Re: Masada - Did it Really Happen?...

[Rockhopper]

The 'Intervention" hypothesis has never been proved VM. There is no evidence anywhere that it has happened. So it is along the same lines as teaching that the Moon is made of green cheese.

Religious Doctrines should never be taught in schools, their place is in churches and Sunday schools where people have a choice whether they go or not.

We have private schools too for those who can afford to send their kids there but they also teach Evolution in their science rooms even the religious ones.

For those who can not send their kids to private schools should not have their kids having 'Creation "Science"' imposed on them.

You're right the 'Truth'; will never be told when there are people who want to impose their skewered views on others.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Evolution is a theory and Darwin is being proved to be incorrect.

Sorry rock, you do know you sound exactly like a zealot/  fanatic.

Believe what you wish........

A particularly pertinent example is provided in this week’s cover story – the uprooting of the tree of life which Darwin used as an organising principle and which has been a central tenet of biology ever since (see “Axing Darwin’s tree”). Most biologists now accept that the tree is not a fact of nature – it is something we impose on nature in an attempt to make the task of understanding it more tractable. Other important bits of biology – notably development, ageing and sex – are similarly turning out to be much more involved than we ever imagined. As evolutionary biologist Michael Rose at the University of California, Irvine, told us: “The complexity of biology is comparable to quantum mechanics.”

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/28/new-scientist-says-darwin-was/

[Rockhopper]

Had a bloody good teacher VM!

Please point me to where it is being "proved to be not correct'. No silly fringe sites or sites from people like Brien Foester. Legitimate sites where real Archaeloogists and Anthropologists state that.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Random genetic drift (NOT) Natural selection...

[Monk (in hiding)]

Evolution, being on the whole population turnover, is ordinarily a gradual process, except certain chromosomal processes that may lead to the production of a new-species-individual in a single step. (Mayr 2001).

Hmm, What is said about the Elohim creating us in their image? Sounds like single step.

I mean, how do we create new species of crops for example, genetic engineering.

[Rockhopper]

Nope by cross-breeding plants/animals VM. Taking a plant/animal with some of the attributes one wants and crossing it with another with similar traits.

Mutations happen and when that mutation doesn't survive it dies out. If it has a benefit to the organism then it will be passed on to off spring. How do you think that a bacteria develops resistance to antibiotics?

Evolution makes sense to most intelligent people. Intervention doesn't.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Nope by cross-breeding plants/animals VM. Taking a plant/animal with some of the attributes one wants and crossing it with another with similar traits.

Mutations happen and when that mutation doesn't survive it dies out. If it has a benefit to the organism then it will be passed on to off spring. How do you think that a bacteria develops resistance to antibiotics?

Evolution makes sense to most intelligent people. Intervention doesn't.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Some Biological Problems With The Natural Selection Theory

The many difficulties with the natural selection hypothesis are reviewed, including the problem of extrapolating generalizations from limited artificial selection research to megaevolution. Using evolutionary criteria, the hierarchy found is the reverse of that expected by evolution theory; animals lower on the evolutionary scale were found to reproduce in greater numbers, and were as a whole more resistant to variations in the environment. Individual survival after birth tends to be mostly the result of chance; in most cases natural selection eliminates only the sick and the deformed.

Environmental variations which cause evolution-temperature, the population of other animals, and the surrounding plant life, all of which have been fairly stable for eons-can result in only very limited degree and types of changes. The natural selection hypothesis also involves circular reasoning; an extant species survived because it was fit, and must be fit because it obviously has survived.The commonality of overdesign, or the existence of complex mechanisms that do not effect survival, but may add much to the quality of life, also creates a severe problem for the natural selection theory.

http://rae.org/pdf/natsel.pdf

[Rockhopper]

Welcome to Revolution Against Evolution rae.org is a religious site.

Raw Registrar Data
Registrant Contact Information:
   Name: Registration Private
   Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
   City: Scottsdale
   State: Arizona
   Zip: 85260
   Country: US
   Phone: +1.4806242599
   Email: Email Masking Image@domainsbyproxy.com

Administrative Contact Information:
   Name: Registration Private
   Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
   City: Scottsdale
   State: Arizona
   Zip: 85260
   Country: US
   Phone: +1.4806242599
   Email: Email Masking Image@domainsbyproxy.com

Technical Contact Information:
   Name: Registration Private
   Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
   City: Scottsdale
   State: Arizona
   Zip: 85260
   Country: US
   Phone: +1.4806242599
   Email: Email Masking Image@domainsbyproxy.com


Information Updated: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 20:05:36 UTC

More God Botherers! Got to do better than that.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

^

Rock, your grasping at straws my man.

*Jerry Bergman teaches biology, chemistry, and physics at Northwest State College in Archbold, Ohio. He has over 400 publications in scholarly and popular science journals and has written 20 books and monographs. His work has been translated
into eight languages.

http://rae.org/pdf/natsel.pdf

[Monk (in hiding)]

Why Darwinism Is False

Darwin knew that the major animal groups—which modern biologists call “phyla”—appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian. He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since “if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.” And “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”6

The abrupt appearance of the major animal phyla about 540 million years ago—which modern biologists call “the Cambrian explosion” or “biology’s Big Bang”—is better documented now than in Darwin’s time. According to Berkeley paleontologist James Valentine and his colleagues, the “explosion is real, it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record.” Indeed, as more fossils are discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was “even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.”7

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”13

Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them.


http://www.discovery.org/a/10661

[Stirky]

*yawn*

always going round in circles with the same old arguments, just agree to disagree as it's getting a bit old to be honest

[Monk (in hiding)]

*yawn*

always going round in circles with the same old arguments, just agree to disagree as it's getting a bit old to be honest

Yeah really fricken old. Why not add some more silly games threads or some propaganda news threads that are broadcasted from the royal crown. You know, the ones we all hear over the telly.  We even get the BBC shit over here.

[Stirky]

Why are you still here if it's that bad??

[Monk (in hiding)]

It's not bad, it's just..............(boring).

[Stirky]

Well make it more exciting then

[Monk (in hiding)]

Ya think!!!!!!

Tell US your take on this Darwinian stuff from the 18.o0's

[Rockhopper]

Yep. It's a circular debate. Going nowhere. VM has his POV and I have mine. That's okay!

Tim.

[Stirky]

I think we all arrived in a big ol spaceship from another galaxy No evolution for us

[Kaere]

I think we evolved here with the help of certain goal specific prodding along.

[Sponsored content]