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

[Stirky]

Maybe Doctor Who had something to do with it, hmmmm........

[Kaere]

Haha... no. I feel that certain souls that are evolved beyond incarnating are involved in the creation of the universe and all the weird and wonderful things contained within, including us.

[Monk (in hiding)]

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

Tim.

There's a difference rock, I'm open to the truth whatever it is. More than likely it's all three:

Creationism
Evolution
Intervention

And who knows what else.

Darwinism is getting dated and will eventually be tossed aside.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Maybe Doctor Who had something to do with it, hmmmm........

Afraid to take a stance, eh stark.

[Stirky]

No I already said, we arrived on a spaceship

[Monk (in hiding)]

No I already said, we arrived on a spaceship

Oh, I thought you were kidding.

[Stirky]

But what if our actual ancestors came to this world from another?

[Monk (in hiding)]

But what if our actual ancestors came to this world from another?

I'd say that's a definite yes.

[Stirky]

I think the ancients did have 'outside' influence and help, maybe they were from a different world/dimension themselves. But I think somewhere back in time (not sure when that time period would've been exactly) that yes this world did see visitors arrive from somewhere else. How these visitors made themselves known or integrated themselves I do not know, but I am sure they made a big influence on the life already here.

[Stirky]

Yes it does seem far fetched to many, but I think it is possible.

[Rockhopper]

It's possible but hardly probable Stirks. The distances are too vast for beings to have popped in here and then returned to where-ever they came from.

VM, as I have said before what you are stating is a belief. It's fine for you to believe it but please don't confuse a belief system with sound scientific facts that have been proved over and over in thousands of experiments and tests.

If you have other info then write an abstract explaining how you have come to that conclusion and give links to where that info has come from. And get it published in Recognised Scientific sites and have it properly scrutinised by reputable people who know what they are talking about.

Don't link to religious or other strange fringe sites mate. You'll be shot down in flames.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Why must to continue spamming this forum with your agenda?

[Kaere]

You are completely out of line there, VM. Rock has as much as right to post as you do. Just because you dislike or disagree with what he has to say, does not mean you can post in such a manner. Please check the Island's site guidelines... the very first one is as follows:

1. Be nice to one another.

[Monk (in hiding)]

It's possible but hardly probable Stirks. The distances are too vast for beings to have popped in here and then returned to where-ever they came from.

VM, as I have said before what you are stating is a belief. It's fine for you to believe it but please don't confuse a belief system with sound scientific facts that have been proved over and over in thousands of experiments and tests.

If you have other info then write an abstract explaining how you have come to that conclusion and give links to where that info has come from. And get it published in Recognised Scientific sites and have it properly scrutinised by reputable people who know what they are talking about.

Don't link to religious or other strange fringe sites mate. You'll be shot down in flames.

Tim.

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

[Monk (in hiding)]

Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design

If you think that intelligent design isn't making an impact on evolutionary science, think again. The latest issue of Nature has a point-counterpoint on the question "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?" Answering "Yes, urgently" are Kevin Laland (professor of behavioral and evolutionary biology at the University of St. Andrews), Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee -- some of whom were members of the infamous "Altenberg 16." In that context, they began to conceive of what they call the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ("EES"). That is essentially a new evolutionary synthesis that rejects some of the core tenets of neo-Darwinism (like the views that natural selection is the dominant force guiding evolution, or that there is a "tree of life"). Their article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some scientists avoid making criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution lest they give the appearance of supporting ID:

Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Monk (in hiding)]

What Darwin Said About God

Sixth edition - the Origin of Species

To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both. - Bacon: "Advancement of Learning"[iv]

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.[vii]

There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.[ix]


http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/what_darwin_said_about_god.html

[Monk (in hiding)]

Top Science Journal admits Darwin is wrong

Many differently structured gene networks might result in the same trait or phenotype. Also, new phenotypes that are viable and potentially superior may be more likely to emerge through tweaks to regulatory networks than through more risky alterations to protein-coding sequences. In a sense this is still natural selection pulling out the best from a bunch of random mutations, but not at the level of the DNA sequence itself. ... Barely a whisper of this vibrant debate reaches the public. Take evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins’ description in Prospect magazine last year of the gene as a replicator with “its own unique status as a unit of Darwinian selection”. It conjures up the decades-old picture of a little, autonomous stretch of DNA intent on getting itself copied, with no hint that selection operates at all levels of the biological hierarchy, including at the supraorganismal level, or that the very idea of gene’ has become problematic. ... When the structure of DNA was first deduced, it seemed to supply the final part of a beautiful puzzle, the solution for which began with Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel. The simplicity of that picture has proved too alluring. For the jubilee, we should do DNA a favour and lift some of the awesome responsibility for life’s complexity from its shoulders.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9zzW6-3m2qGMVdmRTF6ZHhxU0E/edit?pli=1

[Sponsored content]