crazy theories, and when someone posts what the article is really about you dare attack them? :lol: :lol:

Hey, so instead of denying the theory of evolution, why don't you explain in details the creationist theory with its evidence, so we can all have a laugh?
Image
User avatar
Brigadier betiko
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 5472
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: Paris
Medals: 157
Conquer Cup Gold Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (17) General Achievement (30) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (2)

Postby 2dimes on Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:50 am

But thankfully I am not at the point in my life where I would sell out my principles and the truth for a mere loaf of bread.


What about a really nice car?
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 3906
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Just out for a rip!
Medals: 6
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Haggis_McMutton on Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:51 am

So it turns out modifying a couple genes to create some more of a certain protein can make fish embryos grow proto-limbs instead of fins: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628955.400-zebrafish-made-to-grow-prehands-instead-of-fins.html

My, my, what will the secret cabal of biologists think of next? Clearly this is a masonic plot to submine our cherished judeo-christian tradition.
Highest score: 3063; Highest position: 67;
Winner of {World War II tournament, -team 2010 Skilled Diversity, [FuN||Chewy]-[XII] USA};
8-3-7
User avatar
Major Haggis_McMutton
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:32 am
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) General Achievement (4)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby DoomYoshi on Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:14 pm

Haggis_McMutton wrote:So it turns out modifying a couple genes to create some more of a certain protein can make fish embryos grow proto-limbs instead of fins: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628955.400-zebrafish-made-to-grow-prehands-instead-of-fins.html

My, my, what will the secret cabal of biologists think of next? Clearly this is a Masonic plot to submine our cherished judeo-christian tradition.


Fixed ;)
show
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class DoomYoshi
Entertainment Coordinator
Entertainment Coordinator
 
Posts: 3872
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (8) Clan Achievement (16)
Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (5)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby jonesthecurl on Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:48 pm

Vicedroy: how old is the universe?
Please avoid a "Wall of text" response, and just give your answer. Let's take one thing at a time.
And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.
User avatar
Sergeant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse
Medals: 19
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:51 pm

Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!

Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...

What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?

Any answer would suffice please.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Lootifer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:07 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!

Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...

What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?

Any answer would suffice please.

We are trying to work out what part of the crazy spectrum you lie on.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:16 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:Any answer would suffice please.





--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25358
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby jonesthecurl on Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:30 pm

Lootifer wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!

Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...

What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?

Any answer would suffice please.

We are trying to work out what part of the crazy spectrum you lie on.


Harshly put, Loot - but yes, Viceroy, that's sort of why I asked.
See, most people who deny evolution think otherwise.
Especially people who urge us to read the bible for ourselves.
But thank you for the straight answer Viceroy.

It has to do with the question of evolution because if (for instance) you accepted the 3000 5000 or 10000 years old doctrine, that would mean that that had to be disposed of first.

OK next question - when did life on Earth begin? It's not a trick question, I'm not fooling, just trying to establish where we stand - and trying to avoid the huge posts which topics like this tend to generate.
And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.
User avatar
Sergeant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse
Medals: 19
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:23 pm

Anyone who really reads and studies the Bible with no bias or preconceived notions will realize that the creation of the earth 6,000 years ago was not the original creation of the earth but a recreation. Most so called "Christians," loose track because they assume that Genesis 1:1 is part of Genesis 1:2 and beyond. And I know that doctrine of a young 6,000 year old earth and how they mix up the words "and it was all Good" and conclude that all must include the universe because of Genesis 1:1, and also how the Sun was "Created" in the 4th day and all of that is explain in the pages of the Bible for serious studiers of the word but I don't subscribe to a young earth because the Bible gives indication that the earth is ancient and old and not 6,000 years young.

We need to keep in mind that man put the chapter and verses there. A Catholic Jesuit Monk in some monastery somewhere just sat down and began numbering the Bible verses and creating the chapters. But the Bible was not written that way. Genesis 1:1 stands alone as a statement of fact. Revealed knowledge that man can have no other way.

In fact if you have an open mind I will show you something right now for you to consider. In Genesis 1:2 it reads...

"And the earth was without form, and void..."
-Genesis 1:2

That word "was" is in the original Hebrew "Hayah" and it can be used in several different ways. It is Strong's Bible Concordance word 1961. It is basically a Verb and as we know a Verb is an Action word and not a descriptive word.

The way it was translated in 1600AD. was the best to their understanding but the majority of the time that word "was" (Hayah) is not used to relay a condition but an event.

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

a) (Qal)

1) -----
a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
b) to come about, come to pass

2) to come into being, become
a) to arise, appear, come
b) to become

1) to become

2) to become like

3) to be instituted, be established

3) to be
a) to exist, be in existence
b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
d) to accompany, be with...

There is more but I think you get the gist. So instead of the verse reading...

"And the earth was without form, and void..."
-Genesis 1:2

It should read...

"And the earth "became" without form, and void..."
-Genesis 1:2

So right there you have a clue that the earth was not created in Genesis 1:2 but was already here because if the earth was created in Genesis 1:2 then how did the earth "Become" and from what and where did the earth become from? The earth was created before Genesis 1:2 and After 1:1.

Hopefully you will understand what I just wrote.

So if the earth was already here and if the earth is ancient as the Bible indicates in other verses; in the Psalms and Job among others, then why could it not have life on it. Just not Modern man. Modern man is a modern creation made after the God kind 6,000 years ago. All other creations were made after their kind. But if they never existed before 6,000 years ago, then what "Kind" is the Bible referring to?

Can you answer me that?

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."
-Genesis 1:12

Incidentally some teach that the word "Kind" means family as in the dog kind but that is just one use for the word. A word like most Hebrew words that have multiple uses. I mean this in the sense that when it reads "after their kind" it is reading "in accordance to their families or species." But another use is "type of." So grass was created after the type of grass that had already existed before the destruction of the earth which also caused mass extinctions. Including the grass "kind."

And an indication of this is the use of the word, "his" kind and not "their" kind. Their kind would tend to indicate species while his kind tends to indicate type of. So that a blade of grass is created after his kind/type of. Just in case you look this up and try and give me this as an answer.

betiko wrote:so if we are made "after god's kind" why do we have a coccyx? answer this simple question.
Why would we have a tale residius on our asses? why did god create us with that shit? why was "god" himself created with that shit if we were "created" after his kind?
Why do we have 5 toes per feet, when clearly they could be better designed?
If we are made after god's kind, how come our 5 senses suck that much compared to other animals?
Given how insignificant is our galaxy on the scale of the universe, do you think god would have that much time to spend on it, and create all those species? I mean our galaxy on the scale of the universe is so small that even an electron compared to our human scale would be huge. Not to mention how our planet is shit nothing on the scale of our galaxy. There is probably life out there on trillions of planets/moons, which %agewise would be absolutely nothing compared to the total amount of planets/moons existing. Do you really think we are special in the universe? How can a god so weak as the one described in the bible could have influence elsewhere than in the solar system?


You are asking all kinds of question that show how much you don't know. Unfortunately you don't want to learn because if you did you would find the answers for yourself. But I will explain what I meant by man being made after the God kind. First of all I said that and not the Bible. The Bible reads "Image and Likeness" of God.

All of creation, plants and animals, were created after their kind. If God had said the same thing about Man, 6,000 years ago, "Let us make man after his kind," then the only creature that would have been created would have been Neanderthal man, again. Modern man was created in the image of God and not after the man kind and this gave us a form of intelligence that the animal and vegetable kingdom does not possess. Because we possess this special intelligence (because we are modern man in the image of God) we can grow and created in ways that no other species can. This is what I meant by man being created after the God kind.

We are not stupid animal neanderthal man, but God like man, so we are able to go beyond what animals can do. Neanderthal man could never write books or go to the moon or create Music or art, but we, man in God's image, can do all of that and much more.
Last edited by Viceroy63 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:53 am, edited 6 times in total.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Lootifer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:43 pm

Sounds a bit silly. God should join you in your plain english classes.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Metsfanmax on Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:51 pm

A useful chart, for Viceroy's benefit:

Click image to enlarge.
image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby betiko on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:43 pm

so if we are made "after god's kind" why do we have a coccyx? answer this simple question.
Why would we have a tale residius on our asses? why did god create us with that shit? why was "god" himself created with that shit if we were "created" after his kind?
Why do we have 5 toes per feet, when clearly they could be better designed?
If we are made after god's kind, how come our 5 senses suck that much compared to other animals?
Given how insignificant is our galaxy on the scale of the universe, do you think god would have that much time to spend on it, and create all those species? I mean our galaxy on the scale of the universe is so small that even an electron compared to our human scale would be huge. Not to mention how our planet is shit nothing on the scale of our galaxy. There is probably life out there on trillions of planets/moons, which %agewise would be absolutely nothing compared to the total amount of planets/moons existing. Do you really think we are special in the universe? How can a god so weak as the one described in the bible could have influence elsewhere than in the solar system?
Image
User avatar
Brigadier betiko
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 5472
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: Paris
Medals: 157
Conquer Cup Gold Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (17) General Achievement (30) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:48 am

Viceroy63 wrote:[ .

Here are the facts in case you are interest. The following is a very condensed version of the 14 facts posted in my Original Post. This condensed version posted below can be read in it's entirety at...
.

The problem is what you posted were NOT facts, are not accurate. You accuse us of pushing things put out for money.

I am posting information I have seen myself... anyone who has read much of my writing knows I am NOT benefitting from my education. In fact, I can point to a good many scientists, good, professional, well-trained scientists who are working for pittances. And, let's be frank, plenty of evangelical "associates" are very far from living on pittances. Some certainly live as they preach, but for many taking money and profit has become a gauge of faith.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2399
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:50 am

Viceroy63 wrote:Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!

Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...

What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?

Any answer would suffice please.

First address MY comments. I showed you that nothing you said was true. You ignored it.

You can pick plenty of errors in the course of how evolutionary thinking developed, how the science evolved. But, if you wish to be honest, you MUST pay attention to the truth, the things that stand, not just the errors.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2399
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JPcelticfc

Login