perspective@100;5541727 said:Drew_Ali;5540425 said:perspective@100;5540105 said:Drew_Ali;5539969 said:RodrigueZz;5539464 said:
Let me put it in layman's terms............
The theory of natural selection was developed to support this "tree" diagram of one species becoming many......
New research has shown this diagram to be invalid.............
Also illustrating that natural selection is invalid..................
So what you are basically saying is everybody evolved from a different orgin, and those orgins are in no way connected?
I am saying that everybody was created.......
The origins are connected through that creator.............
Well the scientist and the study on that prehistoric creature being wrong does not really change much in science. They will just create another theory on how the spine developed.
The other theory will not have the idea of a tree of life or common descent..............
Big difference............
From this.......
To this........
yeery;5541806 said:Here's a idea, log off and go play in the sprinklers
Here's another.............
I log off......
And then make your moms suck my dick with BBQ sauce...........................
Last edited:
Drew_Ali;5546359 said:Oceanic ;5545442 said:
Bought this for my son.........
He also anticipates GTA 5..............
I don't really play games anymore...........
ohhhla;5545481 said:
Bats are often mistaken as birds and vice versa..............
It's in your bible, old senile creationist man.
ohhhla;5547162 said:Drew_Ali;5546359 said:Oceanic ;5545442 said:
Bought this for my son.........
He also anticipates GTA 5..............
I don't really play games anymore...........
ohhhla;5545481 said:
Bats are often mistaken as birds and vice versa..............
It's in your bible, old senile creationist man.
which part in the bible does it say a bat is a bird.
Ignorant jackass it's a translation mistake that the king james uses
I havent brought many notes but from what I have been studying and listening too from Biologists and Physicists that there is a paradigm shift slowly occurring within the scientific community. The current, popular model is scientific materialism rooted in Aristotelian philosophy of the atom being the building block of life, thus non living matter giving rise to life. This accepted view is shifting towards Consciousness as the driving force of the universe. At the heart of creation is a non local consciousness that gave rise to matter. Much of it is couched in the language and research of quantum physics, but I've recently listened to some lectures on biocentrism.
Its really cool stuff, but unfortunately it challenges the core theories of western science at the very core so many studies and articles have been suppressed within the scientific community.
Its really cool stuff, but unfortunately it challenges the core theories of western science at the very core so many studies and articles have been suppressed within the scientific community.
zombie;5547327 said:ohhhla;5547162 said:Drew_Ali;5546359 said:Oceanic ;5545442 said:
Bought this for my son.........
He also anticipates GTA 5..............
I don't really play games anymore...........
ohhhla;5545481 said:
Bats are often mistaken as birds and vice versa..............
It's in your bible, old senile creationist man.
which part in the bible does it say a bat is a bird.
Ignorant jackass it's a translation mistake that the king james uses
That's what the bible states and The big Whale was a fish.
Wrong again.
Ajackson17
New member
Amotekun;5547514 said:
I know and Michio Kaku been talking about that and how music is a powerful component on how everything moves or rather vibration. There is so much going on and new theories and train of thought that brought us to turning point of science.
ohhhla;5548243 said:zombie;5547327 said:ohhhla;5547162 said:Drew_Ali;5546359 said:Oceanic ;5545442 said:
Bought this for my son.........
He also anticipates GTA 5..............
I don't really play games anymore...........
ohhhla;5545481 said:
Bats are often mistaken as birds and vice versa..............
It's in your bible, old senile creationist man.
which part in the bible does it say a bat is a bird.
Ignorant jackass it's a translation mistake that the king james uses
That's what the bible states and The big Whale was a fish.
Wrong again.
The bible does not state that if you know what you are reading which you clearly do not, talking without knowledge is for fools and that's what you are.
ohhhla;5547162 said:Drew_Ali;5546359 said:Oceanic ;5545442 said:
Bought this for my son.........
He also anticipates GTA 5..............
I don't really play games anymore...........
ohhhla;5545481 said:
Bats are often mistaken as birds and vice versa..............
It's in your bible, old senile creationist man.
Ahhhh yes.......
You have to be specific......
We are on different earths..............
In regards to the Hebrew Bible.......
I agree with Leviticus 11:13-19........
Buzzards, vultures and bats should not be eaten................
Last edited:
Ahhhhhhh
Where was I ????????
Oh yes.............
There are several mathematicians that disagree with the probabilities of of the smallest self-replicating organism arising from pure random chance..........
" 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories."
Cohen, I.L. (1984)
Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities
New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., p. 209
"Cohen showed that the purely mathematical probability AGAINST that organism arising by pure chance is a number with (over) 180,000 zeroes after it (ie., 10 to the 180,000th power.) This is mind-boggling when we consider that superscript numbers, or "powers" tell how many zeroes are in a number.
When dividing superscript numbers, we subtract powers. Since there are 10 to the 80th power seconds in the evolutionary time-frame, there would have had to have been 10 to the 178,920th power random tries PER SECOND for purely random chance to accomplish creation of the SIMPLEST living organism. And that would only get the first organism. Mathematicians consider any probability with a power greater than 50 (that is, a number with 50 zeroes) to be truly "impossible."
Mad impossibilities connected to evolution...................
Educate yourself..................
Where was I ????????
Oh yes.............
There are several mathematicians that disagree with the probabilities of of the smallest self-replicating organism arising from pure random chance..........
" 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories."
Cohen, I.L. (1984)
Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities
New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., p. 209
"Cohen showed that the purely mathematical probability AGAINST that organism arising by pure chance is a number with (over) 180,000 zeroes after it (ie., 10 to the 180,000th power.) This is mind-boggling when we consider that superscript numbers, or "powers" tell how many zeroes are in a number.
When dividing superscript numbers, we subtract powers. Since there are 10 to the 80th power seconds in the evolutionary time-frame, there would have had to have been 10 to the 178,920th power random tries PER SECOND for purely random chance to accomplish creation of the SIMPLEST living organism. And that would only get the first organism. Mathematicians consider any probability with a power greater than 50 (that is, a number with 50 zeroes) to be truly "impossible."
Mad impossibilities connected to evolution...................
Educate yourself..................
kai_valya;5550198 said:
I never "stalked" you anywhere......
You came to my thread and insulted my intelligence and then refused to respond to my post.......
I simply reminded you of comments that you were hiding from........
And still.....
You question my intelligence without responding to my posts........
Last edited:
Members online
No members online now.