Friday, December 3, 2010
Oh, and for anyone interested, here is the full size image (when clicked) of the skull fossils.
It has been requested that I try to resume work on this blog some. Well, my first post back is a little art project. Click to enlarge.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The one, the only, Marksman11: "Here you go redefining terms again. Living means living, and the Law of Biogenesis never mentions the word "biological".
Definitions of Law of biogenesis on the Web:
Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders. It may also refer to biochemical processes of production in living organisms.
Show me in that definition the word "biological". It isn't there. That is just more of you're made up BS.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Bob Enyart (regarding sexual selection)-"If tattoos become really popular so that women are attracted to men who have tattoos, how long will that be the fad before kids start being born with tattoos? When is that going to happen? How stupid could Darwin be and all the world full of evolutionists?"
Thursday, February 18, 2010
SMalice: "Opinions don't really have to be rational, they are opinions and do not have to be substantiated by evidence. To try and do so is a waste of time."
Monday, February 15, 2010
This is the first of what will be at least several installments. It is the documented history of Marksman11's FAIL on an Topix thread about Evolution. Let's start with a quote by Marksman11:
"This is not, and never has been about my beliefs."
Why is this quote so important? Well, if you notice the color, it is the first of our color coded FAILS for Marksman11. Other FAIL categories include:
Ranting and raving
Classic Logical Fallacy
Good Old Fashioned Fail/That's not how science works
My comments will appear like this.
Some I have read argue about creationism in the science class. Christians don't want creation in science class because it isn't science, JUST LIKE HUMANS EVOLVING FROM SOMETHING THAT WAS NON-HUMAN ISN'T SCIENCE. We don't want creationism in, we want darwinism out.
One poster said they didn't evolve from an ape, which was answered that evolving from an ape is more likely than coming from dirt. My reply to that person is, when we die, what happens to our body? Does it turn into an ape? Or return to dirt? That's right, we turn to dirt, so why is it such a strech to believe that is where we came from in the first place?
To believe that humans evolved from non-humans violates the law of entropy. Put a steel "I" beam in your driveway. Over years what happens? Does it violate this law and become an automoble, or does it devolve into a pile of rust? So why do you think that biological systems can constantly violate this law? It doesn't.
Creationists claims do NOT run counter to all science. It algines perfectly with observable and testable science, which is the only REAL science there is. You have zero evidence to support abiogenesis. You've NOT observed where humans evolved from non-humans, you've NOT observed the origin of life, and you've NOT observed the BIG BANG.....NONE OF IT!!!! All you, in all of your gullibility, have done is fall for the loony philosophies of liberal humanists.
Oh, and for the record, Gobal Warming is just as silly.!!!! More liberal scare tactics.
Are you on drugs? I didn't make the positive claim, YOU DID!!! I didn't make the positive statement that the supernatural DOESN'T EXIST....YOU DID!! But it is obvious you can't answer my request to back your statement.
No one is saying things don't evolve or change. The debate is how much. My point is there is no observable or testable evidence that humans evolved from non-humans. As far as fossils and DNA? Fossils prove that something lived, is now dead, and left evidence that it once existed. It doesn't support Darwinism. Explain how nature produced DNA and RNA without a designer. Please explain how nature can produce this extreme complexity. You can drop the insults. They don't support your stance
I'm not impressed. Read it again,I didn't say "evolution", I said Darwinism. There is a huge difference. Evolution is observable, the theory that humans evolved from non-humans is not.
Then the theory that humans evolved from non-humans must be removed. That is not science. It is humanistic philosophy, and evolution is one of the main tenats of the humanist manifesto, of which humanism was established as a religion in the early 60's. That is the religion that needs to be removed.
Apes, why is it that the evidence for the history of man only goes back 6000 years?
You don't have to like it, but the USSC declared humanism as a religion in 1961. Humans can tithe and have their own buildings and let their contributes be deducted from their taxes. That makes them a religion. Their scriptures are the Humanist Manifesto, and their sanctuary is the science classroom spreading their drival that humans evolved from non-humans. Also, you supported me in that when these court cases come up, the ACLU lawyers try to make a church/state issue of it rather than presenting this observable and testable evidence you claim exists, but don't present.
If you want a reply from me, drop the insults or I'll drop your posts like I drop a liberal in a voting booth.
Then why do most of you guys teach the prebiotic soup deal? The bible says that GOD created man, and that isn't evolution, so if you are saying GOD did not create man "ex-nihilo" then I'm going to look at the scientific evidence that backs your conclusion. So Far, I've found your conclusion lacking observable evidence. Plus, if evolution produced man, where was the fall? It is obvious that there is evil in the world.....right?
We give you hospitals, you give us AIDS, we give you orphanages, you give us abortion, we give you world class universities, you give us communists, we give you homeless shelters, you give us the gay agenda, we give you missionaries, you give us genecide, we give you the founding fathers and the constitution, you give the humanist manifesto.
It is obvious that you didn't read the post I was replying too. It's also obvious that you don't get the fact that most atheists are political liberals. You know why their are few atheists groups? There's not enough of you to start one!!!
Oh how quick you forget atheistic communism and the millions murdered by its dictators.
Misguided people like you have murdered millions more than a few misguided christians. Search communistic murders. See if communist dictators aren't atheists. Educate yourself.
You're on drugs. Biologists have to have zero alegence to darwinism. We could completely annul Darwinism and proclaim creationism as valid, and it would have absolutely no effect on current or future research.
But goober, you just made the creationists case. That is exactly what the bible says you'll get. They reproduce "after their own kind". Evolution, AND YOU, say that eventually you will get something other than an oak. You also just proved biogenesis. Let's see you make an oak without an acorn,(a previous life). Now which takes more faith? That this acorn will produce an oak? Or according to your dogma, something other than an oak?
You're the best player we got!!!!
Wait until you see what is coming!
"oak" is not a tree. Oak is a type of wood.
If that were true, then we now have a reason to put creationism into the classroom as the motor behind the origin of life. Evolution can't answer this question scientifically, panspermia just relocates that same lack of evidence. So creationism is the philosophy that is left.
Because the long term result of mutations is the degradation, deterioration, or degeneration of the genome. Not it's improvement.
Biological limits. Most mutations injure or kill a system. They are designed to do that. You claim we have a common ancestor with apes, but you have no idea what this common ancestor was, or what the animal looked like that it evolved from. Just wild guesses.
Asked, "Are chimps 2% deteriorated because their DNA differs by 2% from humans?"
No because they were CREATED with this 2% differnce. It wasn't an act of evolution as you wished it was.
It's very simple. GOD wanted apes to exist just like he wanted trap door spiders to exist. It's just that simple. GOD did it because he wanted too.
Make it up? Scientists don't all even agree with each other. Work of the devil? I dunno. More like the work of GODless humanists falsely thinking they've found a loophole to avoid being accountable to GOD. They've failed.
Sure it has. It's micro. No one has ever denied that and it is irrelevant to the debate at hand. It has nothing to do with humans evolving from non-humans. Your gulls are still gulls, and your mud skippers are still mud skippers. Been there....no big deal. Irrelevant.
you've not shown GOD didn't do it!!!!!
There are no neutral observers. People base opinions on exposure to the evidence. If one looks at the evidence, lack of evidence, Piltdown Man, corrupt politics and how liberal thinking is trying to control education and how people think, the brainwashing of man made global warming, employ critical thinking skills and a common sense approch to the things we see around us,and the hostile approch humanism and atheism has taken towards religion, especially christianity....etc, then after looking at all of that, then #1 is more rational.
Something that is falsifiable is adhering to the scientific method. Matters of faith in the supernatural can't be measured by science. Science can't deal with the supernatural, thus annulling the need for falsibility.
This is a good one to remember for later...
Science can achieve a lot, but it'll never answer the questions you really want answered. Will you live on after you die? If so, where? Will I be accountable to anyone? Is my location after my death dependent on my decisions? If so, how? Where did life originate, and how? Did GOD do it? Science has no idea how life originated, so how did it happen? Science can not answer any of these questions. If you state otherwise, then your statement above..."This is why science will always trump belief in my eyes." is untrue.
But does the bible say that the words therein are GOD breathed, and inspired? Yes it does. Also, you are limiting GOD again by thinking that it is not possible for GOD to inspire men and have his written word produced in this way. Why is it that you can't hardly walk into a room or building on the planet where somewhere there is not a bible? Of course there are exceptions, but that's usually because of Governmental control. It, BY FAR is the most published book in history with billions being published. Again, why all this? Because everyone thinks it contains myths? Because it is so contradictory? Do you not realise that if you study it, that every claimed contradiction has been refuted years ago? How has it servived for over 2000 years, with critics ripping and tearing at every side, yet it not only servives, but thrives? I'll tell you, I believe it's because GOD wants it to servive. I displayed how Eze. prophocied how Israel would be reborn on May 15th. 1948 from 536 b.c. Nobody could refute it. Just smuggly discard it out of ignorance. In your own words. Don't limit GOD in any way.
Also, by GODS own style, you should see that inspiring men to write the bible is being true to the way he works. He didn't build the ark, he had Noah do it. He didn't build the temple, he had Solomon do it. He didn't build the arc of the covenant, he had Jewish craftsman do it. So why not expect men to have written the bible, as in everything else, according to his instructions?
I'm here not to answer your questions, but replying to objections to my LTE in the paper. I'm not here to defend my beliefs. I take my beliefs in faith. I'm here saying YOUR beliefs don't have the scientific evidence needed to be a valid theory. And they don't. Your belief that humans evolved from non-humans is not science but humanistic philosophy.
2 questions.1... Was it unlawful to have sex with a family member prior to there being a law that says so? The law of Moses didn't come until many genrations later. 2....According to entropy, would the gene pool been more pure, allowing the mixing of these gene pools without the birth defects? Besides, Noahs sons had wives that were not of their family, so there never was a complete mixture of families. Cousins in a pure gene pool is as close as you could ever get.
It's all word games and labels my friend. Some people define macro as some other animal morphing into some other animal over long periods of time. Others define it as 2 almost similar animals that can't interbreed. It's word games. That is why in my original posts I specifically stated "humans evolving from something that was non-human". Evolutionists are notoriously known to be cornered, and then start redefining terms and twisting terms. An example is...."Evolution has a mountain of evidence to support it.".....How can that be true when it can be answered, "yes and no"?
LOOK AT WHAT YOU JUST SAID!!!!!! IF IT TAKES SCIENTISTS TO DEMONSTRATE IT....IT DIDN'T HAPPEN NATURALLY!!!
THINK MAN THINK!!!
It's much like the scientist that told GOD,"We don't need you anymore. We can now make life out of dirt." GOD replied, "Oh yeah? Show me." The scientist reached down and scooped up some dirt, in which GOD replied, "Wait a minute! Go get your own dirt!!"
That is why they call it faith. I have no problem admitting that I take my beliefs in faith. It's the truth. But it isn't blind faith. I can talk for hours on the reasons for my faith. As far as wars, and murder? Atheistic Communist Dictators have murdered millions more than misguided religionists. Both were wrong.
I don't reject the fossil record nor carbon dating at all. I challenge you to show where I have stated such. that's just more of your imaginary beliefs like Darwinism. I don't reject the fossil record, but they don't support evolution. They are evidence that something once lived and is now dead and we can study what was left behind. I don't reject carbon dating when properly applied. The problem with carbon dating is that it isn't consistent and assumes that the earths conditions have always been as it is now. That probably has not been the case.
DUH? So it's a fact that either Josephus wrote it, OR SOMEONE ELSE!!!!(shakes head). Jesus existed. Be wrong if you want.
A fossil has no feathures. What you need to show is a change in flesh. From Reptile flesh to skin, or feathers to scales. That is how a basic kind is defined. By it's flesh. You are assuming that the earths conditions have always been constant, so that c14 dating would be consistent. If Genesis is true, and the firmament was in place, the barimetric pressure would have been twice what it is now, and the oxygene level would be three times higher. THus leaving any date preflood contaminated.
Archy never was a transtional species. It was just another bird, which by the way, was 250,000 years behind the other birds. At least according to science. I'll bet you one thing. If I look into the eye of a turkey Vulture, I'll see a pathway of no kind. That's just new age jargon.
Ok and there are no rings around Saturn either. Study the firmament from people who have. Learn grasshopper, learn! Ever heard of those HUGE drawings in South America? A hummingbird, insect, etc.....How do you think they drew them? The book of JOB which is the oldest book of the bible says the morning stars sang to JOB. What causes a radio to recieve? It's crystals. What would this firmament be made of? Crystaline. Do the stars put out cosmic vibrations? Absolutely. So what would have happened when these vibrations hit the crystaline firmament? That's right, the morning stars sang to JOB.
I've been an amateur astronomer for years also, and yes, you should study the firmament. I think it hilarious that you little darwinists want to claim that the earth is billion of years old, and existed then, just exactly as it is now.....LOL.
Look at the chest of dinosaurs. Very limited lung capacity, and after the colapse of the firmament, the oxygene level would be drastically reduced, leaving the dinosaurs unable to servive, and died.
Show me a 4000 year old tree. If the flood truly existed, along with the firmament, and the atmosphere preflood was different, then c14 dating is not reliable past 4000 years, or better, the time of the flood.
He gets what he asks for, then...
Tree rings have nothing to do with a time of 4000 years ago. If dinosaurs could breath just fine, why are they gone? And no, it is not proven that birds evolved from reptiles. I'm not hiding from the world, I'm living in the real world.
Not at all. Christians just want equality. Liberals don't want religion is schools. Fine. remove all religion. Only this isn't the case. Humanism was established as a religion in the early 1960's. Part of the humanist manifesto proclaims evolution as one of it's main tenants. The scientific method demands that a theory be observable testable , and replicatable. The hypothosis that humans evolved from non-humans can not pass this test. Thus it isn't a valid theory, which should not be taught in the science class. So liberals want religion out of schools, yet one of the most unscientific hypothosis ever is being taught in the science class, and is a religious tenent of humanism. Thus religion is being taught in schools and it's the religion of humanism. Christians don't want creationism taught in science. We want humanism out.
I completely disagree. I wouldn't care if they taught evolution. That things adapt and change, but when they go into darwinism and that humans evolved from non-humans, then they are getting into magic, and not science.
It would not change chemistry, and it wouldn't change physics, nor anything else. They would continue on just as they are now. The research would continue, along with discoveries. New medicenes would be discovered and invented. Science will not crumble if evolution does. The only thing that will crumble with the colapse of ToE is atheistic worldviews.
Apes and man don't reproduce either, but you say we are cousins. Humans and apes don't fall into a nested hierarchy either.
It's already that way. Look at the school shootings and suicides! Much because of the unscientific teachings of evolution who teaches that man is just another animal on this earth and nothing more. How bad does an animal? No remorse at all. Darwinism shouldn't be taught in science classrooms either. It isn't science. It is just teaching religion when it does. Read the humanist manifesto, which by the way, humanism is a religion.
BEcause a person has a degree, doesn't mean they are educated. One time a professor had a flat tire by a mental hospital. He jacked up his car and began changing it, as a patient watched from behind the fence. As the professor removed the lug nuts, he placed them in the hub cap. As he was getting the spare, he accidently kicked the hub cap and all his lug nuts rolled into a storm drain and disappeared. He couldn't figure out what to do. The patient said from hehind the fence, "Why don't you take one lug nut from the remaining three wheels and put on the one you're replacing until you can get somewhere to buy some more lug nuts?" The professor replied, "Why are you in there? That is brilliant!" The patient replied, "I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid."
You are a good example of the professor. Possibly plenty of book knowledge with no idea of how to apply it.
These two posts are a good indicator of what will become a continuing trend of academic mistrust.
I'm not against science at all. I'm 100% pro science. I am against atheists who want to twist it to support their false philosophy. Currently "GOD" is as good an explanation as you have.
I'm not the one taking science that will not pass the scientific method, and proclaiming it as fact. It is a free country, and you can believe anything you want. You can believe that humans evolved from non-humans if you want, but you can't claim it as a scientific conclusion until it is testable and observable. Your belief that humans evolved from non-humans takes just as much faith as creationism does. Neither can be scientifically proven, leaving both on a level playing field.
Let me know when you atheists start building hospitals, universities, homeless shelters, food pantries, heating oil funds for the poor, Safe havens for drug abusers, orphanages.....etc. You are not our judge. You don't matter.
There is no reason, or evidence, to think that a designer with the power to create the universe, or the origin of life, needs to use such a useless tool as evolution to do so. The christian creation story, which has not been scientifically disproven, sees it the same way. He created life to reproduce itself after it's own kind.
I have no problem admitting I accept the flood account. That does not mean I have to be a YEC. The bible doesn't give dates either way. No one knows the age of the earth, I don't claim too either.
have you ever observed the origin of life? Have you ever observed humans evolving from non-humans? When was the origin of the universe? How old is it? You guys claim to have the answers for these questions, but you've observed and tested nothing.It appears you evolutionists "don't never do science" either.
There is no other scientific alternative to evolution. Evolution itself isn't scientific. You've got to come up with a viable theory to begin with before you have an alternative. As far as evidence for a designer, explain the complexity of life without a designer. You've not done it yet, so I don't expect it now.
One in a long string of arguments from incredulity...
You "KNOW" nothing. You weren't there. You can guess, and I can also say I know things supposedly happened millions of years ago. The truth is, neither of us was there, and you "KNOW" nothing. If you "KNOW" when the universe originated, please tell us HOW it originated, and from what. If you "KNOW" when the earth originated, please tell us how it happened, and then maybe you can also explain how it was that it just so happened to orginate in the exact, and only way, to support carbon based life. Why is the earth just the right distance from the sun, tilted just right to grow food, with a moon that's just right to cause gentle tides to cleanse the oceans, with just the right atmosphere, and just right to adhere to the anthropic princible? You "KNOW" these things, right?
Whoda thunk Marksman11 for a sharpshooter?
Christians require no standards. Christian works mean nothing to their salvation. There is no line where you are good enough to go to heaven, and no fault that Jesus didn't die for. The only standard GOD requires is acceptence of Jesus as LORD and Savior. Works has nothing to do with it. There is only one sin between the person in heaven, and the person in hell. No disrespect, but I see you don't understand christianity, or have read the bible.
Then why do you think christians are any different than any one else? We're all sinners. Sinners are saved by grace and accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and evidenced by his resurrection. We deal with life and troubles just like everyone else. Why would you think differently?
I still don't understand why you chose to comment on my defence of my views, and not the other persons judgement of me. The only reason I can see is an intolerance to christians.
A gentleman in our church had an infant grandson that was dying from a brain tumor. At a prayer meeting he publically prayed for GOD to take the cancer from his grandson and place it in him. 3 months later he was dead and Adam Cox is now 32 years old.
This last one...just...citation needed...
Friday, January 8, 2010
(This is just so much fail, I had to put it up...and yes, the list unfortunately goes to Z.)
Christian Worldview Examiner's "ABCs of Evolution":
A - absurd, amusing, asinine. That theory of evolution that is trying to be passed off is pretty amusing if you think about it, absurd at best and down right asinine if you think about it too hard.
B - bull hockey, baloney, B.S. Baloney, I say. You expect me to believe that bull hockey. Evolution theory is nothing but B.S. from the getgo.
C - Cinderella, cute - Evolution reminds us of Cinderella - pumpkin seed (don't know where it's from) becomes pumpkin (don't know how that happened) then the pumpkin became a carriage (sans the fairy godmother, of course.)