Is the Theory of Evolution on the ropes?

[JulesMaximus]

Ra Read about tempest stele Ahmose stele. Than read what the supposed hebrews took out of eygpt when they fled . If they indeed fled. Connect the dots and you will see the Jews lied. You will also discover they weren't jews .

If the Jews lied and they weren't really Jews then how could it be that the Jews lied? :hmm:

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

If the Jews lied and they weren't really Jews then how could it be that the Jews lied? :hmm:

Which brings us to an even bigger question: have the Jews really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Once ya do all this . Than find out what the Kolbrin Bible has to say .

Here is an audio . True or not true is up to you to choose. I believe it is true.

http://kolbrin.podomatic.com/entry/2006-10-28T15_15_14-07_00

 

[JulesMaximus]

Once ya do all this . Than find out what the Kolbrin Bible has to say .

Here is an audio . True or not true is up to you to choose. I believe it is true.

http://kolbrin.podomatic.com/entry/2006-10-28T15_15_14-07_00

Why do you believe that it's true? Wikipedia says, "There is a sceptic's view that the Kolbrin Bible is nothing more than a new age work of fiction, attempting to tie together all of mans ancient accounts of the past. This view is backed by the fact that the books subject matter ties neatly into popular new age theories involving; the end of the world, 2012 phenomenon, doomsday planets, etc."

Looks like a bunch of nonsense if you ask me.

 

[Nemesis 1]

If the Jews lied and they weren't really Jews then how could it be that the Jews lied? :hmm:

Ya I didn't state that well as is usual for me . As I leave much out and I imply that .

The main body that exited eygpt were the Hyksos people their is mention of israel but that only offered proof these people actually existed. Eygpt at the time was 2 kingdoms . Both had rulers . AHmose was likely moses of the Bible and ruler of the upper kingdom . But when crap hit the fan Ahmose god appeared to be greater than the other gods thus they left eygpt with the spoils of war . Including all the lamp oil leaving eygpt in the Dark for there lamps would not burn without the oil.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Ya I didn't state that well as is usual for me . As I leave much out and I imply that .

The main body that exited eygpt were the Hyksos people their is mention of israel but that only offered proof these people actually existed. Eygpt at the time was 2 kingdoms . Both had rulers . AHmose was likely moses of the Bible and ruler of the upper kingdom . But when crap hit the fan Ahmose god appeared to be greater than the other gods thus they left eygpt with the spoils of war . Including all the lamp oil leaving eygptin the Dark for there lamps would not burn without the oil.

LOL, wait... you actually believe this shit and take it for granted?

D:

 

[Nemesis 1]

Why do you believe that it's true? Wikipedia says, "There is a sceptic's view that the Kolbrin Bible is nothing more than a new age work of fiction, attempting to tie together all of mans ancient accounts of the past. This view is backed by the fact that the books subject matter ties neatly into popular new age theories involving; the end of the world, 2012 phenomenon, doomsday planets, etc."

Looks like a bunch of nonsense if you ask me.

Did I not say that its your choice to believe or disbeleive. Sure there are likely facts missing or not.

Also you didn't listen to the audio unless your listening and writing as I often do.

 

[Nemesis 1]

LOL, wait... you actually believe this shit and take it for granted?

D:

Do you beleive the Bible ? IF so WHY ?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Do you beleive the Bible ? IF so WHY ?

No. Rather, I don't believe in any of them (religions, that is).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This thread again?

It is a constant source of debate all over the nets. The "information age" makes it impossible for anything to escape constant analysis and re-analysis. Ignorance, intentional misrepresentation, and obfuscation, are why topics like Evolutionary Theory become so contentious though.

The Borg had it right;resistance is futile. Religion will adapt to service science. The Catholics understand this, and are constantly revising due to it. Trying to win the hearts and minds of the people is an untenable position now. Best to just win their hearts.

Threads like this are a prime example of what happens when someone emotionally driven by religious beliefs, tries to attack logic, reason, and evidence. They tend to show their ignorance of both religion and science.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Did I not say that its your choice to believe or disbeleive. Sure there are likely facts missing or not.

Also you didn't listen to the audio unless your listening and writing as I often do.

Actually, I'm at work so I can't listen to it. Should be good for a laugh later though.

 

[flvinny521]

Which will mean absolutely nothing in Hell.

Believing in God "just in case He exists" is not getting you into heaven.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Hum... Evolution seems fine:

but the Holocaust is on the ropes in this thread!

 

[werepossum]

Have to wonder if there is any point in these threads. On the one hand, many things seem irreducibly complex if you don't understand them, and the world to me seems to be full of transitional species. Mudskippers for instance seem more amphibian than do some amphibians, whereas hagfish seem to be logical ancestors of modern bony fishes and platypuses are just weird. On the other hand, macro evolution from a single cell and abiogenesis have severe problems which may or may not ever be solved. In the end, Intelligent Design is either a matter of faith or a matter of statistics, and with the latter, the only guideline we have is our own physical universe. Attempting to prove that something is statistically impossible when the only thing from which to formulate the odds of its occurrence is from the thing itself seems - odd. Odd, and also incredibly difficult to do properly. How many of us could honestly formulate the odds of a new hybrid species such as the silvery salamander arising, much less the odds of it becoming, say, warm-blooded or feathered? I'm guessing none. For that matter, how many of us can actually conceive of new phyla arising, much less calculating the statistical likelihood? Let's just say that evolution into kingdom and phylum seems to us to be statistically improbable without making any absolute claims.

Best to just accept and use evolution within its own constraints and keep Intelligent Design as a matter of faith - and perhaps to occasionally annoy those who believe their own faith makes them mentally superior.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

In the end, Intelligent Design is either a matter of faith or a matter of statistics, and with the latter, the only guideline we have is our own physical universe. Attempting to prove that something is statistically impossible when the only thing from which to formulate the odds of its occurrence is from the thing itself seems - odd. Odd, and also incredibly difficult to do properly. How many of us could honestly formulate the odds of a new hybrid species such as the silvery salamander arising, much less the odds of it becoming, say, warm-blooded or feathered? I'm guessing none. For that matter, how many of us can actually conceive of new phyla arising, much less calculating the statistical likelihood? Let's just say that evolution into kingdom and phylum seems to us to be statistically improbable without making any absolute claims.

Every ID argument that alleges the statistical unlikelihood of evolution is essentially equivalent to painting a target around a bullet hole and then screaming that the marksman who fired the bullet had to be supernaturally guided in order to hit such a perfect bullseye.

The diversity of life is going to be something, and whatever it is, it is going to be improbable in the face of the alternative possibilities. The so-called statistics mean nothing. ID'ers like to use them because they can cook up (what they perceive to be) really big numbers, althewhile having no perspective on what really big numbers are, nor what the actual probabilities are of relatively mundane circumstances in their everyday lives. Do you have any idea what the probability is for the exact position of every air molecule in your office at any given moment? Is it so high that we should believe that God is singlehandedly dragging them along their world lines, since nothing that improbable could actually happen in nature?

 

[edro]

Are Intelligent Design people just scientific Christians who are trying to play for both teams?

 

[sandorski]

Are Intelligent Design people just scientific Christians who are trying to play for both teams?

Some might be, but most are not. Most are just looking for a comfortable alternative to Evolution so that their indoctrination of their Children goes unchallenged.

 

[Jeff7]

Are Intelligent Design people just scientific Christians who are trying to play for both teams?

Creationism had to evolve due to a changing environment.

 

[busydude]

Are Intelligent Design people just scientific Christians who are trying to play for both teams?

IDK.. it seems there are only Americans in ID bandwagon.

 

[mattpegher]

Are Intelligent Design people just scientific Christians who are trying to play for both teams?

As sandorski said, some are simply trying to tie scientific evidence with their belief, but most are just unwilling to accept that humans could be related to lesser animals without some magic from god. Its pride more than science.

 

[Juddog]

ID is just a coverup of Christianity masquerading as science.

Talk to any ID'er and tell them it's the FSM that's behind everything and they'll get argumentative with you, real quick.

 

[JulesMaximus]

IDK.. it seems there are only stupid Americans in ID bandwagon.

Fixed that for you.

 

[werepossum]

Every ID argument that alleges the statistical unlikelihood of evolution is essentially equivalent to painting a target around a bullet hole and then screaming that the marksman who fired the bullet had to be supernaturally guided in order to hit such a perfect bullseye.

The diversity of life is going to be something, and whatever it is, it is going to be improbable in the face of the alternative possibilities. The so-called statistics mean nothing. ID'ers like to use them because they can cook up (what they perceive to be) really big numbers, althewhile having no perspective on what really big numbers are, nor what the actual probabilities are of relatively mundane circumstances in their everyday lives. Do you have any idea what the probability is for the exact position of every air molecule in your office at any given moment? Is it so high that we should believe that God is singlehandedly dragging them along their world lines, since nothing that improbable could actually happen in nature?

I don't think the diversity of life is a given. Of the planets to which we've sent probes, no life has yet been found, so there is nothing that mandates that life spontaneously blooms. If life does occur, spontaneously or not, there is nothing that requires that life to evolve into something more complex. For instance, in deep sea volcanic vents there are definite competitive advantages in being a mobile shrimp compared to a tube worm in exploiting some of the available energy source, yet tube worms are not evolving into shrimp. Instead, that niche is filled by shrimp descended from other shrimp and modified to suit that environment, with the tube worms remaining apparently essentially the same for millions of years.

I don't disagree with the ID crowd that the chances against what we have being pure chance are staggeringly high. I only disagree that the actual numbers are or can be known, or that this necessarily means anything. As you say, lots of staggeringly improbably things happen. If the only thing you knew about lotteries was that one particular drawing had a $300 million winner, it would be staggeringly difficult and probably impossible to predict the odds of winning a lottery. Same with ID; one can measure the frequency of random mutations in a particular creature and determine which of them are beneficial and become fixed, but even for that particular creature that knowledge isn't very useful. Macro evolution occurs in spurts rather than gradually - most notably in the Cambrian explosion - and we don't have any clue as to why. But by itself, that only points to our ignorance, not necessarily to divine intervention.

 

[werepossum]

Creationism had to evolve due to a changing environment.

+1

That actually has a certain elegance to it.

I have a quite intelligent friend who is devoutly certain that the Earth is 6,000 years old. When I once remarked that it would have to be at least twice that since we have extensive written historic records, he got very agitated and insisted that the Earth is 6,000 years old, period, end of story. So evidently not only is the Earth quite young, but it drags its Creation date behind it to remain always 6,000 years old, much in the manner of an aging celebrity.

 

[IronWing]

Creationism had to evolve due to a changing environment.

True, but I see two aspects of ID. The first is the obvious attempt to gain legal legitimacy for teaching biblical creationism in public schools or at least an opportunity to scatter FUD about wrt science.

The second is that science's track record of success looms large in the public psychie. IDers want scientific affirmation of their beliefs. In this respect is a tragically humorous turn of events that a group of believers view a naturalistic stamp of approval for their supernatural belief system as coveted prize, more valuable than perhaps the belief system itself.