Creation - Evolution Continuum

Painted Wolf said "how do you know humans are the only ones with these things? "
Your question is not science but philosophy. Perhaps you need to understand a bit of animal language science but I would have to teach from zero and I don't have the time nor the energy to do that.

"who says dolphins and elephants dont talk to one another about philosophy?
ever see a mother chimp with her dead child... she understands life and its loss... "
No, the animals don't talk about philosophy nor science or math. How can someone thinking like this dares to write about SCIENCE? Animals understand when another animal is dead. They have to know that cos they kill or are killed. No philosophy about that.
"Chimp tool use is not an instinct but is a learned activity... as is tool use among crows in the Pacific Northwest... " I never said animals were completely stupid and I didn't say everything done by them is instinct. I agree they have a degree of intelligence but not consciousness as human beings.

"what this has to do with evolution is this... you seem to have a falce notion that evolution works to make 'more advanced' lifeforms from more 'primitive' lifeforms... with humans, obviously at the top... this isnt the case..." Not at all. You're missinformed. Books of evolution are FILLED with the statement you're denying and even more than this, are filled with images of less advanced lifeforms in a sequence leading to human beings at the top, obviously.
how do you know humans are the only ones with these things?

who says dolphins and elephants dont talk to one another about philosophy?
ever see a mother chimp with her dead child... she understands life and its loss...
Chimp tool use is not an instinct but is a learned activity... as is tool use among crows in the Pacific Northwest...

what this has to do with evolution is this... you seem to have a falce notion that evolution works to make 'more advanced' lifeforms from more 'primitive' lifeforms... with humans, obviously at the top... this isnt the case...

"evolution works to make new species that are better adapted to their environments than the previous ones... not more advanced or superior... just better at getting by... " This is just not proved cos as I said before the ones who know about genetic have never seen a NEW SPECIE by mutations or whatever reason. What you say it's perfectly known but evolutionist don't have evidence of their saying. You're spinning in circles again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again....ad infinitus like one of the 1001 Nights Arabian stories.


evolution works to make new species that are better adapted to their environments than the previous ones... not more advanced or superior... just better at getting by...

As I said before tall human beings in Africa shared the same environment with pigmean and this doesn't prove evolution. Adaptation to environment is simply that, adaptation WITHIN the limits of DNA plan. DNA doesn't allow the existence of NEW specie not even bombed by gamma rays and much less under natural influence. I don't how many times I have already said that and the names of the scientists DENYING your statements and it seems or you have difficulties to read English or we need to knock-knock-knock- again many times to drill the skull and let the thought gets into your brain.

Films are just an example and don't laugh too loud because great scientists like Carl Sagan, Asimov, Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawkins do care about science fiction based upon science

So what? They all agree evolution is a fact.

If you couldn't comprehend what I wrote, how on Earth are you gonna understand evolution or science???

You ramble about nonsense and not science – big difference.

Scientists don't write "anecdotes”

Exactly, so stop using anecdotes as support for your arguments.

Do you think I 'll have to write every single reference just to satisfy your ignorance.

Yes, if you continue making ridiculous claims, you’ll need to back them up with references.

I don't laugh at you.... I pity you.

That’s fine – I’ll do the laughing.

The links are not stupid

Maybe, but they certainly draw fallacious and erroneous conclusions based on anecdotes as opposed to evidence.

you trust that not cos you have witnessed the thing. That's for sure cos I know many things that you even see by television or video tapes or photographs you hesitate or just don't believe.

This post is very confusing and doesn’t seem to go anywhere but I’ll try to make some sense of it.

I’ve witnessed the evidence of evolution first hand, not from TV. Perhaps you should stop watching it, get off your *** and learn something.

So, you trust because the idea pleases you.

Unlike your own personal opinions and anecdotes, science doesn’t work that way. Scientists don’t make up theories because the idea pleases them; they make up theories based on observations and evidence.

The rest of this post is one long confusing rant that I can’t make heads or tails. Is English your second language?

I defy and challenge your pseudo-knowledge about that thermodynamic issue and let's see how deep the rabbit goes

OK, the second law states that the entropy of a system can increase or decrease depending on the volume and energy of a system but that the entropy of the universe will always increase. Therefore, number 11 on your list is wrong as is the conclusion drawn.

Next.

Someone asked me about thermodynamics. Well, it can be explained in 3 ways the 3 laws

You show an incredible lack of understanding of thermodynamics.

So much of Hawkins’ expertise!

And so much for your delirious post - that made no sense at all.

Yet this argument of yours has nothing to do with evolution

Kettle… black… pot…

Perhaps you need to understand a bit of animal language science but I would have to teach from zero and I don't have the time nor the energy to do that.

Damn that was funny, but now I have to clean the coffee off my laptop that came spraying out my nose when I read that. Should we start calling you, Dr. Dolittle?

No, the animals don't talk about philosophy nor science or math.

So, what do animals talk about?

inca said:

As I said before tall human beings in Africa shared the same environment with pigmean and this doesn't prove evolution

Click to expand...

I suppose if you call the whole continent of Africa one environment....

the people known as 'pigmies' are a tribe native to the deep forests of central Africa... Their small stature makes it easier for them to move around.. much like the small forest elephants and pigmey hippos...
if you are talking about the dobe... the bushmen then they adapted to their dry lands long before the arival of the taller tribes ... The tall peoples moved in from the savanas much later with their cattle.
simple ethnography...

ps... the whole gamma ray thing is silly... it shows the effects of extreme radiation on living things not the process of evolution...

if we have "difficulties to read English" is because you have "difficulties to write English"... I admit my grammer isn't stellar but wow...

wa:-do

Q,

I am no longer an atheist-- I now consider YOU to be my god!!

Excellent post!! I can barely type this I'm laughing so hard!!

:lol:

In your excellent post you don't answer anything at all no add any further detail about evolution. If I quot the words of a scientist and many details of what they have said you call them "anecdotes". It's your choice. I just mention what they as scientists think about the issue. I'm not the one who invented the name "anthropic principle". It was invented by people who are scientists and I let the reader decide while you laugh. Of course, I know you hate tooth and nail what I post and the disguise is writing "laughing". What I posted about laughing at the idea of science fiction has to be discussed into that context, so when you asked "so what?" The answer is : don't laugh about science fiction cos the real scientists don't laugh even if they believe in evolution or anthropic principle or pantheism or whatever.
You are so cocky and again unaware of my saying. My posting about the 3 laws of thermodynamic I did it on purpose. That EXAMPLE was not invented by me either BUT SCIENTIST AND BRITISH WRITER C.P.SNOW and supported by physicist Michio Kaku in Hyperspace in the theme "Death by Entropy". chapter 14. Hence you are not laughing at me but laughing two well known scientists!!!!!
You said <<Therefore, number 11 on your list is wrong as is the conclusion drawn>> What point 11 in the list? What did I write that contradict thermodynamic law, Mr?
Painted Wolf: tall people or short people were an example of adaptation within the same or different places, it doesn't matter. Yet, that's not evolution.
Someone asks me what do animals talk. Well, if he's the scientific mind it's his (her) duty to demonstrate the animals indeed talk about philosophy or math. If that person believes Dr.Doolittle-Evolution can perform that miracle, go ahead my our day! Meantime you keep on laughing, let me share something before I withdraw cos I really don't see you're writing about scientific data here and I didn't come to this forum to face a private war against a fistful of wise persons. I will add something more here and I will wait the post about what did I say wrong against thermodynamics before I withdraw.
The Genesis account is the edited Reader's Digest version of Sumerian account. Even Berossus explan the mutants in "EDEN" were hideous heary creatures with the same defficiencies so if Hollywood ever creates a film about our origins, really has to be a mixture of Mission Mars-Space Odysee 2001-Island of Dr. Moureau-Planet of the Apes and the futuristic film Annunaki.
I wrote something about Adam's rib before in this forum . In Sumerian account that was "ti" meaning rib & life while "tit" in Accadian is "maleable clay" while "egg" (like in egg-cell) is all a game of words "bos-bisa-besa" (clay-mud-egg). I have said mutations are rare quoting from scientists, not anecdotes. Therefore the "gods" ,must've inserted aretrovirus or inactivated the protein HSP90 (something not explained not even by Sitchin) to provoke a mutational stopping. I was discussing the mutation field with Dr. Javier Urbna who recently appeared in Canadian tv channel. Perhaps the key to understand this is the specification giving in Genesis 1:27 which is different from 1:26; 2:7, 18-24 because it's a compilation from ancient manuscripts. Unfortunately I won't give any details. Nobody seems to be interested and everything I read is laughing at my writings. In the meantime I gotta confess I read the Cherokee legend about the "devil monkey" with details since the Egyptians worshipped baboon god and even trained baboons to sweep their temples. In Peru, the ancient Masmas depicted statues of the baboon (not available by internet) and it seems there were no baboons in old times in Peru.
There was no natural evolution. The gamma rays bombing was performed by evolutionist scientists who wanted to demonstrate radiation (probably because of asteroids) could eventually transform one specie into another. That was never the case, not with gamma nor with any other thing. The only way to produce something bizarre in that sense is even via genetic engineering as the monkey or rabbit mixed with the genes of jellyfish. Hence, what made us humans with the capacity of reasoning the way we do and make us different from other creatures was done by manipulation...direct manipulation indeed. No randomic chances against mathematics as Hawkings would be believe. He's astronomer, he's not genetic expert. He should've ask the ones who know better.
The experiences in apes in the past was undertaken many times, Sumerians account tell us. Many of the mutants couldn't survive. The ADAMUS were made into gods' resemblance with some elements taken from their blood. In Hebrew DAM and ADAMU is also blood like Mesopotamian "red" ADAMATU. There was even the blood of goddesses as well. Clay was used in the experience:
www.sitchin.com
(last part)
The goddesses even "watched their hands" (something the Western doctors only started to do after thousands of years). Adam was a soul-blood "nephesh" in Hebrew. In Sumerian language was "napishtu" meaning something in -gods- blood.

Inca sez:

If I quot the words of a scientist and many details of what they have said you call them "anecdotes". It's your choice. I just mention what they as scientists think about the issue.

The ARE anecdotes and are not observations or evidence. If you provide evidence in favor of creationism or some other theory, I’ll take a look. Have you got any?

I'm not the one who invented the name "anthropic principle". It was invented by people who are scientists and I let the reader decide while you laugh.

It was originally proposed by Wallace in 1903.

don't laugh about science fiction cos the real scientists don't laugh even if they believe in evolution or anthropic principle or pantheism or whatever

And this is supposed to make sense? Again I ask, is English your second language?

Michio Kaku in Hyperspace in the theme "Death by Entropy

Let’s get something crystal sparkling clear, you will never learn anything from Kaku. He is a sensationalist who conjures up wild hypotheses for the layman. Yes, he bases many of his ideas on physics, but he focuses on taking a mathematical theory (example: wormholes) and extrapolates a theory in which the math should work in real life. He fails to tell his readers that the reality of such theories has other problems that render the theories useless.

He does sell books though, and that is his main focus.

Hence you are not laughing at me but laughing two well known scientists!!!!!

No, its you.

What point 11 in the list? What did I write that contradict thermodynamic law

Go back and read your own post. Or did you copy and paste something that you don’t remember and most likely did not understand?

I didn't come to this forum to face a private war against a fistful of wise persons.

Then perhaps you should listen to these “wise persons” and learn something instead of spouting nonsense.

what did I say wrong against thermodynamics before I withdraw

In order to provide a much shorter answer the question should be, ‘What did you say right about thermodynamics?’

No randomic chances against mathematics as Hawkings would be believe

Hawkings is another one of those sensationalists who you’ll never learn anything. He is accredited with a theory regarding the loss of mass in a black hole based on mathematics as opposed to observation.

He's astronomer, he's not genetic expert.

You should get your facts straight; Hawking is a physicist who originally began as a mathematician and later worked in the field of cosmology working with general relativity. That’s how he came up with his theory.

You're quite the mixed up puppy, inca.

Mr. Q has written in many pages already evolution has mountains of evidence and the way science works has established evolution truth. Please, why don't you show us each and every single one of the evidences? Meanwhile let's do like he does in order to believe our own lies "evolution is a fact" "that's real science working"...perhaps the readers will believe the claiming (without any scientific data so far in several pages) after a while. You see, even Hawkings was convinced while genetics is not his area, he believes in spite the fact he can't explain where he trusts the laws (thermodynamics and whatever law) of the universe. I'm still waiting your reply of what was my alleguedly "point 11" against thermodynamic law or WHY DO YOU LAUGH AGAINST MY POSTING QUOTING A SCIENTIST's SAYING?

Bravo, Mr. Q. Now we know every single posting when I mention a scientist is a wild man giving crazy sensational ideas to the world. Hawkings, Michio Kaku, Hoagland and every single one I mention is gonna be consider idiotic! Of course you're gonna consider myself not at your height, Mr. WHO ? In my comment I didn't write any number 11 and you're the one who says I'm wrong about thermodynamics, so it's only you who says I was wrong. That means nothing. But I really wanted to answer you more, but the more pissed off you get the more we know you think you're above specif names on science changing the subject about my English,etc. Mr. thank you so much for that illumination. Now we can all see how come a scientific mind can get you to a point of no return. No more conversation with you. It was fun!

The only accurate thing you wrote is your correction when I wrote Hawkins is an astronomer. I was to correct it myself before the slip of the finger. Your correction is accurate, he's a physicist. The rest of your posting...well, I let the readers have their own opinion. Let them read all the "mountain of evidence of evolution" you have to add in this theme after I'm gone....

inca said:

11. From the Laws of Science.
Supposing man made a cell, if it is left alone, with the passing of time, it will disintegrate and return to its original component elements.
This happens in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy), which states that, "Bodies of complex structure gradually deteriorate into simpler forms."
Thus, even the laws of science do not validate the evolutionary progress of matter but its regression.

Click to expand...

inca said:

I'm still waiting your reply of what was my alleguedly "point 11" against thermodynamic law

Click to expand...

inca said:

In my comment I didn't write any number 11 and you're the one who says I'm wrong about thermodynamics, so it's only you who says I was wrong

Click to expand...

um... so wich one is it then?

you obviously did do the much discussed number 11... but I still don't see why decay proves evolution wrong... eaven if you were right about thermodynamics...

wa:-do

I didn't say I didn't. I was asking WHERE cos I am not gonna remember every single detail I wrote though the general idea. And certainly indulging Mr. Q is not a priority. You disagree with me but you're postings are different.

I forgot I wrote the number 11.

www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3810.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-141.htm
www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

actually Inca, scientists are worried that encrochment on animals habitat is the cause of viruses.... crouded conditions and the mixing of wild and domestic populations are the key to get species to jump the species barrier.

AIDS came from SIDS the simian equivilant most likely from exposure due to the practice of eating 'bush meat'... This exposure happined twice as we have two disctinct strains of HIV... one is more virrulent and is what we think of when we talk about AIDS and the other is far more benine as it is harder to transmit from person to person.

SARS entered the human population thanks to the Asian bird markets... SARS origionated in a wild population that was forced closer to humans due to the cronic defoestation of southern china... It jumped into chickens and after causing havoc ammong the overcrouded conditions to be found in the asian bird markets... It didn't take long to jump from there to humans and as it is a fresh virus to humanity it ofcource wrecked havoc with us as well.

None of the human virus come from transplantation... although the now unheard of practice of using unsterilized needles to innoculate people certenly helped to spread AIDS quickly accoss Africa and then it was just a matter of time before it came here.

viruses are highly adaptable things and evlove rather quickly... say from SIDS to AIDS or Bird flu to SARS... That is what has the medical profession worried... that is why they need to make new Flu vaccines every year... the virus evolves enough that the old vaccine is ineffective.

wa:-do

Fascinating topic isn't it? But as I said before I don't wanna talk about that. Virus genesis is something we have too much to learn yet. It's true that I write too much. But when is time to shut up, I shut up.

heres a fun thing...

new form of life discoverd...nanobacteria
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3729487.stm

still under debate but if its true then we have something eaven more primitive than bacteria..

will they push the origen of life on Earth back eaven further into the murky past?

wa:-do

It's a pity some people here never heard about Cantú syndrom cos we could've chat about that in the "ape" evolution. Check this real disease photo:
http://books.dreambook.com/veekay/wolfboys.html

...perhaps we could learn more about the genetic engineering and the "female" importance, etc, etc, etc. Isn't it Q'rius?

Hawkings, Michio Kaku, Hoagland and every single one I mention is gonna be consider idiotic

Sorry, but its not my fault you chose kooks and cranks as your references. :roll:

And I didn’t say Hawking and Kaku were idiotic. Please don't put words in my mouth.

As well, was there some point to posting those links? Do you agree or disagree with their content? What is the average velocity of an African swallow?

Isn't it Q'rius?

Only if your incapable of understanding.