Challenge to Creationists who dismiss evolution!

[Greg1234]

That's because the darwinian theory

Nice. By the way, this one is also good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej0dmNMdwYU

 

[mzungu]

What did you prove? "almost identical"?
If you are an artist, I might let you pass.

They both are basically the same mechanisms with different instructions. One produces a SEA URCHIN and the Other a HUMAN. Look at the photographs and tell me which is which:

Both photos show sperm trying to fuse with the egg. One is of a SEA URCHIN and the other is of a HUMAN!

Enjoy!

 

[Mike Elphick]

It's a wonder you don't get into this right off the bat and try to conceal it under "I have no problem with alt med." Are you forgetting that I've been here a while and I'm already aware of the hysteria you're holding back? But it's a good thing you've already indicated that you're involved in the mainstream field of practice as you serve as an optimal poster child for the mindset of personnel operating behind closed doors. While some are led to think that they are merely indifferent scientists open to new ideas and perseveringly seeking the benefit of mankind this lollipop and rainbows scenario is overshadowed by the actual antagonistic mindset revealing itself in water-cooler fanaticism and radical smothering.

Dr Hamer's work is one in progress and as such imay serve as postulates or hypotheses to explain the undeniable link between the mind and these types of physucal changes. That link is the only one one can recognize to regard the work being done and follow the progress being made, not the more detailed research. He of course has a right to practice his work, construct a hypothesis, publish the results he obtained, and deduce without being ridiculed even if derision, for the most part, seems to be the predominant impetus behind the use of the "Mike Elphick" account. You posted his work and made fun of it. And while I admire your use here of the esoteric scientific method, I'll have to dismiss it.

I don't respond to ad hominem attacks, Greg, but I assure you I am who I say I am.

"Doctors" should not be permitted to treat cancer patients, without at least some evidence that their treatments work. It seems Dr Hamer is unable to supply this information.

 

[mzungu]

Nice. By the way, this one is also good.

House of Numbers - Trailer - 2010 - YouTube

LOL!!!! My neighbourhood pharmacist believes the Hollow Earth Theory!

 

[Incariol]

You want to hear word salad about homeopathy? Try this one.

But I warn you, very severe brain dammage is possible.

Homeopathy with "Dr" Charlene Werner - YouTube

"You can almost cross out the speed of light, so energy equals the speed of light..."

AAEOWTHNAQW$EOGTABLNHJ PT^@#^T !~~~~!~!!!!!! 513RHOq

 

[pgp_protector]

They both are basically the same mechanisms with different instructions. One produces a SEA URCHIN and the Other a HUMAN. Look at the photographs and tell me which is which:

Both photos show sperm trying to fuse with the egg. One is of a SEA URCHIN and the other is of a HUMAN!

Enjoy!

That's Easy, check Reps

 

[mzungu]

That's Easy, check Reps

Thanks for the reps Check out yours it may surprise you!

 

[juvenissun]

They both are basically the same mechanisms with different instructions. One produces a SEA URCHIN and the Other a HUMAN. Look at the photographs and tell me which is which:

Both photos show sperm trying to fuse with the egg. One is of a SEA URCHIN and the other is of a HUMAN!

Enjoy!

That is what I mean. This is a type of argument for artist, not for scientist. (if you shrink the image a little more, it would make no difference from a grain of sand)

That is it. As I said, this thread is no good.

 

[USincognito]

That is what I mean. This is a type of argument for artist, not for scientist. (if you shrink the image a little more, it would make no difference from a grain of sand)

That is it. As I said, this thread is no good.

That's a lot of typing to say, "now that you've called my bluff and shown me the photos, I still can't tell the difference. I was wrong earlier."

 

[SkyWriting]

I say this because creationists compare fossils of hominids and insist that they are not hominid since they resemble chimps more. Creationists refuse to accept Evolution simply because this will mean that they will have to admit that humans belong to the greater ape family and that all life forms are genetically related in some way or another.A human sperm bears absolutely no resemblance to a human but is almost identical to all sperms from the animal kingdom. How can this be? A single celled creature with a tail fusing with a round single celled creature brings forth humans? I would like creationists to ponder on this for a moment as the sperm egg example shows exactly how biological change happens and how this process is common in most animals inhabiting this planet.

I don't go by looks for any comparisons. I go by function and engineering principles. From my days in Mechanical Design classes I guess. That WAS before I was born again, so mechanical design could well have led to my faith.....interesting.

As to your "mystery", again design prevails. A good design performs mechanical tasks. Why didn't evolution produce square and triangle cells? Performance reasons. Not genealogical reasons.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's not a religion by itself, but it is a religious belief. Nobody has ever arrived at creationist conclusions as a result of the scientific method.

OK I'll go over it again.

A. Matter cannot be destroyed, only changed.
Test it.

So....where did all this matter and energy come from? It MUST have been Created by some "thing" that is outside the realm of Science
because of "A.".

So you claim against a rational Creationist is denied.

I arrive at the Creationist conclusion, because the scientific method demands that there is some "First Cause" for everything that exists.

B. Everything tends to degrade over time. We see no trends to the opposite.

SO...I must conclude....that something very warm & organized must have started everything......because all I see is information degrading and matter getting colder. Something supernatural MUST HAVE started it all up. Eventually it will all fizzle out and be cold. Science says so.....

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only alternative is that the Cosmos has been "Big Banging" in an endless cycle for eternity.
Sadly, science has ruled that out and says the big bang won't happen again.
SO the scientific method itself has ruled out an eternally cycling Cosmos. Again....pointing toward the Creationist conclusion.
Atheist science just shooting itself in the foot. Not real science.....just those who deny God's role in Creation.

 

[Tiberius]

As to your "mystery", again design prevails. A good design performs mechanical tasks. Why didn't evolution produce square and triangle cells? Performance reasons. Not genealogical reasons.

Because for any given solid of a certain surface area, a spherical body has the most volume. Of course, the ones that could encompass the most volume would have had a benefit, and thus natural selection would have passed those traits on...

So....where did all this matter and energy come from? It MUST have been Created by some "thing" that is outside the realm of Science
because of "A.".

First of all, this is the argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot imagine something happening without a cause, does not mean that it is impossible.

Secondly, have you studied quantum mechanics? There are quite a few theories out there at the moment which may provide answers to what caused the Big Bang. Branes rubbing against branes, etc...

I arrive at the Creationist conclusion, because the scientific method demands that there is some "First Cause" for everything that exists.

This would seem to be just pushing the issue back. If everything that exists needs a cause, what caused God? The only way around this is to claim that for some reason, God doesn't need a cause, but if we can make this claim about God, why not make this claim about some naturalistic process and avoid the need for a god altogether?

B. Everything tends to degrade over time. We see no trends to the opposite.

SO...I must conclude....that something very warm & organized must have started everything......because all I see is information degrading and matter getting colder. Something supernatural MUST HAVE started it all up. Eventually it will all fizzle out and be cold. Science says so.....

Science would also say (using the same logic that you just used) that nothing warm and organised could exist in order to start everything. Again, this logic is just pushing the issue back a step, not explaining it.

The only alternative is that the Cosmos has been "Big Banging" in an endless cycle for eternity.
Sadly, science has ruled that out and says the big bang won't happen again.
SO the scientific method itself has ruled out an eternally cycling Cosmos. Again....pointing toward the Creationist conclusion.
Atheist science just shooting itself in the foot. Not real science.....just those who deny God's role in Creation.

Even if you are right, and there was some intelligent force that set the universe into motion, it does not follow that this force has any interest in humans. It's entirely possible that this force is concerned solely with the welfare of neutron stars, and we only happen to exist because the conditions that he set up to develop neutron stars are also the same conditions that make organic life possible.

And it certainly does not follow that the Christian account of creation is the correct one.

 

[SkyWriting]

First of all, this is the argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot imagine something happening without a cause, does not mean that it is impossible.

But each time I test the theory, you loose again. Don't get all anti-sciency on me now.

Secondly, have you studied quantum mechanics? There are quite a few theories out there at the moment which may provide answers to what caused the Big Bang. Branes rubbing against branes, etc...

What would CAUSE such Brane rubbing?

This would seem to be just pushing the issue back. If everything that exists needs a cause, what caused God? The only way around this is to claim that for some reason, God doesn't need a cause, but if we can make this claim about God, why not make this claim about some naturalistic process and avoid the need for a god altogether?

Because nature says we can't include non natural causes.

Science would also say (using the same logic that you just used) that nothing warm and organized could exist in order to start everything. Again, this logic is just pushing the issue back a step, not explaining it.

Thus leaving only one natural cause for energy and matter to exist...an non natural instigator.

Even if you are right, and there was some intelligent force that set the universe into motion, it does not follow that this force has any interest in humans. It's entirely possible that this force is concerned solely with the welfare of neutron stars, and we only happen to exist because the conditions that he set up to develop neutron stars are also the same conditions that make organic life possible. And it certainly does not follow that the Christian account of creation is the correct one.

The evidence suggests that Humans are the only form of Sentient life anywhere. It follows that we are a direct effort of the force that created everything. Besides, my personal experience is that God is very concerned about each person and as involved as people, even me, allow Him to be.

For example, He never answers my prayers when I don't pray.
And always does when I do. Certain conditions apply.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's not a religion by itself, but it is a religious belief. Nobody has ever arrived at creationist conclusions as a result of the scientific method.

Creationism is the only Scientific conclusion.

 

[driewerf]

Creationism is the only Scientific conclusion.

Then show us the observations, tests and experiments done to arrive at this conclusion.
No bible quotes here!

You used the phrase

Creationism is the only Scientific conclusion.

So you 'll have to play by the rules of science.

 

[mzungu]

Then show us the observations, tests and experiments done to arrive at this conclusion.
No bible quotes here!

You used the phrase

So you 'll have to play by the rules of science.

I am afraid he does not know what the definition of science is, let alone the rules that govern science!

 

[driewerf]

I am afraid he does not know what the definition of science is, let alone the rules that govern science!

I always trust humanity.

 

[driewerf]

Creationism is the only Scientific conclusion.

Then show us the observations, tests and experiments done to arrive at this conclusion.
No bible quotes here!

You used the phrase

So you 'll have to play by the rules of science.

Skywriting?

 

[cupid dave]

Do I believe what you say? No I don't because it makes no sense.

I ask you, Why should there be a God? why would there be a God? and most importantly of all if there is a God where did this God come from and where is this God?

Gods and I say Gods because if the people who live on planet earth are to be believed there are many many Gods,
Gods are nothing more than feelings.

You need to examine what you mean by "God."

In the work place, "god" is the boss who can fire you.

But the most high god is Reality, the thing which will remind us who live in fantasy world by saying, "I am."

The "facts-of-life" are His spirit and they will confront the unbeliever who avoids the son ot Reality, The Truth.

 

[cupid dave]

The evidence suggests that Humans are the only form of Sentient life anywhere.

?
What about the concept of GAIA, that Mother Earth and the whole Cosmos with it is the warm sentient "being" who is able to perceive or feel things about man whom is so nicely accommodted by his natural environment?














...

The GAIA Hypothesis, most simply expressed is that: "The Earth is Alive". The Gaia Hypothesis conjectures that our planet functions as a single organism that maintains conditions (not unlike homeostasis in humans) necessary for its survival. Formulated by James Lovelock in the mid-1960s and published in a book in 1979, this controversial idea has spawned several interesting ideas and many new areas of research. While this hypothesis is by no means substantiated, it provides much to ponder about the symbiosis of physical, chemical, geological, and biological processes on Earth. In short, it is a very pretty hypothesis.
One thing making the theory pretty is that it seemingly forces a conjunction to occur between what I will call the spiritual and the scientific belief systems. These belief systems have evolved for centuries in a sort of détente, with an unspoken agreement to be non-antagonist to each other (unless one went too far, like Galeleo). On the spiritual side is the concept of Mother Earth that we have all heard, simply because it has been very much a part of human culture (part of our brief existence as a species) in myriad forms. The concept was central to the religion of Native Americans and is prominent in Hinduism as the goddess Kali. It is perhaps the ancient Greeks who had the best metaphor. They named their Earth goddess Ge or Gaia. An embodiment of the notion of a Mothering Earth, the source of the living and non-living entities that make up the Earth. Both Kali and Gaia was gentle, feminine and nurturing, but also ruthlessly cruel to any who crossed her. Gaia was the Greek goddess who drew the living world forth from Chaos. The prefix "ge" in the words geology and geography is taken from the Greek root for Earth. I believe it is fair to say that the concept of Mother Earth has been omnipresent and ubiquitous in human history, and anything but "new age".