Polar opposites

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Coup d'état, Dec 13, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mrjdm998

    Mrjdm998 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7,040
    Gazelle sees massive aligattor, can run off. Evolution does't suggest it'd grown wings, at all. Evolution is changes to prolong a species survival, not "I'm bored GIMME SOME WHEELS!"
    test
  2. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    PRIEST

    things don't grow supermassive because they would deplete their food source and become extinct, it is actually about the food and health habits that have made humans taller...the benefits of good food and health get passed down through epigenetics (basically how your genes change while you're living)

    and COUP

    your disregard for astronomy is pathetic, the reason they haven't "observed the birth of a star" is because they aren't just poofed into existence, it takes millions of years for the gas clouds to form an actual star, and EVERY BIT OF THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN OBSERVED, just not all at once, amongst many forming stars

    and as for the elements... what the fuck is wrong with you? laboratories have made new elements through compression and heating

    another thing, why do you continually question the "provability of evolution" when everytime multiple pieces of concrete evidence are supplied to you, you nix it by using "facts" that are supplied from a single book

    and lastly how the fuck can you refute your views of how science can't be seen as true, by using backhanded logic with vague bits of science (excluding the ones that are the proof) to prove that your view is right?
    test
  3. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    about the ridiculousness of new genes not being created...
    EvC Forum: New genes do arise in the genome

    http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/DNA_11.pdf


    the first is a forum speaking about this, and the second is an archived copy of the action scientific documents about it


    test
  4. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    in the future, please post the info here. Don't just link it. Let everybody read. I'm going to go look at the link anyhow.

    test
  5. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    for a new gene to evolve is through the gradual accumulation of small, beneficial mutations

    1. There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. In mutations, information is lost. Not gained. Again, time is the magic word in Evolution.

    1. The fruit fly is still a fruit fly. Nothing was added. Shifted.

    Less obvious is how an existing gene that already does something important can evolve into a different gene

    1. Less obvious because it don't happen.

    Wang was able to identify new genes that have evolved in the 13 million years or so since these species split from a common ancestor.

    1. Wang is assuming. He can't possibly know. He assumes many things here. Chief being that the universe is old. Again, time is the magic word. "split" form a common ancestor. Evolutionary trees exist only on paper and in text books.

    2. Wang is interpreting DNA to fit his "model".


    Wang does not tell you what "new genes' were created. What phenotype was expressed ? Doesn't say. Why ? Because mutations are only harmful and a loss of information.


    This occurs when messenger RNA copies of genes - the blueprints sent to a cell's protein-making factories (see diagram) - are turned back into DNA that is then inserted somewhere else in the genome.

    1. This verifies nothing was created. It was reinserted. The DNA genome is still the exact same. Nothing was created.




    This is horrible. THis is propaganda. Typical atheistic evidence for evolution. It screams ignorance.

    next.
    test
  6. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    it takes millions of years for the gas clouds to form an actual star, and EVERY BIT OF THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN OBSERVED, just not all at once, amongst many forming stars

    We see not one evidence of any star forming in any stage of the alleged process.Certainly with 11 trillion stars for each person on earth alone in our Galaxy we would see this process at some stage ? Nope.

    Stars cannot form. You are welcome to believe that thought. It happens in your mind like you imply. Again, magic word: millions of years. I know how they come about there theory, how they measure and see the stars. I'm waiting for somebody to try and drop that on me...then I will correct them again.

    You see there is only one truth.


    and as for the elements... what the fuck is wrong with you? laboratories have made new elements through compression and heating


    go on...



    You assume I only use the bible. I was a Michigan State University biology student. Also, I have resources and ways to gather information like you. But what seperates me and you is our lens. Our world view. YOurs is deceptive mine is in truth.

    I am not a robot.
    test
  7. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I can take on the best university professors in any debate on Evolution ? Why ? Because I'm right and they are wrong. I'm not impressed in what man can do. ONly in what God has done, and is.
    test
  8. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Dude, God did do all of this
    god is bigger than...the boogieman
    he's bigger than godzilla and the monsters on tv

    but what they didn't sing to you is

    God is bigger than the bible, man


    Sorta sad you went to MSU, maybe you should re-enlist since THEY ARE DOING THE EXPERIMENTS THAT MAKE NEW ELEMENTS IN THE SAME WAY STARS DO,
    yes, real, physical, actual shit, not computer simulations

    The Neutron Emission Ratio Observer | National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (NSCL)

    test
  9. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600



    Observing Star Formation - OPT Telescopes



    and another thing I just thought of, the observing of Supernova...ok, there is actual, physical observations of light waves lengthening as they traverse the vast distances of space, and this allows fairly precise calculations of how far away they are...
    so, if the creationist world is only 6000 whatever years old, why the fuck would god make the universe with stars in mid-explosion? and how could we witness a supernova if the light, coming from that far away, would have taken millions/billions of years to reach us? or did god also precisely place the photons in the exact velocity and trajectory to point directly at an exploding star from great distances and time...just to fuck with us?
    test
  10. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    God's Living words are preserved for us. In the Bible.[

    After the big bang

    1. First assumption

    All the other elements—including the carbon in our bodies, and the iron, silicon, and oxygen that makes up most of earth—have been created later by nuclear reactions in stars.

    1. Second assumption

    When stars explode, they eject their freshly made nuclei into space.

    1. Third assumption


    This stardust can then form new stars that continue the process of the formation of elements, and also planets, like the earth.

    1. Fourth assumption


    the origin of many elements heavier than iron—including gold and uranium—is still a mystery

    1. To the Religious evolutionary establishment it is a mystery. But common sense tells us God created it. Also, we have primary documents that say so. God created the universe.

    Uni = one
    Verse= speak God spoke. It was done. Just saying.




    With NERO, experiments can be performed that simulate some of the nuclear processes that might possibly be responsible for the origin of these elements.

    1. Key words: Experiment, Simulate and might possibly.



    One possible place for the formation of heavy elements in the cosmos is the explosions of stars (supernovae). NSCL can create the extremely rare nuclei that are part of the reactions that form new elements in these explosions. Those nuclei decay within fractions of seconds—exactly as they do during a stellar explosion

    1. Key words: Possible, NSCL, rare
    2. They do not know exactly how this functions in a stellar explosion. They are biased on pre assumptions.


    Results from NERO can show whether star explosions are able to explain the proportions of heavy elements in the world


    1. False. Results will be interpreted to hold up and support assumptions.


    The results are used to test whether a given astrophysical model of a star makes enough neutrons to synthesize new elements.

    Conclusion, NERO will help the theory of the big bang, evolution and agenda look bonafied.

    1. Key word: help.




    This is all assumption. No evidence at all. You see, assumptions are needed. Then results can be interpreted to fit theory.

    This is how the 'research' is done. It is little to do with understanding the creation of God, more to do with agenda. A very deep one.


    Next.
    test
  11. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I was hoping someone would bring this up. It's good to get this out the way. I'll be back for this.
    test
  12. Mrjdm998

    Mrjdm998 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7,040
    4th time Coup, explain this.
    test
  13. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600


    Ok, i think you're confusing new genes with the GTAC (if i remember right) of the genetic code...in that sense, you are right, there are no new "letters", but the act of a gene going to a new spot, with a new mutation, is a new gene

    and i was also disappointed to not be able to find anything involving what attributes are presented by the new gene


    but yea, i'm interested to here you explanation of the star formation and supernova observability
    more so interested in how you're going to state all of the actual physical observations, and then claim they are assumptions and computer models, in a way that makes them seem wrong


    [​IMG]
    test
  14. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600

    You must not have read the whole pdf or something, or just managed to get those bits while skimming through it with your blinders on...

    I couldn't figure out how to copy and paste from the pdf, so i did it this way...but yea, your deniability grows slimmer by the moon phrase...brother coup...i expected more from you

    [​IMG]
    test
  15. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    test
  16. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    You really are a condescending idiot, you know that?

    You make so many false assumptions it's staggering at this point in time. You should absolutely be ashamed of yourself at the dishonest, pompous ass way you "debate".

    First of all, I was raised southern baptist and went to Catholic schools (which ironically gave me the mental capacity to see through the religion the schools represented). I was fed religious dogma my whole childhood and still had the sense to figure out the REAL truth. There is no public school conspiracy to get people to buy into evolution. Evolution does not need collusion to back it. At this point you're clearly just saying anything with no rhyme or reason behind it. I feel sorry for you and at the same time hate you, because people like you are a major cause of conflict and strife in this world. The conviction you have to your fairytale has very real consequences.

    Speaking of fairytales, I love how theists just parrot what we say about them when they have nothing else to say. :funny: You're a fuckin joke. Evolution is my religion? It's not based on science? Funny, all the things you label people more willing to accept science or fiction, are all the things you actually are. So yea, you keep wasting your breath praying for me, and I'll do the thinking for you, since you clearly do not think for yourself.

    Also, your assertions about my "belief" are stupid and a misrepresentation of science and all theories involved. Stop wasting your time writing your moronic interpretations of fields you are clueless about.
    test
  17. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,182

    of all the retarded shit I've seen in my days, this one takes the cake!
    test
  18. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Nightmare, why don't you examine some legislation passed in the 1960s to flood public institutions with billions of dollars to push evolution. There were certain bills passed. What is clear from this was a purpose to keep creation out and evolution in. If you know anything about the true nature of the working world you should know not everything is as it seems. Up is really down, down is up. The rabbit hole goes deep. Trace the powers that be back in time, you'll only end up in one spot.

    Your lack of evidence is not evidence for anything you claim for evolution. I would really start asking questions, if I were you. Still, I don't sit here and assume you believe everything 'they' say to you, but I would not be so quick to appeal to authority on anything related to truth that is presented in the mainstream secular world. Frankly, you are being deceived into believing what is false.

    You said you were raised Christian/Catholic, this proves nothing for you. What I see and know that even false doctrines and deception are in the Church. False Christianity does exist. Don't judge what I know against what you went through. Your bad experience is not proof against God.

    The one thing is obvious, there is no evidence for evolution. You are sitting here telling me you know otherwise, yet you have not even tried to back you claims with anything other than name calling. Why is that ? The loudest mouth here you are. All bark no bite.

    So, please explain to me or show me some evidence. There is none.

    We agree to disagree. I see no point in replying to your post again unless it contains tangibles.
    test
  19. Mrjdm998

    Mrjdm998 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7,040
    Fifth time, explain this:


    So are you saying god decided to give humans a third undeveloped eyelid?

    And billions was spent on teaching evolution in schools, because it's been backed up with proof and so most intelligent people realise it's correct.
    test
  20. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Mj, most intelligent ? Everybody is intelligent. Except today we are instructed that only geniuses, or gurus are capable of telling us about the world. That is a joke.

    I shoot down the evidence as you atheist bring them up...

    I already replied to you question.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)