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: Evolution Has Never Occurred!

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:43 pm

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.


Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.


No Haggis, You are Wrong! Archaeopteryx is not evidence of a Dinosaur turning into a bird. It is not even a missing link. It is evidence of the ignorance of so called intellectual folks allowing themselves to get duped into believing the lie that Darwinists want you to believe so badly. Why don't you research the facts before posting and repeating evolutionist lies.

For the Record, if you bothered to looked into it, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird and not a dinosaur at all. If the species known as Birds evolved from the Dinosaurs then where is the missing link between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx? Again I repeat that Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird just as we see with every creature in the fossil records, all of them fully formed and no intermediary species between any of them at all.

"Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird."
(http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopt ... fully_bird)

Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?
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: Evolution Has Never Occurred!

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:55 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?

Yes. Does your evidence include the Epic of Gilgamesh (18th century BCE), which talks about a massive flood, and how it seems there has been cultural history of floods in Mesopotamia dating back perhaps further, and that likely the Bible incorporated some of these accounts?


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25359
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: Evolution Has Never Occurred!

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:58 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.


Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.


No Haggis, You are Wrong! Archaeopteryx is not evidence of a Dinosaur turning into a bird. It is not even a missing link. It is evidence of the ignorance of so called intellectual folks allowing themselves to get duped into believing the lie that Darwinists want you to believe so badly. Why don't you research the facts before posting and repeating evolutionist lies.

For the Record, if you bothered to looked into it, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird and not a dinosaur at all. If the species known as Birds evolved from the Dinosaurs then where is the missing link between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx? Again I repeat that Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird just as we see with every creature in the fossil records, all of them fully formed and no intermediary species between any of them at all.

"Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird."
(http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopt ... fully_bird)

Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?


So let's get this straight. What sort of characteristics would a fossil need to have, to convince you that it is a "transition species" between dinosaurs and birds?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 4021
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: Evolution Has Never Occurred!

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:03 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:So let's get this straight. What sort of characteristics would a fossil need to have, to convince you that it is a "transition species" between dinosaurs and birds?


Something like this:

Image


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25359
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)

Evolution Has Never Occurred!

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:06 pm

[Note]
I would just like to state for the record that not considering to read an article because of it's source is not only unscientific but ignorant as all hell and tantamount to mental and spiritual book burning mentality. Those who comment on these HOAX articles in the negative attitude, without even reading them, should be ashamed of themselves. Really and truly ashamed of themselves. I would personally take my own life because I could not live with the shame of being so stupid. The evidence presented is so very clear. For example...

The four main and only specimens for Archaeopteryx were all found in the same place only two months apart from each other by the same person even. If that alone does not raise suspicion then there is a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell to you. And cheaply too if you just hurry up and write me the check. Further more if in the past hundred years we had found tens of thousand of Dinosaur Bones yet only four specimen for Achaeopteryx then the majority of humans deserve to wallow in ignorance because that is just simply unheard of. That's like only finding Four T-Rex out of all the hundreds if not thousands of completed skeletons of Dinosaurs and claiming that they must have eaten the rest of the population among themselves because that's all that there is. Come on people, you can't be that arrogant? Can you?
Viceroy63
-End Note

This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

This is only an excerpt from the article itself.

THE ULTIMATE HOAX: ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA
by Ian Taylor


ABSTRACT
The recent claims that the London specimen of the Archaeopteryx is a hoax have been clarified and there would seem to be grounds for suspicion. The published work on the Berlin specimen shows that it has every indication of being a hoax of the same kind, that is, a modified genuine fossil of the Compsognathus. All four of the more recent "discoveries" are shown to be nothing more than reclassification of genuine fossils of the same small dinosaur..

INTRODUCTION
To many people the very word 'fossil' causes about as much excitement as watching grass grow. However, when we lift the veil which shrouds the world's most famous fossil, we find a labyrinth of intrigue and deception making it all somehow far more palatable. The fossil of the Archaeopteryx is said to be the paleontologist's "Rosetta Stone" providing irrefutable evidence that evolution of the species actually occurred. It has taken pride of place in every biology textbook for over a century and has recently been wreathed in controversy following the claims that one of the principal specimens is a fake. We will first trace out the history of the discovery of the various specimens, then examine the claims that the London specimen is fraudulent. Following this, we will determine if the more famous Berlin specimen can withstand the harsh light of scrutiny. It will be shown that the weight of evidence from both human activity and technical detail for all the known specimens points overwhelmingly to both the London and Berlin specimens of the Archaeopteryx being nothing more than a clever hoax.

It is now almost a century since Professor Hurst published his criticisms based upon personal observations of both the London [39] and Berlin specimens. It may be wondered why this information is not more widely known. The scientific establishment has been virtually dominated by biologists ever since Darwin's day and a kind of censorship of any work critical of evolution has been in effect throughout this time. Hurst had published his work in a scholarly journal offering a balanced airing of contrary opinions; the journal was short-lived (from 1892 to 1899) and is seldom found in library collections today. Similarly, because of the nature of Hoyle and Spetner's findings, these were not found acceptable to the mainline biological journals and they were obliged to report them in The British Journal of Photography.

THE FEATHERS.
Impressions of modern feathers only appear on the London and Berlin specimens and only on the tail and in the wing areas. Hurst had remarked on the marvelous state of preservation of the feather impressions saying, "even the barbules of some of the quills are recognizable" [40]. It may be added that there are no other examples of feathers having been preserved in such detail in the fossil record. One very recent case reported in 1988 from Spain [41] is of a single, half-inch long feather but this had been carbonized. That the preservation of such microscopic detail should occur in the two specimens already shrouded in suspicion is simply what one might expect from a forgery where the forgers had little choice but to use modern feathers. It raises an interesting question concerning the kind of detail present in the wing areas of the Berlin Specimen after its apparent modification about a century ago? As far as specimens assigned more recently to the status of Archaeopteryx are concerned, the popular accounts typically say that "feather impressions are distinct" [42] but, in fact, the investigator's statements say, "These features are interpreted as imprints of feather shafts" [43]. Quite a different thing where for example the "feather shaft impressions" may have been produced by quills and not feathers. Moreover, there is not a hint of a feather or feather shaft impression near any of the tails of the Maxberg, Haarlem, or Solnhofen specimens; Wellnhofer [14] claims there are feather impressions in the tail area of the Eichstatt specimen but Ostrom denies this.

CONCLUSION
In this paper we have not been concerned with the unlikely possibility that the Archaeopteryx was a strange mosaic creature like Australia's duck-billed platypus. The concern has been with fraud: its motive seems to have been monetary gain, the result has been to provide evidence for a theory. When all the published facts regarding the Archaeopteryx are brought forward, any unbiased jury would find it extremely difficult not to conclude that both the London and Berlin specimens were fraudulent. The more recent "discoveries" are seemingly an attempt to restore confidence in an oft-told myth and have been carried out by mere re-classification of the same kind of fossil used for the hoax; the feather evidence, like Percival Lowell's 700 canals on Mars, is more in the eye of faith than it is in fact. Professor Ostrom, who has examined every specimen, confesses that only the London and Berlin specimens contain clear feather impressions while the Eichstatt tail has a "plume" but no evidence of feathers. The London specimen is the only one having a clearly defined feature said to be a furcula and, while Ostrom claims the Maxberg specimen has a furcula, this is not at all convincing. Even if an undoubted furcula were discovered in another specimen, this would only tend to confirm that the furcula in the London specimen was genuine. However, it would not remove the suspicion of fraud because it seems likely that the Compsognathus itself may have had fused clavicles. Finally, it is surely incumbent upon the paleontologist to provide convincing explanations for: a) the change from straight feather impressions to the unlikely bent feather impressions in the Berlin specimen and b) why primary feathers, which are modern in every respect, attach to the ulna instead of the manus as in modern birds? Until such explanations are forthcoming the suspicion of fraud will remain.

This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html
Last edited by Viceroy63 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:44 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: Evolution Has Never Occurred!

Postby DoomYoshi on Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:06 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:So let's get this straight. What sort of characteristics would a fossil need to have, to convince you that it is a "transition species" between dinosaurs and birds?


I think I asked that around page 5, still waiting on an answer.
show
User avatar
Sergeant DoomYoshi
Entertainment Coordinator
Entertainment Coordinator
 
Posts: 3878
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: Evolution Has Never Occurred!

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:08 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

THE ULTIMATE HOAX: ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA
by Ian Taylor

In what journal was this peer reviewed under? Maybe by the other members from his association?

Ian Taylor is President of Creation Moments
(formerly Bible Science Association)



--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25359
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 crispybits on Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:14 pm

Is the Twin Cities Creation Science Association a well respected and unbiased scientific institute without any agenda to push?

I'll give you a clue - no respected and unbiased scientific institution would ever put anything like this on their web page:

TCCSA STATEMENT OF BELIEF

We believe in God: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs; this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of actual historical truths.

We believe that the origin of matter and all basic types of living things, including man, came about through direct creative acts of God during the six-day creation week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since the creation week have accomplished only changes within the created kinds.

We believe that the great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event, world-wide in extent and effect.

We accept the account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman. Their subsequent fall into sin, by disobedience of God's direct command, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind.

Therefore, we believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and only Savior and that personal faith in Him is necessary for salvation.


When you go into any research with preconceptions that cannot be proven true, then you lose the right to have your results taken seriously.

Image
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby comic boy on Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:38 pm

So in summary ;
The argument against the theory of evolution is entirely driven by a minority of theists who feel it undermines their fundamentalist creation beliefs.....Well tough luck that their faith needs to be underpinned by lies and distortions :(
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London
Medals: 28
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Evolution Has Never Occurred!

Postby AAFitz on Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:54 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.


Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.


No Haggis, You are Wrong! Archaeopteryx is not evidence of a Dinosaur turning into a bird. It is not even a missing link. It is evidence of the ignorance of so called intellectual folks allowing themselves to get duped into believing the lie that Darwinists want you to believe so badly. Why don't you research the facts before posting and repeating evolutionist lies.

For the Record, if you bothered to looked into it, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird and not a dinosaur at all. If the species known as Birds evolved from the Dinosaurs then where is the missing link between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx? Again I repeat that Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird just as we see with every creature in the fossil records, all of them fully formed and no intermediary species between any of them at all.

"Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird."
(http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopt ... fully_bird)

Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?


So let's get this straight. What sort of characteristics would a fossil need to have, to convince you that it is a "transition species" between dinosaurs and birds?


A note from God saying it was a transition species.
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 Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:56 pm

comic boy wrote:So in summary ;
The argument against the theory of evolution is entirely driven by a minority of theists who feel it undermines their fundamentalist creation beliefs.....Well tough luck that their faith needs to be underpinned by lies and distortions :(


Its entertaining though, however tragic.
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: Evolution Has Never Occurred!

Postby AAFitz on Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:59 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.


Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.


No Haggis, You are Wrong! Archaeopteryx is not evidence of a Dinosaur turning into a bird. It is not even a missing link. It is evidence of the ignorance of so called intellectual folks allowing themselves to get duped into believing the lie that Darwinists want you to believe so badly. Why don't you research the facts before posting and repeating evolutionist lies.

For the Record, if you bothered to looked into it, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird and not a dinosaur at all. If the species known as Birds evolved from the Dinosaurs then where is the missing link between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx? Again I repeat that Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird just as we see with every creature in the fossil records, all of them fully formed and no intermediary species between any of them at all.

"Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird."
(http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopt ... fully_bird)

Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?


Sure, show your misinterpreted 'evidence' for your preconcieved belief that a flood happened....and add in the Ark that carried a few billion animals....you know, because Im sure you have that too.
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 jonesthecurl on Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:08 pm

Controversy
Authenticity

Beginning in 1985, a group including astronomer Fred Hoyle and physicist Lee Spetner published a series of papers claiming that the feathers on the Berlin and London specimens of Archaeopteryx were forged.[70][71][72][73] Their claims were repudiated by Alan J. Charig and others at the British Museum (Natural History).[74] Most of their evidence for a forgery was based on unfamiliarity with the processes of lithification; for example, they proposed that based on the difference in texture associated with the feathers, feather impressions were applied to a thin layer of cement,[71] without realizing that feathers themselves would have caused a textural difference.[74] They also expressed disbelief that slabs would split so smoothly, or that one half of a slab containing fossils would have good preservation, but not the counterslab.[70][72] These, though, are common properties of Solnhofen fossils because the dead animals would fall onto hardened surfaces which would form a natural plane for the future slabs to split along, leaving the bulk of the fossil on one side and little on the other.[74] They also misinterpreted the fossils, claiming that the tail was forged as one large feather,[71] when this is visibly not the case.[74] In addition, they claimed that the other specimens of Archaeopteryx known at the time did not have feathers,[70][71] which is incorrect; the Maxberg and Eichstätt specimens have obvious feathers.[74] Finally, the motives they suggested for a forgery are not strong, and contradictory; one is that Richard Owen wanted to forge evidence in support of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is unlikely given Owen's views toward Darwin and his theory. The other is that Owen wanted to set a trap for Darwin, hoping the latter would support the fossils so Owen could discredit him with the forgery; this is unlikely because Owen himself wrote a detailed paper on the London specimen, so such an action would certainly backfire.[75]

Charig et al. pointed to the presence of hairline cracks in the slabs running through both rock and fossil impressions, and mineral growth over the slabs that had occurred before discovery and preparation, as evidence that the feathers were original.[74] Spetner et al. then attempted to show that the cracks would have naturally propagated through their postulated cement layer,[76] but neglected to account for the fact that the cracks were old and had been filled with calcite, and thus were not able to propagate.[75] They also attempted to show the presence of cement on the London specimen through X-ray spectroscopy, and did find something that was not rock.[76] However, it was not cement, either, and is most probably from a fragment of silicone rubber left behind when molds were made of the specimen.[75] Their suggestions have not been taken seriously by palaeontologists, as their evidence was largely based on misunderstandings of geology, and they never discussed the other feather-bearing specimens, which have increased in number since then. Charig et al. reported a discolouration: a dark band between two layers of limestone – however, they say it is the product of sedimentation.[74] It is natural for limestone to take on the colour of its surroundings and most limestones are coloured (if not colour banded) to some degree[77] – the darkness was attributed to such impurities. They also mention that a complete absence of air bubbles in the rock slabs is further proof that the specimen is authentic.[74]
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: 707
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 Timminz on Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:13 pm

Image
jay_a2j wrote:lets not be so quick to judge Hitler
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5556
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 Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:24 pm

jonesthecurl wrote:
Controversy
Authenticity

Beginning in 1985, a group including astronomer Fred Hoyle and physicist Lee Spetner published a series of papers claiming that the feathers on the Berlin and London specimens of Archaeopteryx were forged.[70][71][72][73] Their claims were repudiated by Alan J. Charig and others at the British Museum (Natural History).[74] Most of their evidence for a forgery was based on unfamiliarity with the processes of lithification; for example, they proposed that based on the difference in texture associated with the feathers, feather impressions were applied to a thin layer of cement,[71] without realizing that feathers themselves would have caused a textural difference.[74] They also expressed disbelief that slabs would split so smoothly, or that one half of a slab containing fossils would have good preservation, but not the counterslab.[70][72] These, though, are common properties of Solnhofen fossils because the dead animals would fall onto hardened surfaces which would form a natural plane for the future slabs to split along, leaving the bulk of the fossil on one side and little on the other.[74] They also misinterpreted the fossils, claiming that the tail was forged as one large feather,[71] when this is visibly not the case.[74] In addition, they claimed that the other specimens of Archaeopteryx known at the time did not have feathers,[70][71] which is incorrect; the Maxberg and Eichstätt specimens have obvious feathers.[74] Finally, the motives they suggested for a forgery are not strong, and contradictory; one is that Richard Owen wanted to forge evidence in support of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is unlikely given Owen's views toward Darwin and his theory. The other is that Owen wanted to set a trap for Darwin, hoping the latter would support the fossils so Owen could discredit him with the forgery; this is unlikely because Owen himself wrote a detailed paper on the London specimen, so such an action would certainly backfire.[75]

Charig et al. pointed to the presence of hairline cracks in the slabs running through both rock and fossil impressions, and mineral growth over the slabs that had occurred before discovery and preparation, as evidence that the feathers were original.[74] Spetner et al. then attempted to show that the cracks would have naturally propagated through their postulated cement layer,[76] but neglected to account for the fact that the cracks were old and had been filled with calcite, and thus were not able to propagate.[75] They also attempted to show the presence of cement on the London specimen through X-ray spectroscopy, and did find something that was not rock.[76] However, it was not cement, either, and is most probably from a fragment of silicone rubber left behind when molds were made of the specimen.[75] Their suggestions have not been taken seriously by palaeontologists, as their evidence was largely based on misunderstandings of geology, and they never discussed the other feather-bearing specimens, which have increased in number since then. Charig et al. reported a discolouration: a dark band between two layers of limestone – however, they say it is the product of sedimentation.[74] It is natural for limestone to take on the colour of its surroundings and most limestones are coloured (if not colour banded) to some degree[77] – the darkness was attributed to such impurities. They also mention that a complete absence of air bubbles in the rock slabs is further proof that the specimen is authentic.[74]


Yes Jones; All of those numbers in brackets "[74]" for example is where you would find those words and claims.

"they say it is the product of sedimentation.[74]"

No one is arguing with me or some creationist institute. But rather with a whole host of authorities who have written whole books on the subject. That a Creationist Institute is presenting these facts should not make a difference to the truly enlightened scientist among us. To reject it because it is a Creationist Institute making the presentation is simply ignorance and book burning mentality. This goes for everyone, not just jones. I just happen to use this comment to respond to everyone at once.
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 crispybits on Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:29 pm

Again you miss the real point Viceroy, any organisation seeking the truth doesn't start of from any preconceptions and look to make reality fit into whatever those are, they start off from a totally blank slate and whatever they find and can prove is the truth.

Image
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Catarah on Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:35 pm

okey, i'm feeling like giving this a try. warning! wall of text incoming:

what is evolution?

it took a long time before people realized that evolution might even be a thing, and it took way longer for most of the scientific world to agree with it. so instead of saying 'evolution is true', and then trying to convince you, i'll start with a bunch of observations done by scientists which i hope you'll agree with. quote me if you disagree with a part, and explain why you think its not true:

1. Variation.
well, this is pretty much a given. there is variation within a species. everybody has a different length, hair color, how easy you catch diseases, etc.

2. Heredity.
it appears that children always look something like their parents. if two parents have red hair, then their child will probably also have red hair. a long kid often has at least one long parent, etc. so the first observation is that we inherit traits from our parents. we now know that this is explained mostly by our DNA. we get genes from dad and from mom, and you'll be a mix of both parents.

3. Mutation.
even though we would hope that our dna stays perfect, this does not always happen. sometimes, our dna gets mutated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation is a whole article about this, but for example radiation can sometimes break down a bit of our DNA, or while making a copy of the dna(cells do this any time they split up) a mistake can happen with the copying, and a part of the dna gets copied twice. whatever the reason, sometimes dna does not copy perfectly. a great example of this is the down syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome someone with the drown syndrome has an entire extra chromosome. not just a few genes but an entire chromosome got copied twice. the parents of a child with down syndrome often have normal dna(without the extra chromosome), so this shows that it is possible for a child to have a mutated dna which is different from the parent.

4. (Natural) selection.
this one is easy. not everybody has the same chance to survive and have children. modern humans aren't the best example here, so lets take a look at several animals were this happens(it happens with every animal though, but here are some examples): with prey animals, the weakest animals of the herd are often the first killed by hunting animals. thus, they don't grow up to have kids. or with migrating birds, only the strongest birds can survive the migration. but it is not only about dying: with some animals: only the alpha-male is allowed to have sex with the woman. thus, as some animals are alpha-male at one point, and some are not, then those alpha-males obviously have a greater chance to produce offspring.

now, with these four characteristics, we will have the basics of evolution. variation, heredity, mutation, and natural selection.
within a generation of children, there is a lot of variation in the genes(and thus in the external appearance). not all of these children will survive into adulthood and have children. but it is not up to random chance who survives. with natural selection we can say that some children have a bigger chance then others to grow up. thus, if a certain gene gives you an advantage, then not having this gene means you'll be more likely to die, and in the next generation, a greater percentage of the children will have that gene, because they inherit it from their parents.

for example, if a population of butterflies has a simple gene which makes them black if they have it, or white if they don't. if half of the population has the gene, then most likely around half of the children will have it too. but because they live in a field with white flowers, the white butterflies are harder to see by predators. thus, while 3/4th of the white butterflies survive, only 1/2 of the black ones do. so next year, the children will have more whites rather then black butterflies.

now, before having seen any fossils, we have found several characteristics of animals, and realized that this will lead to evolution. given enough time, we have found no limitations to how far this evolution goes, all the genes can mutate, hell, a new kid can even have an extra chromosome. there is no difference in how macro or micro evolution occurs. the distinction is irrelevant so far. once a group of animals has mutated far enough, there is nothing which suddenly causes them to stop mutating, they just mutate further.

now obviously, we have proposed a way of how evolution happens, but it would be a rather weak theory if we could not find evidence of this happening. to support this theory, we should look for examples in the real world. luckily, we found lots of them, and here are only a few examples:
-Dogs. the first dogs were simply tamed wolves, but because we humans selected the wolves we wanted to breed(we took natural selection in our own hands), we eventually ended up with all these different breeds of dogs. most of them are only several hunderd years old, and thanks to dog breeding and evolution we've ended up with a gigantic list of dog breeds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds
-a famous example, Darwins finches: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches , a great number of different birds who all look alike.
-the human development of different forms of wheat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat#Origin the wheat we started out with 10.000 years ago is nothing like the wheat we eat and grow right now.
- the bacteria e.coli who have been evolving under observation for over 20 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment


however, instead of just listing examples and more examples, i think we should look at the broader picture.

by now, we have analyzed the characteristics of millions of plants, animals, and bacteria, and even examined their DNA.
now IF the evolution theory is right, then that would give us a great way to organize all these plants and animals.

and in fact, this appears to work brilliantly. by assuming the theory is right, scientists were able to organize ALL living creatures on earth.

here is a catalogue in which biologist are trying to put all known living creatures: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/browse/tree
for example, the Animalia(the group of all animals), has several subdivisions, one of them is the Chordate(this is the group that includes *all* species which have a notochord, this includes all mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, salps, sea squirts and lancelets.), in this group you have the subgroup of mammalia, simply all mammals, all creatures which use breastfeeding. within this you have the order of the primates, which includes all, well, primates, monkeys and the like. within this order you have the family Hominidae, which includes only those closest to us, the gorrilas, orangutangs, chimpanzees, and, under the genus "homo", us homo sapiens.

we have been capable of organizing every living organism(and, thanks to fossils, a lot of dead ones) in one organized form, and in it you can see groups which share the same traits, from very general attributes(all animals that have a spine fall in the group of Chordate), to more specific attributes(all mammals use breastfeeding, but all mammals also have a neocortex in the brain).

you can go and ask for a specific example of an animal between a dinosaur and a bird, but you can also observe the following:
-certain dinosaurs had feathers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Micro ... lotype.png (look at the white arrows)
-hollow bones. both certain species of dinosaurs and birds have hollow bones.
-the bones and look of certain smaller dinosaurs.
-the similarity in DNA.
etc.

we wouldn't even need a sample to figure out that bird and dinosaurs are closely linked.
but since you asked for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapeornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buitreraptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesperonychus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahonavis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenlagia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graciliraptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troodontidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adasaurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyuraptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinornithosaurus

the thing is, everything fits perfectly together by assuming evolution works, we can find certain genes and what their function is, see that species that have this gene have the function, we find common ancestors of species, we've observed evolution in the lab, etc. etc.

basically, if you assume that evolution works, the whole world around you makes perfect sense, while if you assume evolution doesn't work, you simply have no explanation for how all these animals are linked together, and how we can link natural selection, mutation and variation so easily together. and why would evolution not work? we have described a system for how it works, and we know that all the seperate elements of this system are in nature, and we've even seen evolution itself happen on a smaller scale. all the evidence in the natural kingdom points towards evolution.
Captain Catarah
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:17 am
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (2)
Tournament Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Catarah on Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:43 pm

please note by the way, that i have been very short in my explanation. to fully explain every part of evolution, i think i'll be typing for a few more years.
so please, do ask questions, as i'm sure i skipped over some parts ;-)
Captain Catarah
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:17 am
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (2)
Tournament Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:18 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. No. We have an alphabet with 26 letters.. so far, but people can still can and do create brand new words, pretty much all the time.

#2. The idea that this is NOT evolution, is something, again, put forward by Creationists who have finally recognized that their arguments are faulty.. but instead of just admitting they were wrong, have decided to change the definitions of the worlds they use. What you say only makes sense if you ignore what is actually said in evolutionary theory.. as well as lot of other science.


I wish that I had more time.

Yes, we only have 26 letters in the English alphabet; But no matter how hard we try to recombine, mutate or alter the letters, they will never evolve to form Chinese writings.

Let's start with a few facts. Were you, perhaps unaware that our style of writing is often called "Arabic" writing? Note that it has very little resemblance to writing currently used in the Middle East. In fact, it actually has some similarity to Asian writing.

So, even your basic argument is fundamentally false.

However, even if it WERE correct, it is still not applicable to the evolution debate.



Viceroy63 wrote: And that is what is false about the theory of evolution.

What is false?

That it takes only 26 letters to give us both Shakespeare, Superman comics, the encyclopedia and this entire forum? If a few words can provide that diversity, why not a limited number of DNA segments?

Aside from that, you start with saying "this cannot happen", but it has. Anyone trying to claim something that has happened "cannot" is well... definitely not a scientist. Frankly, not that intelligent in their arguments.

Viceroy63 wrote:Micro evolution and Macro evolution are not the same thing. Yet that's what Darwinist do all the time. The old switcharoo con where evolution is evolution not matter how you look at it.

I see, so we don't have different life forms on Earth and there never have been differing forms?

You are probably not old enough to remember, but Dr Morris and his ilk long argued that Dinosaurs did not exist ... at all. They were pure fictional creations. Somewhere along around the late 80's, after founding his institute, he finally realized that this was too much for even his supporters to make convincing. Ergo, this new theory of "micro" evolution that is to be kept fundamentally apart from "evolution" put forward by those nasty scientists.

This is not his only point of error or point where the institute has had to backpedal and change its views.

Anyhow, here is the REAL story. The real truth is that if you every read Darwin.. the uncensored version, not he version put out by creationists aroudn the time of the publication anniversary which omitted a couple of very key chapters and segments explaining a lot of the "issues" they have. Anyway, read it and you find that the story is one of very gradual change over a very, very, very long period of time. That was the idea from the very beginning. Gradual change -- not giraffes from birds or lizards that turn into octopuses, but finches that differentiated when isolated. Slothes that looked nothing like the fossils Darwin saw -- but he could see a very clear transition. (National Geographic did a nice rundown of this... far better than my summation here. You really should read it)

Ironically enough, it was not until long AFTER Darwin that scientists began to realize there was not enough time for that gradual change to have occured and produced all we see, as Darwin had thought, even given the fact that scientists now think the Earth is much, much older than Darwin did. As I and others have said, your focus, the focus of most young earthers on Darwin pretty much demonstrates how little you know of not just evolution, but science itself.

Viceroy63 wrote:And if it works in one area then it must work in all areas. Why even stars evolve??? Into what we don't know for no one ever saw it happen, but perhaps they evolve into pretty butterflies??? :roll:

For one thing, because stars are not living...

Folks do use the word "evolve" to mean, generally, any kind of change over time, but trying to claim using the same word means there can be no other meaning is, well, something kindergarteners do. Its not scientific or honest debate.

Ideas, plans, cities, etc... all can be said to evolve. Only an idiot or an intentionally obtuse person trying to bend over backward to make it seem as if evolution were something other than it is, would ever suggest this kind of evolution is in any way equivalent to the theory of Evolution, which deals solely with how we got the diversity of life we see here on Earth. In fact, even the basic origin is not specified in evolutionary theory, though, again, young earth creationists like to make that claim often.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2427
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 Viceroy63 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:22 pm

crispybits wrote:Again you miss the real point Viceroy, any organisation seeking the truth doesn't start of from any preconceptions and look to make reality fit into whatever those are, they start off from a totally blank slate and whatever they find and can prove is the truth.


So why don't Evolutionist follow that rule? Why is the fact that Archeology, History, Prophecy and revealed knowledge that support the Biblical claim of creation not looked into and rejected by Darwinist, all the while the Darwinian Hoax is perpetrated on a gullible humanity and boasted as fact?

There is evidence for God but anti-God scientist such as yourselves just don't want to hear it. For example...

Thousands of years before Scientist figured out that it is best to wash your hands before going from patient to patient, the Bible was already claiming this. Untold thousand of woman giving birth would die because Doctors went from one patient to the next and never washed their hands.

This is evidence of a God revealing knowledge that a people of their time could not have gained in any other way. This is rejected evidence by Anti-God scientist such as yourself.

The following can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... html#SFB06

Moses
Acts 7:22 tells us that …“Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians…” Yet scientific ignorance is conspicuous by its absence in the first five books of the Bible, written by Moses approximately 1491-1451 B.C. In fact the Torah (or law of Moses) not only reveals advanced principles and knowledge about hygiene, quarantine and sanitation far superior to that possessed by the Egyptians and other ancient societies of that day, but also far exceeded medical standards practiced as recently as 100 years ago. Where did Moses get this advanced information?


Sanitary Practices in The 19th Century
Our medical knowledge was abysmal right up to the beginning of the twentieth century. It was not until this century that medical science had a full understanding of the fact that most diseases are caused by infection of microscopic organisms. Accordingly, the medical value of sterilization, sanitation, and quarantines were virtually unappreciated. Please note that the following took place in the 19th century.

In the 1840s, puerperal or childbirth fever, a bacterial infection of the female genital tract after childbirth, was taking the lives of up to 30% of women who gave birth in hospitals. Women who gave birth at home remained relatively unaffected.

Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818-65), a Hungarian obstetrician educated at the universities of Pest and Vienna was an assistant professor on the maternity ward of the Vienna General Hospital. He observed that women examined by student doctors who had not washed their hands after leaving the autopsy room had very high death rates. When a colleague who had received a scalpel cut died of infection, Semmelweis concluded that puerperal fever was septic and contagious and that he and the medical students carried "cadaverous particles" on their hands.

He ordered students to wash their hands with chlorinated lime before examining patients; as a result, the maternal death rate was reduced from 12% to 1% in 2 years. Nevertheless, Semmelweis encountered strong opposition from hospital officials as some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands; they felt that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean.

The existence of germs was unknown until around A.D. 1890 when Louis Pasteur demonstrated in his Germ Theory of Disease that most infectious diseases were caused by microorganisms originating from outside the body. While Pasteur was not the first to propose germ theory he developed it and conducted experiments that clearly indicated its correctness, and managed to convince most of Europe it was true. This new understanding of germs and their means of transmission led to improved sanitary standards that resulted in an enormous drop in the mortality rate.

Yet these core principles of sanitation were being practiced by the Israelites thousands of years earlier.
(http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... html#SFB06)
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 crispybits on Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:44 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:The following can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... html#SFB06

Moses
Acts 7:22 tells us that …“Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians…” Yet scientific ignorance is conspicuous by its absence in the first five books of the Bible, written by Moses approximately 1491-1451 B.C. In fact the Torah (or law of Moses) not only reveals advanced principles and knowledge about hygiene, quarantine and sanitation far superior to that possessed by the Egyptians and other ancient societies of that day, but also far exceeded medical standards practiced as recently as 100 years ago. Where did Moses get this advanced information?


http://www.plumbingsupply.com/pmegypt.html

Seems the Egyptians had pretty elaborate plumbing techniques, and also practiced rituals of purification.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/me ... P8xMGflS70

They advised people to wash and shave their bodies to prevent infection

They were very respected as physicians throughout the ancient world

http://historicmysteries.com/the-practi ... ent-egypt/

Again, they were culturally conditioned to bathe regularly.

Again they were respected throughout the ancinent world on medical matters.



Seems you've been caught by another lie told by the creationist puppet masters. When will you start thinking for yourself and actually looking for confirmation from independent sources (as in non-religious ones) about what you're oh so gullibly just falling for hook, line and sinker?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby crispybits on Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:56 pm

By the way Moses basically took all the magic spells and religious waffle out of Egyptian medicine and kept the rest. In Ancient Egypt, if he'd had to keep quiet about his Judaist beliefs because of fear of perseution, he would have been considered an atheist himself.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Frigidus on Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:37 pm

Also, it has been widely established that Moses did not write any of the Old Testament. Anyone that is a legitimate Biblical scholar (i.e. a historian) would not suggest that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

Actually, there were never actually any Hebrews enslaved in Egypt anyways, so he didn't even exist.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1635
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (1)

Re: Evolution Has Never Occurred!

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:30 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.


Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.


No Haggis, You are Wrong! Archaeopteryx is not evidence of a Dinosaur turning into a bird. It is not even a missing link. It is evidence of the ignorance of so called intellectual folks allowing themselves to get duped into believing the lie that Darwinists want you to believe so badly. Why don't you research the facts before posting and repeating evolutionist lies.

For the Record, if you bothered to looked into it, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird and not a dinosaur at all. If the species known as Birds evolved from the Dinosaurs then where is the missing link between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx? Again I repeat that Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird just as we see with every creature in the fossil records, all of them fully formed and no intermediary species between any of them at all.

"Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird."
(http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopt ... fully_bird)

Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?



HOLD UP, BROTHER. Are you saying the existence of intermediate species is impossible?
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby jonesthecurl on Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:42 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
Controversy
Authenticity

Beginning in 1985, a group including astronomer Fred Hoyle and physicist Lee Spetner published a series of papers claiming that the feathers on the Berlin and London specimens of Archaeopteryx were forged.[70][71][72][73] Their claims were repudiated by Alan J. Charig and others at the British Museum (Natural History).[74] Most of their evidence for a forgery was based on unfamiliarity with the processes of lithification; for example, they proposed that based on the difference in texture associated with the feathers, feather impressions were applied to a thin layer of cement,[71] without realizing that feathers themselves would have caused a textural difference.[74] They also expressed disbelief that slabs would split so smoothly, or that one half of a slab containing fossils would have good preservation, but not the counterslab.[70][72] These, though, are common properties of Solnhofen fossils because the dead animals would fall onto hardened surfaces which would form a natural plane for the future slabs to split along, leaving the bulk of the fossil on one side and little on the other.[74] They also misinterpreted the fossils, claiming that the tail was forged as one large feather,[71] when this is visibly not the case.[74] In addition, they claimed that the other specimens of Archaeopteryx known at the time did not have feathers,[70][71] which is incorrect; the Maxberg and Eichstätt specimens have obvious feathers.[74] Finally, the motives they suggested for a forgery are not strong, and contradictory; one is that Richard Owen wanted to forge evidence in support of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is unlikely given Owen's views toward Darwin and his theory. The other is that Owen wanted to set a trap for Darwin, hoping the latter would support the fossils so Owen could discredit him with the forgery; this is unlikely because Owen himself wrote a detailed paper on the London specimen, so such an action would certainly backfire.[75]

Charig et al. pointed to the presence of hairline cracks in the slabs running through both rock and fossil impressions, and mineral growth over the slabs that had occurred before discovery and preparation, as evidence that the feathers were original.[74] Spetner et al. then attempted to show that the cracks would have naturally propagated through their postulated cement layer,[76] but neglected to account for the fact that the cracks were old and had been filled with calcite, and thus were not able to propagate.[75] They also attempted to show the presence of cement on the London specimen through X-ray spectroscopy, and did find something that was not rock.[76] However, it was not cement, either, and is most probably from a fragment of silicone rubber left behind when molds were made of the specimen.[75] Their suggestions have not been taken seriously by palaeontologists, as their evidence was largely based on misunderstandings of geology, and they never discussed the other feather-bearing specimens, which have increased in number since then. Charig et al. reported a discolouration: a dark band between two layers of limestone – however, they say it is the product of sedimentation.[74] It is natural for limestone to take on the colour of its surroundings and most limestones are coloured (if not colour banded) to some degree[77] – the darkness was attributed to such impurities. They also mention that a complete absence of air bubbles in the rock slabs is further proof that the specimen is authentic.[74]


Yes Jones; All of those numbers in brackets "[74]" for example is where you would find those words and claims.

"they say it is the product of sedimentation.[74]"

No one is arguing with me or some creationist institute. But rather with a whole host of authorities who have written whole books on the subject. That a Creationist Institute is presenting these facts should not make a difference to the truly enlightened scientist among us. To reject it because it is a Creationist Institute making the presentation is simply ignorance and book burning mentality. This goes for everyone, not just jones. I just happen to use this comment to respond to everyone at once.


that you are not singling me out. Similarly I have nothing personal against you. I find your beliefs odd, and your penchant for sliding away from questions about your sources and your claims annoying, but that's not poersonal either.
I have no idea what you mean in your above post. Here's reference 74 from the article, which argues with the weak points put forward in the other publications...

74- Charig, A. J.; Greenaway, F.; Milner, A. N.; Walker, C. A.; and Whybrow, P. J. (1986). "Archaeopteryx is not a forgery". Science 232 (4750): 622–626
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: 707
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)

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JamesKer1, patches70, PLAYER57832, scarmagnet

Login