Ooops! wrong again

[dawg80]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...lakesnotoceans

Believer in evolution to science: "I know that you have been wrong everytime. I know that you constantly contradict yourself, and will again. But, I still believe you are right!"

Gotta admire that kind of faith.

[Guisslapp]

Shit, and I didn't realize that scientists had declared they had discovered the location of the origin of life. Oh wait, they never did... and still haven't.

[daybreaker3]

Guiss- so, you think Obama is the worst president ever, and the largest group of people who agree with you also think the earth is 6000 years old.

...I wonder if you ever think there needs to come a time when you look at your present company and should just start accepting liberalism as the enlightened/intelligent approach, and that it's just that power corrupts, and therefore, we should work on intelligently reforming liberalism and its governmental representatives, instead of rejecting liberalism for ideas that are supported by people who think the rapture could occur at any minute.

[Guisslapp]

Guiss- so, you think Obama is the worst president ever, and the largest group of people who agree with you also think the earth is 6000 years old.

...I wonder if you ever think there needs to come a time when you look at your present company and should just start accepting liberalism as the enlightened/intelligent approach, and that it's just that power corrupts, and therefore, we should work on intelligently reforming liberalism and its governmental representatives, instead of rejecting liberalism for ideas that are supported by people who think the rapture could occur at any minute.

I don't care so much about conservatism or liberalism; I will not support any politician that sets out to make me less free. I have no use for a patriarchal government deciding what they think is best for society, particularly one that is run by the clowns that are currently in charge. The US government has become the homeowner's association from hell.

Now, there are clearly some conservative posters that would rather believe the words written in a ~ 2000 year old book rather than concrete evidence that is plainly visible to anyone who takes the time to look at it, but there are plenty of liberals that believe the same thing --they just vote for politicians that are antagonistic against some of their beliefs. Which of the two is more reasonable?

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that Teatech appears to embody the typical liberal, Obama voter. This guy is clearly the least intelligent person that has posted on our forum (evidenced by his inability to grasp the most basic applications of logic). Does he not have you questioning your judgment or the actual level of "enlightenment" of the left?

[dawg80]

Speaks for itself:

Conventional wisdom has it that the first animals evolved in the ocean.

Now researchers studying ancient rock samples in South China have found that the first animal fossils are preserved in ancient lake deposits, not in marine sediments as commonly assumed.

These new findings not only raise questions as to where the earliest animals were living, but what factors drove animals to evolve in the first place.


Fact: conventional "wisdom" () was wrong! Period. Wrong! Let that sink in a little... evolutionists are wrong!

Raise questions? Yeah, like can we find these silly evolutionists jobs at McDonald's? That would be a step up for them and be a true evolutionary step for the silly buggers.

But, I'll say this for 'em, they have maintained a perfect record: 100% wrong!

[GonzoDawg]

I talked with a PhD in Physics recently and his words to me were that he finds things that are accepted in the scientific world that are to him far more illogical than the belief in God. Things that scientist accept as factual that are quantum leaps of faith. So I know you non-believers think you have things all figured out and that you are the most reasonable people in the world because you don't believe in God but you can have that world for all I care. I've been on that side of the fence, the secular human argument did not satisfy my quest for understanding and in fact was far more lacking in reason than my belief in God. Now you can argue the flaws in religion all you want and the belief that the Earth is on 6000 years old is an argument that you would win. No doubt religion is flawed, however so is science. For me I find it much harder to believe that this amazing, beautiful, vast beyond understanding universe just sprang up out of nothing than to believe that there is a power in this vast universe that is beyond my understanding.

[skilldawg]

I talked with a PhD in Physics recently and his words to me were that he finds things that are accepted in the scientific world that are to him far more illogical than the belief in God. Things that scientist accept as factual that are quantum leaps of faith. So I know you non-believers think you have things all figured out and that you are the most reasonable people in the world because you don't believe in God but you can have that world for all I care. I've been on that side of the fence, the secular human argument did not satisfy my quest for understanding and in fact was far more lacking in reason than my belief in God. Now you can argue the flaws in religion all you want and the belief that the Earth is on 6000 years old is an argument that you would win. No doubt religion is flawed, however so is science. For me I find it much harder to believe that this amazing, beautiful, vast beyond understanding universe just sprang up out of nothing than to believe that there is a power in this vast universe that is beyond my understanding.

Guys, the Bible does NOT say that the Earth is 6000 years old. Some theologians have interpreted it to say that.

Many others have not come to the same conclusion.

[Guisslapp]

Speaks for itself:

Conventional wisdom has it that the first animals evolved in the ocean.

Now researchers studying ancient rock samples in South China have found that the first animal fossils are preserved in ancient lake deposits, not in marine sediments as commonly assumed.

These new findings not only raise questions as to where the earliest animals were living, but what factors drove animals to evolve in the first place.


Fact: conventional "wisdom" () was wrong! Period. Wrong! Let that sink in a little... evolutionists are wrong!

Raise questions? Yeah, like can we find these silly evolutionists jobs at McDonald's? That would be a step up for them and be a true evolutionary step for the silly buggers.

But, I'll say this for 'em, they have maintained a perfect record: 100% wrong!

I think you are missing the point.

"It is most unexpected that these first fossils do not come from marine sediments," Kennedy said. "It is possible, too, that similarly aged or older organisms also existed in marine environments and we have not found them. But at the very least our work shows that the range of early animal habitats was far more expansive than presently assumed and raises the exciting possibility that animal evolution first occurred in lakes and is tied to some environmental aspect unique to lake environments.

Also:

The smectite in these South China rocks, however, underwent no such transformation and have a special chemistry that, for the smectite to form, requires specific conditions in the water – conditions commonly found in salty, alkaline lakes."

[Guisslapp]

I talked with a PhD in Physics recently and his words to me were that he finds things that are accepted in the scientific world that are to him far more illogical than the belief in God. Things that scientist accept as factual that are quantum leaps of faith.

I agree that in the field of physics, particularly in the study of physics at the quantum level, there are strange conditions and actions which are theorized to occur. The reason that it is strange is because the conditions and actions appear to contradict rules of the non-quantum world.

Now, to say that "physicists accept this on faith" does not tell the whole story. They accept these models because they have been experimentally tested. The result, so far, has been that physicists apply different rules on the quantum and non-quantum level. The holy grail for physicists would be to develop a "theory of everything" - a set of physical laws that apply in both the quantum and non-quantum worlds.

Here is a wiki that talks about some of the truly strange things in the quantum world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

[daybreaker3]

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that Teatech appears to embody the typical liberal, Obama voter. This guy is clearly the least intelligent person that has posted on our forum (evidenced by his inability to grasp the most basic applications of logic). Does he not have you questioning your judgment or the actual level of "enlightenment" of the left?

I would say champion110 or champ967 more embody the typical liberal.

Sometimes teatech seems so far out of it, I have to question whether or not he's real, or just a sock puppet account one of you guys made to post "far left" crazy talking points to make normal liberals look bad.

[randerizer]

I think you are missing the point.



Also:

without knowing the geologic history of this particular site, a reasonable interpretation of the smectite behavior was that the "lake" was not permanently disconnected from the ocean, say because of variable sea level.

[Guisslapp]

I would say champion110 or champ967 more embody the typical liberal.

Sometimes teatech seems so far out of it, I have to question whether or not he's real, or just a sock puppet account one of you guys made to post "far left" crazy talking points to make normal liberals look bad.

I don't blame you for suggesting champion110 or champ967 embody the typical liberal - either would be a great representative of the group - but I think you are being a tad idealistic.

I believe the average American is intellectually equivalent to teatech, and, at least currently, the average American is a little more liberal than conservative. However, I do not think the average American is as polarizing as any of the personalities that post on the Paw-litics forum (me included) - that is, I think the average American prefers bipartisanship. I think the average American is also more persuadable than those of that post here, although the average American probably lacks the capacity to be persuaded by anything more substantial than a sound-byte that appeals to an average American ideal or emotion.

[Guisslapp]

without knowing the geologic history of this particular site, a reasonable interpretation of the smectite behavior was that the "lake" was not permanently disconnected from the ocean, say because of variable sea level.

I don't know how widespread the "conventional wisdom" of ocean origin was (as opposed to origin from water in general). Regardless, it is pretty clear that this lake was not all that different from an ocean in terms of its essential properties and it may have the added advantage of having a higher O2 content than the ocean. Furthermore, it seems more likely that you would find fossils in a lake than in an ocean where currents are likely to push things around and degrade things over time. Doubters will hang their hats on the silliest little things, however.

[dawg80]

I think you are missing the point.



Also:

No, my point is so-called evolutionary "science" contradicts itself....a lot! Which means they don't know what the truth is. AND! none of the evidence or hypotheses advanced so far rise to the level of real scientific proof.

If evolution as evidenced thus far was presented as a junior high science project it would receive an "F." Or, a "D" from me, as long as they had everything else up to snuff.

All evolutionary believers have ever been able to do is concoct more "stories" to cover for the ones gone awry. So, oh, life did not begin in oceans, as ES have been saying for decades, nope. Oh....okay, someone invent a theory fast so we can explain this one away too!

I have posted before that I see some logic in certain aspects, such as natural selection. Can't prove it, except to maybe hold up some examples that lend themselves in support of the theory. I also see some evidence in mutations of genes/chromosomes/DNA that in some cases appear to have become a permanent component of the gene pool for those species. Is this "evolution?" By definition, I can see that. But, funny thing, given we don't know what the future holds, right now, we don't if these changes are really permanent or might again fade away.

Bottom line: anyone who states that evolution is scientific fact is wrong and has an agenda they are pushing, or are simply a crackpot!

I don't have to prove anything, BTW. These articles published by the community of evolutionists say it all. "They don't know diddly!"

[Guisslapp]

But, funny thing, given we don't know what the future holds, right now, we don't if these changes are really permanent or might again fade away.

Some theorize that the Y chromosome may evolve away partly because it evolved so fast. I guess we will see in a few hundred million years or so.