• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Humans did not descend from primates, because humans are still primates. Primates, in turn, did not descend from waterfowl, because they are still waterfowl. Fish, in turn, did not evolve from algae, because fish are still algae. And so on, until the very first simplest organism, which did not evolve from inanimate (non-living) matter, because it is still inanimate itself. And so on, until the Big Bang, which did not come from emptiness, because it is still emptiness. Darwin wrote a book: "The Origin of Species", but the species did not come from anything, but only developed. Everything in the world is an extremely highly developed emptiness:
A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

Well, since people did not descend from primates, then no one needs a transitional link between humans and primates. You just need to change the title of Darwin's book to "Evolution of the Void", and there will be no need to search and exhale transitional forms and common ancestors (which are just the transitional links between the species).

I can prove to all skeptics that this is my biography:
CV: Dmitri Martila
After all, there are my contact details, and in the list of published articles, there are articles in the highest physics journals, but also in the newspaper: World of Orthodoxy. There is no need to be surprised and demand a public renunciation of Love: I am in the company of such faithful physicists as Newton and Einstein, and other Nobel laureates.

Or did God just want two species so genetically similar?
It was a common creation plan, but not the common tree of life.

 
Last edited:

Regiomontanus

Russian Orthodox
Humans did not descend from primates, because humans are still primates. Primates, in turn, did not descend from waterfowl, because they are still waterfowl. Fish, in turn, did not evolve from algae, because fish are still algae. And so on, until the very first simplest organism, which did not evolve from inanimate (non-living) matter, because it is still inanimate itself. And so on, until the Big Bang, which did not come from emptiness, because it is still emptiness. Darwin wrote a book: "The Origin of Species", but the species did not come from anything, but only developed. Everything in the world is an extremely highly developed emptiness:
A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

Well, since people did not descend from primates, then no one needs a transitional link between humans and primates. You just need to change the title of Darwin's book to "Evolution of the Void", and there will be no need to search and exhale transitional forms and common ancestors (which are just the transitional links between the species).

So it is just a coincidence that chimps have, at the functional level, 98.6% (from memory; say +/- 0.5) the same DNA as humans? Or did God just want two species so genetically similar?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Humans did not descend from primates, because humans are still primates. Primates, in turn, did not descend from waterfowl, because they are still waterfowl. Fish, in turn, did not evolve from algae, because fish are still algae. And so on, until the very first simplest organism, which did not evolve from inanimate (non-living) matter, because it is still inanimate itself. And so on, until the Big Bang, which did not come from emptiness, because it is still emptiness. Darwin wrote a book: "The Origin of Species", but the species did not come from anything, but only developed. Everything in the world is an extremely highly developed emptiness:
A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

Well, since people did not descend from primates, then no one needs a transitional link between humans and primates. You just need to change the title of Darwin's book to "Evolution of the Void", and there will be no need to search and exhale transitional forms and common ancestors (which are just the transitional links between the species).

More total nonsense. You really are getting less and less coherent with every thread. :rolleyes:
I can prove to all skeptics that this is my biography:
CV: Dmitri Martila

You can't prove sceptics wrong with a CV. And just to remind you what I already said about it before:-
I've seen it before - quite apart from the fact that most of your more 'recent' (2010 and 2011) 'publications' seem to basically be posts on forums (at least one of which--that I happened to check--has been removed as spam), what you post here suggests that you've lost the plot somewhere along the way...
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Darwin wrote a book: "On The Origin of Species", but the species did not come from anything, but only developed.

Well I suppose that was his point, as why we have so many different species, rather than the origin of life itself. But you know this. It's just that you can't accept something other than your own particular belief system! :rolleyes:
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
Humans did not descend from primates, because humans are still primates. Primates, in turn, did not descend from waterfowl, because they are still waterfowl. Fish, in turn, did not evolve from algae, because fish are still algae. And so on, until the very first simplest organism, which did not evolve from inanimate (non-living) matter, because it is still inanimate itself.

Steam did not arise from boiling water because there is still boiling water.

Do you see the flaw in your logic?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Humans did not descend from primates, because humans are still primates. Primates, in turn, did not descend from waterfowl, because they are still waterfowl. Fish, in turn, did not evolve from algae, because fish are still algae. And so on, until the very first simplest organism, which did not evolve from inanimate (non-living) matter, because it is still inanimate itself. And so on, until the Big Bang, which did not come from emptiness, because it is still emptiness. Darwin wrote a book: "The Origin of Species", but the species did not come from anything, but only developed. Everything in the world is an extremely highly developed emptiness:
A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

Well, since people did not descend from primates, then no one needs a transitional link between humans and primates. You just need to change the title of Darwin's book to "Evolution of the Void", and there will be no need to search and exhale transitional forms and common ancestors (which are just the transitional links between the species).

I can prove to all skeptics that this is my biography:
CV: Dmitri Martila
After all, there are my contact details, and in the list of published articles, there are articles in the highest physics journals, but also in the newspaper: World of Orthodoxy. There is no need to be surprised and demand a public renunciation of Love: I am in the company of such faithful physicists as Newton and Einstein, and other Nobel laureates.


It was a common creation plan, but not the common tree of life.

If your papers are so good, as you claim. Why are you not world famous scientist?
RF is the first place i head about you.

Th real scientists in RF seems to disagree with on mostly everything :confused:
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Humans did not descend from primates, because humans are still primates. Primates, in turn, did not descend from waterfowl, because they are still waterfowl. Fish, in turn, did not evolve from algae, because fish are still algae. And so on, until the very first simplest organism, which did not evolve from inanimate (non-living) matter, because it is still inanimate itself. And so on, until the Big Bang, which did not come from emptiness, because it is still emptiness. Darwin wrote a book: "The Origin of Species", but the species did not come from anything, but only developed. Everything in the world is an extremely highly developed emptiness:
A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

Well, since people did not descend from primates, then no one needs a transitional link between humans and primates. You just need to change the title of Darwin's book to "Evolution of the Void", and there will be no need to search and exhale transitional forms and common ancestors (which are just the transitional links between the species).

I can prove to all skeptics that this is my biography:
CV: Dmitri Martila
After all, there are my contact details, and in the list of published articles, there are articles in the highest physics journals, but also in the newspaper: World of Orthodoxy. There is no need to be surprised and demand a public renunciation of Love: I am in the company of such faithful physicists as Newton and Einstein, and other Nobel laureates.


It was a common creation plan, but not the common tree of life.


You've done it again

SlipperyAcclaimedKob-size_restricted.gif
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Humans did not descend from primates, because humans are still primates.
So we can't call the difference in canines that produced what we call a "poodle" by that name because it is still a "wolf?" Is that the stance you want to take? Seriously? That's a change in organism that has happened within the span of human history. There was no such thing as the thing we call "poodle" that existed naturally in the wilderness. Humans crafted poodles out of actual wild/natural canine species using evolutionary processes by forcing the selection (not "natural selection", but "manual selection" if you will).

The same thing happened with bananas, by the way. And your "argument" here (if one could call it that) is also equivalent to saying that we are not allowed to call the modern banana "larger" than its naturally occurring predecessor because it is "still a banana." That's just dumb.

The names and classes given to various organisms of any particular state or point along an ever-changing landscape are just methods of attempted organization and cataloguing. That's it. Classification and organization of what is seen and what is known to have existed previously. It is, basically, just all part of a continuum, but delineating it does have its uses - which is why we do it. Whether or not we do is more or less arbitrary from any objective position. It's utility to us is what matters to us.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Humans did not descend from primates, because humans are still primates. Primates, in turn, did not descend from waterfowl, because they are still waterfowl. Fish, in turn, did not evolve from algae, because fish are still algae. And so on, until the very first simplest organism, which did not evolve from inanimate (non-living) matter, because it is still inanimate itself. And so on, until the Big Bang, which did not come from emptiness, because it is still emptiness. Darwin wrote a book: "The Origin of Species", but the species did not come from anything, but only developed. Everything in the world is an extremely highly developed emptiness:
A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

Well, since people did not descend from primates, then no one needs a transitional link between humans and primates. You just need to change the title of Darwin's book to "Evolution of the Void", and there will be no need to search and exhale transitional forms and common ancestors (which are just the transitional links between the species).

I can prove to all skeptics that this is my biography:
CV: Dmitri Martila
After all, there are my contact details, and in the list of published articles, there are articles in the highest physics journals, but also in the newspaper: World of Orthodoxy. There is no need to be surprised and demand a public renunciation of Love: I am in the company of such faithful physicists as Newton and Einstein, and other Nobel laureates.


It was a common creation plan, but not the common tree of life.


Don't need to fix what isn't broken. So sorry that you're beliefs are so threatened by the reality of evolution, but realty isn't going to change just because you feel threatened by it.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I can prove to all skeptics that this is my biography:
CV: Dmitri Martila

Actually, your credentials for RF are your posts - your thinking. That's true for all of us.

There's a term in the philosophy of argumentation called ethos. It refers to the messages a speaker or writer sends his audience apart from the direct meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language, and the like. Your issues are not with character or intent - you seem well-meaning enough and with no hidden agenda - but with competence and credibility. If you're competent in physics, perhaps you should post about that. Your knowledge of biology is undermining your ethos.

Incidentally, how do you suppose that you proved that that was your CV? If I post it on another thread, have I proved that it's my CV? Your comments about proof also undermine your ethos. Your logic and critical thinking skills are another area that betrays you. I would think a scientist skilled in any area would understand that you have not proved anything with that link. This is the kind of mistake biblically oriented people commonly make when they claim that scripture proves this or that. They don't know what proof is, or even evidence. But they also don't claim to be skilled and accomplished physicists, either, the kind of person who ought not make such errors. Your CV proves exactly what the Bible proves: somebody wrote it.

I am in the company of such faithful physicists as Newton and Einstein, and other Nobel laureates.

But it's Kent Hovind you admire. That also isn't doing much for your ethos. Here's where the judgment thing comes in. How could you possibly embrace that man, and how could you not know how damaging that is to your ethos?

Well, since people did not descend from primates, then no one needs a transitional link between humans and primates. You just need to change the title of Darwin's book to "Evolution of the Void", and there will be no need to search and exhale transitional forms and common ancestors (which are just the transitional links between the species).

I'm wondering where dark matter fits in.

By the way, comments like that one are your credentials here.
 
Last edited:

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
But it's Ken Hovind you admire.

But nobody tried to harm me the way Kent was harmed. Why?

If your papers are so good, as you claim. Why are you not world famous scientist?
RF is the first place i head about you.

Imagine, that Kent Hovind will go to some real University, e.g. Cambridge, and becomes Ph.D. of Physics. He will write a good paper. But nobody will accept the paper, because he has label
"STUPID". I have label: crazy fanatic.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
But nobody tried to harm me the way Kent was harmed. Why?



Imagine, that Kent Hovind will go to some real University, e.g. Cambridge, and becomes Ph.D. of Physics. He will write a good paper. But nobody will accept the paper, because he has lebel
"STUPID". I have lebel: crazy fanatic.
Do you understand why some people call you strange, wrong, or as you self called it crazy fanatic?
I do not know enough scientific things to make a good assessment, but the problem I found is that when I try reading what you write here in RF, I honestly can not understand anything of it. And it kind of seems like you do not understand when the scientists in RF comment or critique your OP or posting. or trying to help you understand a topic you have been writing about.
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
It was a common creation plan, but not the common tree of life.

You did not propose a tree. Your scheme of evolution is linear from the first organism up to the current organisms. I am not sure how that works, but you think fish evolved from algae.

I thought you was science guyo.
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
But nobody tried to harm me the way Kent was harmed. Why?



Imagine, that Kent Hovind will go to some real University, e.g. Cambridge, and becomes Ph.D. of Physics. He will write a good paper. But nobody will accept the paper, because he has label
"STUPID". I have label: crazy fanatic.
It is Kent Hovind. I'm sure if he wanted to harm someone, he was going to make money on it somehow.

If Kent were capable of all of that, he wouldn't be doubling down on crazy and selling it to desperate people that are easily programed.
 
Top