Ufo's

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:well some kinds of muscular tissue si weaker then among normal humans... resulting in fingers, arms and a few other parts on the body gets really long. you get a pigeon chest etc... in the long run some organs that has a hard time adapting to this mutation might stop functioning if you don't treat them...

yes, some organs are almost "evil".. i know what you mean.

stefan wrote:mutations always have a negative effect, never a positive. Another reason why darwin was wrong. Evolution is a dying and medieval belief, it does not have long, and is not modern science.

dude i am laughing so hard that if you where in the room you would be covered in my saliva...
the dying belief is your creation story, that is basically a knock off on Babylonian and Sumerian mythology. its basically the ancient Jewish version on intelligent design. just like ID is a crazy mix of science and creationism. the story found in genesis is basically a crazy mix between Jewish tradition and how most Mesopotamian philosophers though the world had been created. the fact that almost every story in genesis exist in several polytheistic versions in Mesopotamia and that the old testement was first written down during the Babylonian diaspora is no coincidence. neither is the fact that it features a calender that is invented in the very same place

as for the negative effect... not all get them with the mutation i have, most live a natural life. as a matter of fact it has given me thing that are very handy in modern post industrial society. long arms and long slender fingers are one of them. which gives me an advantage over most people when it comes to stuff like playing the guitar or writing on a keyboard. my guitar teacher once said, not knowing that they are mutated that my hands are perfect for most Spanish styles of acoustic fast guitar playing

who says having long arms and long legs like myself also is a mutation, it could be more normal than unnormal to the original man for all we know. Who knows what the original man looks like.


But you can’t blithely extrapolate from rare large-effect mutations within species, especially domesticated ones, to mutations causing large evolutionary changes between species. These macromutations, like those producing bald chickens, almost always have highly deleterious side effects that make them unlikely to form the basis for evolution in nature. In fact, many cultivated species would never survive, much less take over, in the wild. Domestic corn is good to eat, but would never thrive in nature because the seeds don’t disperse. Or, take single mutations having drastic effects on body size. One of these, achondroplastic dwarfism in humans, has severe negative effects on health and reproduction. Saying that the bald-chicken mutation implies that vultures lost their top feathers courtesy of a single mutation is like saying that because there is dwarfism in humans, the size difference between humans and chimps must have the same genetic basis as achrondroplasty. Most big-effect mutations that occur in the laboratory, greenhouse, or henhouse could never survive in nature, and have to be coddled by humans to survive.

evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne

who says? the person that takes a look at your dna and notices that it differs from other peoples thats who... how ever long limbs does not always have to be connected to a mutation...

almost always have highly deleterious side effects

yeah and that is the whole point. a mutation won't spread unless it is better then the original and it rarely is... a big successful change in a species comes along like only every 50 000 year or so... for example when there was jungle in nothern europe there might have been a hoarse who's 2 toes evolved into a hoof. but since it lived in the jungle it was considered a defect and didn't catch on. the hoarse maybe even died because it cou ld not catch prey. but we know that once a plain land hoarse got a hoof, it was so superior in open terrain that now no hoarse have toes.

lol uni of Chicago... what a big role he must play in the scientific community

Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.¹" "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."



Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.



Mathematically disproving the evolution hoax is easy,



A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 ^4,478,296.

Sorry, but what has really evolved is our understanding of science. The medieval theory of darwinism is as good as Dead. It will take a little time for the "god is dead" psuedo-science to leave out schools, but it will. Just like they laughed, when a man said the earth is not flat, so they laugh now at true science.




The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans – all without knowing they are doing so.




Those who claim that macroevolution has been observed are being totally deceptive.



In order to observe "macroevolution," someone must observe and prove that new genetic information has formed; including at least one new gene complex; by totally random means. This has never happened and never will happen!!



Macroevolution has NEVER been observed and will NEVER be observed. It completely violates the laws of mathematics.



Their claim is based on the use of inconsistent definitions

stefan wrote:Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.¹" "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."



Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.



Mathematically disproving the evolution hoax is easy,



A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 ^4,478,296.

Sorry, but what has really evolved is our understanding of science. The medieval theory of darwinism is as good as Dead.

all that is 100 to 50 year old cliches formulated by wannabe scientists that feal that modern science contradict their beliefs.

the reason that newer objects are found in teh same layers as older is very simple, it was not always hard and that deep down. a tree root or a age of monsuns will loosen up the soils and objects sink, this is why we always on spots like that can see irregularities in the geology. we only assume that an object is on its original place if it is a "closed find" in other words we can see that the geology is even and there has been no digging or sinking.
maybe he would have a tiny point if it weren't for the fact we have tons of dating science to proof how old they are. c14 is the most common on humans. it takes 500 000 years for a body or a organic object to break down all c14, based on how much is left we know how old it is. we can also measure radiation, etc... if teh c14 is out you use uranium and other stuff but i cant tel you about that because i'm not a paleontologist

if you take that odds, and compare that to the number of planets in the universe without intelligent life, you will see that even though those odds seem low when you see all teh number, compared to how many planets there is, the chance of life being created somewhere in a galxy isn't lower then winning money for a new lottery ticket when buying 20...

but yes you are right our science has evolved and your theory is the dying one... the ID guys are a small minority and 99% of the real scientists and biologists follow darwin

and evolution is what is being teachd at all the universities, collages, high schools, etc... in the world. with the exceptions of regions of religious extremism like the middle east and the small parts of america that palin call "the real america"

It is directly at odds with the second law of thermodynamics that states things move from order to chaos. The "Big Bang" violates the first law of thermodynamics by creating matter and energy out of nothing. It violates the second law by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. It violates the third law too, raw energy added to an open system is not a recipe for increased organisation. It violates the law of cause and effect by creating matter and energy out of nothing. YOU CAN ONLY COME TO ONE CONCLUSION CAN'T YOU?

Carbon Dating - The Premise
Carbon dating is a dating technique predicated upon three things:

• The rate at which the unstable radioactive C-14 isotope decays into the stable non-radioactive N-14 isotope,
  
• The ratio of C-12 to C-14 found in a given specimen,
  
• And the ratio C-12 to C-14 found in the atmosphere at the time of the specimen's death.
  

Carbon Dating - The Controversy
Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.¹ We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"² which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO₂ produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO₂ which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio).

And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY."


Carbon dating is not scientific, it has to many variables, and fluctuations.

"Yet the astounding complexity of the cell has gone largely unnoticed and greatly unreported to the general public. There is an embarrassed silence. Behe speculates as to why; he says,

Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God (p.233).

This may also help to account for another curious omission that Behe highlights, the almost total lack of scientific literature attempting to describe how complex molecular systems could have arisen by Darwinian natural selection. The Journal of Molecular Evolution was established in 1971, dedicated to explaining how life at the molecular level came to be. One would hope to find studies exploring the origin of complex biochemical systems in this journal. But, in fact, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed the origin of a single complex biochemical system in a gradual step-by-step Darwinian process.
Furthermore, Behe adds,

The search can be extended, but the results are the same. There has never been a meeting, or a book or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems (p. 179)."



Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe. Michael Behe is a biophysics professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and his book, released last summer, has been causing a firestorm of activity in academic circles ever since.

greatly unreported to the general public. There is an embarrassed silence

that is because everyone is to well raised to laugh Behe right in the face... the "firestorm" is the real scientists being angry over that the mythology that is creationism still at this day is given space in book claimed to be science.

as for all that crap about carbon... boy talk about a guy that has not done his homework. we must NOT assume anything. because the level of c4 in the atmosphere is not related to the level in our bodys... why? because we don't produce it and we don't absorb it ourselves. we get it from plants and vegetables we eat. so we stop getting it into our system the moment we die. and it only takes 40 years for us to notice the decline of c-14. we can see teh proof that c14 works with our own eyes. besides...
it is a tested method that clicks like a jigsaw pussle to all other methods. people that think man is 6000 years old should have to repeat kindergarden and work their way up.

stefan wrote:

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS UNSCIENTIFIC.

It is directly at odds with the second law of thermodynamics that states things move from order to chaos. The "Big Bang" violates the first law of thermodynamics by creating matter and energy out of nothing. It violates the second law by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. It violates the third law too, raw energy added to an open system is not a recipe for increased organisation. It violates the law of cause and effect by creating matter and energy out of nothing. YOU CAN ONLY COME TO ONE CONCLUSION CAN'T YOU?

. see you don't even know your homework here. just like creationism does not claim that the universe came from nothing, neither does big bang. just like there was a god in genesis before there was a world... there was not "nothing" but something.
the entire universe was packed together into a tiny grain

You will always be right, so I will let you be so.

Cheers!!!

for once you are damn right.... i am always rigth

As you might remember, Ecth, from the nordicmission forumz, I believe in De-evolution.

That doesn't mean that technology and medic all science isn't improving quality of life, but as a whole... I believe our bodies are degenerating worse and worse, since the inception of sin into these corporal entities.

I also believe this affects the animal and vegetation as well on earth. As the bible says.. " the entire earth is under a curse". -Paraphrasing.

i think you have misinterpreted the whole idea of evolution... it's not a straight ladder to godlikeness. the tops of the food chains has died out before.

but i see your point, i for one is not going to die in a bed with my blood full of medication.
how ever... your idea of de-evolution is medieval, i bet you like Renaissance fairs
but lif was crap back then. people smeleld like crap since the entire family used teh same bathwater and during teh colder part of the year, only once. we had no real cures, so a cold could be lethal if combined with any other sickness. we had no dentists so if you managed to get 30+ the flesh in your mouth often died and started to root. the only thing destorying our bodies are our bad habits of not exercising and eating crap. people like to romance about previous ages, just like they romance abour when they where younger. but life before was not like in teh movies. it was liek being a homeless person, in a city without pavement or public parks. sure they didn't have cars but i imagine the smoke from everysingle oven in the town made it jsut as bad.
it is not medication or technology that destorys our bodys, it is us being spoiled.

well, I have a bunch of fancy scientific theories evidence that would support that idea and all that.. but I don't have the strength right now to get into it.

please there has been done so many articles and specials on the myth of mankinds steady decline that if you wrote them on paper i could probably take a bath in them. heck even shows as simple as bullshit did an entire episode on it. during the renascence they saw the classical era as the peak of human culture and that it had all gone to hell from there. now we know that it was not perfect back then so we choose to go even further back and idealize the stoneage. talking about how healthy people must have been without our modern food, beverages and with all that exercise. and how all the people in the villages helpd one another. but just the other month the osteology professor showd me pictures of traces of both cloged veins and other "modern problems" on really ancient bodys. we like to talka bout mcdonalds, but when sugar first came to europe in its clean form, people used it as a spice on all food, in their drinks, even on, not just in... ON bread and meat.
as a fellow neo-romanticist i hate writing all this, but as someone that hopes to one day (say 10 years from now) be a dr in historic archeology (not historic by american terms. since you don't have that old of a history you only go back to the pilgrims. bit here historic archaeologists go back as far as there are alphabets)
i must be a realist too... and there NEVER was any good old days

i think your misunderstanding my whole concept. It's not about any "good ol' days".

our bodies are degenerating worse and worse, since the inception of sin into these corporal entities.

if we are getting worse and worse, the longer i would go back the better it would be.

that doesn't account for the progressions of science and technology on health.. so that simple analogy doesn't really work though. But yea, i would say people way back before the flood for example.. would be like "gods" compared to humans now. Especially since the bible hints to the lifespan of people being hundreds upon hundreds of years old.. some up to around 800.

And if you want to see a specific moment where God specifically is seen altering our "gene's".. just look at the chapter where God, while talking to Noah tells him that His spirit will not always strive against man and then He proceeded to shorten man's life to what we know of it today. Strange thing is, is that God seem to be implying that a shorter lifespan is a gift, and even a good thing.

That's one piece of scripture right there, that shows God directly taking part in the physical world.. which I think we also can relate to the Creation.

Genesis 6-3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that
he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years

well that is genesis, and as you might know, i'm very skeptic to genesis. however we do know that the iceage ended because of natural global warming, and there have been done research on how that atmosphere that obviously was very different, affected our bodies, it might have conserved it, making us age slower. that how ever has to do with global warming not the decline of human flesh. we would in that case see it happen again, since all the gases we produce has caused us to halt right in the middle of a cool down and we are now experiencing global warming again without even having come close to an ice age.

Strange thing is, is that God seem to be implying that a shorter lifespan is a gift, and even a good thing.

not really it is more like a sentence. it is mentioned in the same verse as the banning of the watchers as a restriction to make us less compatible with angels.

yea, good point

I don't know about UFO's but I think this Lemur might really be an alien!