While looking at this site I thought of this thread.

http://inventorspot.com/articles/five_freaky_creatures_human_face_9311

That human=faced fish is freaky as all get out!

I know, but see, I tried to be nice, several times. Then I tried being not so nice a couple. Now I have to just be honest. These are people who don't know how to read tha languages, how texts are dated, or anything at all about the subject. They are just flat earthers with a different shaped stick up their asses, and don't deserve to be treated any better than any other ignorant **** shooting crazy conspiracy theories about a complicated subject they know nothing about.

Jesus wants you to love them.

I hope one day, someone will make a cult about me.

There is no independent evidence for jesus. There were three Roman historians mentioning agitators in galilee/canaan and there is no mention of any messiah type figure, no jesus, no martin luther king jnr style figure, none, nada....

IMHO Jesus, Ninos-Tamuz, Zoroastra, Quetzocoatl (sp?), Horus.... its all the same thing, its all solar worship within a trinity. The idea that christianity is an original idea is rubbish, the babylonians and egyptians had much the same structure in their religions. My advice is to look within... oooooo. ;)

These organised religions exist to hide knowledge on the interlinks between the inner and outer world. Their other purpose is of course to dictate peoples idea of reality. Its worrying to listen to the pure insanity of modern religious types... imagine listening to the ramblings of a medieval christian?! History is a horror show!

A truly scientific mind, going with no evidence, which there is none on either side, would have to go with the most logical and plausible answer. Life did not begin on Earth. far more scientific than Darwin's THEORY. And yes, laughable.

...Do you really believe this? The EVIDENCE we have is that there are imprints in rocks that are most probably (I say most probably because I'm being VERY sceptical for the sake of argument - it makes sense, we can show the process, we can show circumstantial evidence, but I suppose one COULD doubt that fossils are from life because nobody recorded it happening - no video, it didn't happen) from living things. They are found in all types of rocks all over the world (though some DO provide better examples - I don't think there's ever been a fossil in obsidian). Also, from the method we devised to date things due to rock layers of Earth - we can see that at one point, there WASN'T life, and then there WAS life. If you can't understand this then there's no hope for you. Life BEGAN on Earth because we can show that at one point there was NO EVIDENCE of it being here, and after some time, there was evidence.

Now, whether it began here FIRST is something else entirely, and i would agree that we have no evidence one way or the other on that subject. Still, though, the only thing you can say to that - just going by evidence - is that life somehow started here on Earth, and there is no evidence SO FAR that shows it starting somewhere else as well.

Going back to the actual thread - why not worship the sun? It certainly is the source and sustainer of life here, and we can PROVE it exists. The sun very well COULD be conscious and just not communicating to us except through as yet unknown means that's somehow tied with visions (remember, St. Paul got his vision of Jesus through a SUN induced heat stroke - kinda). Still, I would argue that certainly a lot of world religions started from solar worship, but not all. Hinduism repeatedly states that the Absolute Truth is LIKE the sun, not that the sun itself is the ultimate. While you could say it evolved from solar worship to transcendent Dieties, you could also say that the mention of the sun is simply an instructional tool to describe the unknown in terms of the known - basically, an analogy. Or, if we take religion - or at least theology - as a path of inquiry leading towards the divine, certainly every theologist would at one point focus on the sun (since, once again, it is a very glaring symbol of ultimate). However, either through understandably thinking that the sun moves in a path, or for another reason, denying the fact that the sun is the highest source since it, too, seems to follow laws.

Still, to say that after going to and then through solar worship to a Supreme Being is just continued solar worship is misleading. They are both forms of worshiping a Supreme, rather than one being an evolution of the other - like humans and chimps, they're cousins, not ancestors. What you should really be arguing against (if I understand your view correctly, please correct me if not) is whether or not the Supreme Source (the sun, the big bang, the 10th dimensional strings, or God with whatever name you want) is a) conscious and b) WANTS worship.

...You know, that'd be damned funny if the reason God stopped revelations and visitations was becausehe got sick and tired of humans and just wants to be left alone now. God hears every prayer you say - and He wants you to shut the hell up.

Oh, and on the whole life from chemicals thing - we may not have to wait ten years. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601900_3.html)


Scientists in Maryland have already built the world's first entirely handcrafted chromosome -- a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce. In the coming year, they hope to transplant it into a cell, where it is expected to "boot itself up," like software downloaded from the Internet, and cajole the waiting cell to do its bidding. And while the first synthetic chromosome is a plagiarized version of a natural one, others that code for life forms that have never existed before are already under construction.



If they pull this off, it WILL create a nice large counter-argument to my stance. Fortunately, I'm not one to cling to something just because I've held it for a long time, and while I could stupidly argue that because humans did it, it just shows how life needs pre-exiting life to start, I'd rather look at the implications of having life start from purely chemical sources.



I'm going to have to look into what they're doing more so as to ward off suspicions of media oversensationalizing this.

I hope one day, someone will make a cult about me.

And I hope that one day all the hot people in the world will start a Nudist colony around me.

Today I killed somebody with lightning. They annoyed me and extended my arm and shot lightning at them.

I think that makes me more badass than Jesus. Or means that I am Jesus?

Im sure I saw those black swans somewhere around here...

draygin:

I'm almost at the point where I'm convinced you're just doing a really really bad troll-job.

"Darwin's theory relies as much on faith as any religion."

You really need to study the science. It's fundamentally obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5166aUKiveL._AA240_.jpg

That might be a good starting point for you.

I guess I am more amusing myself since you Darwinians seem to have no sence of humor. I have studied quite a bit. The more I study the less Darwin pans out. I am not Christian due to proof. I kept an open mind to Darwin thinking maybe they could co exist. The spontaneous generation of conciousness and the THEORY that all life came from single cell organisms and grew into humans and whales and insects and what have you is just too far against the odds when you do the math. Mathematically there is a far greater chance that life was deposited here from some other worldly source. I think that is crazy, but that is where the math lies. The math says there essentially was no begining, but life has allways existed.

Again not what I believe, but the math.


Entropy in biology

We have seen before as entropy functions in science and technology. Now what about entropy in the biological reign? Here we face a very strange situation. About the origin-of-life problem, evolutionism, asserting that life arose spontaneously (abiogenesis), practically says that, biological information, organization and order arose from nothingness. That contradicts entropy. Moreover Neo-Darwinism pretends species evolves continually from less complex forms to more complex forms. Again that contradicts entropy. In other words evolutionism states information and organization arose from zero and were growing even unguided! This wrong worldview, where one pretends that information and complexity are fully gratis, goes inexorably against thermodynamics principles under its physical and information aspects. This is as to say that heat passes from a cold body to a warm body spontaneously, or that removing information from a system increases its organization, or that putting a sound apple in a basket of rotten apples, causes all rotten apples to become sound. Laws of entropy establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that all in nature, and since the beginning, goes from order to disorder, if intelligence is not involved. Instead evolutionism affirms order arose from disorder and will continue to grow, indeed the order at its maximum degree, the colossal organization of life. Its pretensions are in absolute contradiction with these laws. The defenses evolutionists try against principles of entropy, lethal for their theory, are inevitably groundless. In the next we will examine three of their "defensive reasoning" (read "errors") for escaping the inexorable entropic tendencies rebutting their hypotheses. We will give suitable counterchecks to them.


Here is also an excert from a book, "Evolution is a fraud"

http://www.evofraud.com/


1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.

2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.

3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.

4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance.

5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don't want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton's work was relatively harmless, Hitler's work -- to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people -- was not.

There is a ton of proof in thermal dynamics alone.

I guess I am more amusing myself since you Darwinians seem to have no sence of humor. I have studied quite a bit. The more I study the less Darwin pans out. I am not Christian due to proof. I kept an open mind to Darwin thinking maybe they could co exist. The spontaneous generation of conciousness and the THEORY that all life came from single cell organisms and grew into humans and whales and insects and what have you is just too far against the odds when you do the math. Mathematically there is a far greater chance that life was deposited here from some other worldly source. I think that is crazy, but that is where the math lies. The math says there essentially was no begining, but life has allways existed.

Again not what I believe, but the math.

What math? Show me the math. I'm pretty good at it.

Probability? How did you calculate it? You do know there were billions of years involved, right?

Take the Dirac delta function. It's width is 0 and it's length is infinite, giving it an area of exactly 1.



Entropy in biology

We have seen before as entropy functions in science and technology. Now what about entropy in the biological reign? Here we face a very strange situation. About the origin-of-life problem, evolutionism, asserting that life arose spontaneously (abiogenesis), practically says that, biological information, organization and order arose from nothingness. That contradicts entropy. Moreover Neo-Darwinism pretends species evolves continually from less complex forms to more complex forms. Again that contradicts entropy. In other words evolutionism states information and organization arose from zero and were growing even unguided! This wrong worldview, where one pretends that information and complexity are fully gratis, goes inexorably against thermodynamics principles under its physical and information aspects. This is as to say that heat passes from a cold body to a warm body spontaneously, or that removing information from a system increases its organization, or that putting a sound apple in a basket of rotten apples, causes all rotten apples to become sound. Laws of entropy establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that all in nature, and since the beginning, goes from order to disorder, if intelligence is not involved. Instead evolutionism affirms order arose from disorder and will continue to grow, indeed the order at its maximum degree, the colossal organization of life. Its pretensions are in absolute contradiction with these laws. The defenses evolutionists try against principles of entropy, lethal for their theory, are inevitably groundless. In the next we will examine three of their "defensive reasoning" (read "errors") for escaping the inexorable entropic tendencies rebutting their hypotheses. We will give suitable counterchecks to them.

Wow the thermodynamics argument. What a surprise.

Ever hear of the SUN? Providing all the energy you'd ever need. Practically infinite.



5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

Regardless of how much time has passed? That's just stupid. Show me the math. Like I said, I am pretty good at it.

Uh...
Who are Darwinists and what is Darwinism?


As for the probability and life starting elsewhere, you're on an infinite regress and completely ludicrous route. Also, evolution is NOT random so the probabilities are meaningless anyway.

The funniest part of all this to me is that non-biologists don't usually realize where and why Darwin was fatally wrong nor why it is currently irrelevant.

Work on this for a while.

Scientists (evolutionary at least) believe that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and required about 2 billion years to cool sufficiently to support life. Owing to the previous deference to the “margin of safety,” (and evolutionary theory needing all the help it can get) the original figure of 4.5 billion will be rounded up to 5 billion, and then multiplied by six, for a total of 30 billion years. The original arbitrary figure of 100 trillion tries per second will be retained, only instead of ten years, the process will cover the 30 billion year period. This yields a number around 2.82 x 1039; obviously still short, though the subtraction will help understand how close the ridiculously high number of 100 trillion tries per second actually is. Therefore:

3 x 1064
- 2.82 x 1039
2.999999999 x 1064

In this case, the answer actually does change somewhat, though with numbers this large it is difficult to discern exactly how much, and in turn, how close the 100 trillion “tries” per second for 30 billion years actually came. The next step is to divide the total possibilities by the total “tries” in that period to determine how many times this 30 billion-year period would have to be repeated.

The number is actually quite staggering, and every bit as hard to understand as the original: 3 x 1064 divided by 2.82 x 1039 equals 1.06 x 1024. What this means in actuality is that the 100 trillion tries per second for 30 billion years would have to be repeated a trillion, trillion times, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. In other words, the pace of 100 trillion tries per second would have to continue for 31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, which is 60 trillion, trillion times the estimated age of the earth.

It should be remembered that the base used was only 1/5th of the total enzymes, calculated using a factorial, given 6 times the estimated age, and the ridiculous figure of 100 trillion tries per second. Further, not only are there 250 enzymes, there had to have been more than 2,000 proteins; the factorial alone of this number is around 3 x 105,735 (notice that the exponent itself requires a comma). Indeed, Sir Fredrick Hoyle, an eminent British mathematician and scientist, calculated the odds against the random formation of the enzymes and proteins alone at 1040,000. Yet, this does not even begin to address the more than 3 million “positions” of DNA, with its 24 possibilities on each; this number is all but incalculable—most scientists believe the number would have an exponent that would have to be expressed in exponents!

That's the math, unless you can find a flaw.

Your presumptions are flawed. What the **** is "100 trillion tries per second"?

Your math doesn't make any sense since you are just pulling numbers out of your ass and multiplying them.

You never even showed a final probability or anything like it.

Here's the flaw, it is stupid and demonstrates a complete ignorance of evolutionary biology, math and reality.

How's that?

I question your qualifications.

Only theologians know about reality.